Decisions and Orders | Office of Administrative Law Judges


	
	
		
	
	
	








UNITED STATES 
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR








IN THE MATTER OF:           )
                            )
McKINNEY SMELTING, INC.,    )    TSCA Docket No. VI-556C(P)
                            )
            Respondent      )








ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS AND RESCHEDULING HEARING


	By Motion filed January 23, 1998, Complainant moved for
permission to amend its prehearing exchange to include as
exhibits financial documents provided by Respondent.  The Motion
stated that Respondent had indicated it would not oppose the
amendment, and no opposition has been filed.  By Motion filed
January 26, 1998, Complainant moved for permission to conduct
further discovery concerning Respondent's ability to pay the
proposed penalty.  Respondent has not offered any response to
this Motion and it will also be ruled on as unopposed.  Finally,
on February 6, 1998, Complainant and Respondent filed a Joint
Motion to stay the proceedings for 60 days in order to allow
Respondent to investigate the site and initiate remediation
activities.  For the reasons discussed below:


	1)	Complainant's Motion to Amend	Prehearing Exchange is
GRANTED.


	2)	Complainant's Motion For Permission To Conduct Further
Discovery is GRANTED.


	3)	The parties' Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings for sixty
(60) days is GRANTED.


	4)	The Hearing is rescheduled for May 5-7, 1998.



Complainant's Motion for Further Discovery


	In its Motion, Complainant argues that further financial
information is necessary for a full adjudication of the PCB
penalty factors of Respondent's ability to pay and the effect of
the penalty on Respondent's ability to do business.  See, 15
U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2)(B).  Complainant claims that information
supplied by Respondent in response to the first set of
Interrogatories suggests that Respondent has not offered a
complete description of its financial situation.  As indicated
above, Respondent has offered no opposition to Complainant's
Motion.  As with Complainant's first discovery request, the Rules
of Practice limit discovery to that which: (1) will not
unreasonably delay the proceeding; (2) will procure information
otherwise unobtainable; and (3) will procure information of
significant probative value.  40 C.F.R. § 22.19(f).  All three of
these requirements are met by Complainant's Motion for Further
Discovery.  


	First, the granting of a 60 day stay and the rescheduling of
the Hearing will afford Respondent ample time to prepare a
response.  Second, given the apparently labyrinthine structure of
Respondent's finances, particularly in regard to its
relationships with various subsidiaries and affiliates,
Complainant has no alternate avenue of determining Respondent's
complete financial health.  Third, the significant penalty
proposed in this proceeding, along with the aforementioned
complexity of Respondent's finances, indicate that the requested
information will have significant probative value.  Therefore,
inasmuch as Complainant's request meets the criteria of the Rules
of Practice regarding discovery, the Motion For Permission To
Conduct Further Discovery will be granted.

	

Joint Motion to Stay Proceeding


	In the Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings, both parties
request a stay of 60 days from the filing date of the Motion in
order for Respondent to investigate the contamination of its
facility and to begin remediation activities.  The Motion
contends that the United States has initiated judicial
proceedings concerning Respondent's facilities and that the
public interest would best be served by allowing Respondent to
expend its resources on remediation rather than litigation.


	The Joint Motion to Stay Proceedings is granted.  This
proceeding will be stayed from February 6, 1998, the date of the
filing of the motion, until April 7, 1998.  The parties are
Ordered to submit a joint status report at the end of the 60 day
period, detailing the remediation activities that were initiated
during the period and indicating the status of settlement
discussions.  In order to accommodate the period during which
Respondent will address remediation concerns at the facility, the
hearing is rescheduled for May 5-7, 1998.



ORDER


Accordingly, it is ORDERED:


	1)	Complainant's Motion to Amend	Prehearing Exchange is
GRANTED.


	2)	Complainant's Motion For Permission To Conduct Further
Discovery is GRANTED.


	3)	The parties' Joint Motion To Stay Proceedings for sixty
(60) days is GRANTED.


	4)	The Hearing is rescheduled for May 5-7, 1998.


	5)	The parties shall file a joint status report by April
7, 1998, regarding remediation and settlement.





							______________________________

							Susan L. Biro

							Chief Administrative Law Judge




Dated: ________

Washington, D.C.
Local Navigation
