08-20-96 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Horenziak said the EPA has divided the site into three sections, each with specific environmental problems. The pond on the site that was used to dispose of various debris since the 1920's is designated operable unit #1. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the agency addressing operable unit #1. Horenziak stated Operable unit #2 is the portion of the site that Ecology and Environmental is addressing. That is, essentially, source control associated with the abandoned pentachlorophenol treatment. Also associated with the area is a so-called NABL (nonaqueous-based liquid) oil disposed into the groundwater. The task of Ecology and Environment is to address the abandoned facilities and the oils and pentachlorolphenol found in them. Also to address the NABL in the groundwater. To do that, Ecology and Environment has to collect groundwater and treat the groundwater before it is discharged into the municipal sewer system. Our plans and specifications is to treat the groundwater is that it must be treated to drinking water standards. Horenziak said Operable unit #3 is being addressed by another EPA contractor. They will address the groundwater off the site and contamination associated with MacGillis & Gibbs’ present operations. Horenziak stated that, for the EPA and Ecology and Environment to proceed with treating the groundwater under Operable unit #2, the EPA is applying for a special use permit to construct a temporary water treatment facilitiy. Baker asked if there would be any emissions from the treatment of the water. Horenziak answered there was a potential for emmissions from the biological treatment system and the aerating system. However, there may be some odor so the plans specify carbon stripping of all the air used to oxygenate the system. Any residue coming off as a gas would go through a carbon filter for odor control before discharge to the atmosphere. Noise levels may possibly be another concern. The equipment will be enclosed within the building. The only opening will be 2 doors, which will face away from Old Highway 8. The noise should be minimal, if any. Knuth asked why the cleanup will take five to ten years. Horenziak responded the task is to cleanup groundwater at a site which has been in operation for more than 70 years. Horenziak said Ecology and Environment’s anticipated participation is five years. The building could be taken over by another contractor if more cleanup is needed after the five year period. That is why the building would be constructed to the City’s standards for permanent facilities. The EPA and the contractor for operable unit #3 probably cannot forecast how long their participation will need to be. Knuth asked if the City could identify how long it will take to clean up the site. Mattila responded the City must rely on the EPA and the MPCA for their expertise in this area. Knuth asked if the City could draw up contracts or covenants to address some of the unknowns. Locke said site plan approval is the the only direct control the City has related to a cleanup project. Because the building will be up for at least five years, the City has encouraged the EPA to construct the building and site improvements consistent with the City’s standards for a permanent building. Concerning the use of the facility, the New Brighton has waited a long time to get this site cleaned up. The City wants to encourage that to happen as quickly as possible. The City hired Barr Engineering to work with the City, the EPA, and the MPCA on reviewing the cleanup and to give the City advice on the appropriateness of the cleanup activities. Some confusion results becuase, as Horenziak indicated, the cleanup action is being done in three different pieces. Operable unit #2 is the only one that has been fully designed so the City does not yet know how the EPA is going to handle the cleanup for the other two peices. The site has been laid out because it is conceivable that a second larger pump and treat facility will be needed and would go in directly west of the proposed facility. As Mr. Horenziak inidcated, it is possible that will not be needed and the proposed facility can be used. Locke said, therefoer, it would be difficult for the City to formulate controls and limitations for I:\COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\MINUTES\1996\08-20-96.WPD 2