1988-12-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 1 1 Council Meetin Minutes December 13, 1 88 Page 10 Council Business continued Brandt respond d, "that is not what I am questi oni ngn- I am after to why does the relevant capacity, when itls obviously a diminished capacity, the bjective was to get back to what we had before the contamination". Kleinrath said, lithe objective of EPA was to take care of the City in case #7 went bad, I understand that prior you had more capacity, but we started his decision in 1986". Benke commented, "this well was intended to be the next well, not the final well". Tim Thielow, As istant Regional Counsel, US EPA-Chicago, said "I can understand your objective was to get back to what the status-quo was, but that as never what US EPAls objective was. US EPA is basically limit d by what it is authorized to do under the statute and under the egulations. Under the superfund statute and the regulations use , EPA can take response actions in order to protect human health an the environment. At the time we signed this Record of Decision, i was a estimate by US EPA that New Brighton would have at 1 east .6 mgd in order to protect human health and the environment. That was the minimum amount of water necessary. US EPA made some d cisions to make sure New Brighton has at least that amount of water; but it was never US EPAls objective to bring New Brighton back t what its original amount of water was. The reason is because we a e limited under the statute to provide with enough water to protec human health and the environment. We cannot return you to the stat s quo, if under our estimation, that is the amount of water in exc ss of what is necessary to protect human health and the environment So, basically, thatls the reason we are using 7.6 mgd as our bas fi gure. As th i ngs have turned out, because of delays in the p oject, New Brighton has already signed an agreement with the Army nd under' this agreement, New Brighton is going to have in excess of 7.6 mgd. Therefore, the original motive for US EPAls decision to replace Well #7, no longer exists. That is basically, in a nutshell, what the rationale is. If you care to di scuss what t e mi nimum amount of water that is necessary to protect human h alth and the environment in New Brighton is, you are free to do hat. You can submit whatever you wish during the comment period nd we would certainly consider it; but that is the simple explanat on as to why we are using that figure". Larson agreed i th Brandt I s comment regardi ng the 11. 9 mgd as getting back to status quo. Council Business Presentation of EPA Covering Replacement of Well #7 Report 88-349