Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />December 13, 19 8 <br /> <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />Council Business continued <br /> <br />Kleinrath said he designing was originally initiated in June 1986; <br />the reauthoriz tion of the superfund caused many problems. <br /> <br />Williams comme ted, "that is not entirely true, wasn't there some <br />individual tha decided more or less on his own that the designs <br />shouldn't go f rward". <br /> <br /> <br />Kleinrath resp nded III'm sure there are individuals that didn't <br />think it shoul go forward, yesll. <br /> <br />Williams asked what was the amount of money spent in the designing <br />of Well #13 of Federal dollars and City dollars. <br />Kleinrath was but he will investigate. <br /> <br />Williams further asked since the City has contributed to the design <br />of the well, and if the well doesn't go forward, would the City get <br />its money back. <br /> <br />Williams said, lIif you didn1t start the design until 1986, wasn't <br />it predicated 0 the fact that the Army would, in fact, be providing <br />the City with ore water. In other words, you knew all along that <br />you weren't ju t going to cap off at 7.6; you knew the Army was <br />goi ng to supp y water to New Bri ghton. I haven I t heard any <br />rationale, you probably given me the least convincing argument I <br />have ever hear in my life, as to why something shouldn't go forward <br />after at least three years of promises, that in fact, is supposed <br />to be not only design but built". <br /> <br />Kleinrath said, lithe circumstances have changed, that is why we are <br />saying not to 0 forward. We at EPA, have always said, at the time <br />you were discu sing things with the Army; US EPA was never a part <br />of what was g i ng on between the City and the Army. We always <br />contended tha we do not wish to stop the progress on the <br />replacement well for #7, until we knew it was a fact that there was <br />water availabl to the City. We have always said that in every <br />record I have, says thatll. <br /> <br />Benke commente , III think you records are incompletell. <br /> <br />Brandt asked, 'I would 1 ike to know why you used 7.6 mgd as your <br />reference poi n when the obj ect i ve has been to get back to our <br />original capac ty which was over 11 mgdll. <br /> <br />Kleinrath said, lIin 1986, this is what represents what was available <br />to the City, y u had the deepen Wells from #8 and #9, and the new <br />wells #10, #11 and #1211. <br /> <br />Council Business <br /> <br />Presentation of EPA <br />Covering Replacement <br />of Well #7 <br />Report 88-349 <br />