PL PACKET 03151983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page Two The Army has also often speculated that the contamination of the 'New Brighton wells and the private wells next to the TCAAP originate from sources other than TCAAP. In your letter you mention several sites in the Long Lake and Rush Lake areas downgradient of TCAAP but upgradient of the New Brighton wells. These areas include landfills, an asphalt recycling plant, a former oil refinery site, and a furniture stripping operation. These sites have been investigated by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sampling results at these sites give no indication that any of the sites mentioned by the Army, other than the "old Trio Solvent" site, may be contributing to trichloroethylene contamination of the ground water in the area. Closer to the southwest corner of TCAAP, the Army asserts that a landfill and a 1940's site for above ground liquid storage may he the cause of contamination in nearby private wells. The "landfill" was, in fact, farmland which later , received some fill for construction of the Arden Manor Trailer Park. There is no indication that anything but dirt was used for fill . This area was not an established chemical waste disposal landfill like the sites on TCAAP. The above ground "liquid storage site" is the old Skiba gas station, where gasoline was stored in tanks above ground. Gasoline does not contain trichloroethylene. Finally, the Army's contention that TCAAP production wells when in full production may have pulled contamination back toward TCAAP is doubtful at best. Even assuming contaminants existed elsewhere,- the Army admits that its production wells have been pumping at only about 10% capacity for the past eight or ten years. We believe that the Army is responsible for contamination of ground water both • on and off the TCAAP site. Under Minnesota and federal law, the Army has certain obligations to protect the ground water. I will discuss these topics, as well as an MPCA Superfund request, in the remainder of this letter: A. -The Army Phase I Study B. An Army Phase 11 Study C. Contaminant Source Removal and Control by the Army D. Alternative Water Supply E. Aquifer Rehabilitation A. Army Phase I Study. While the Army has provided us with some of the data and has given us its conclusions from the study, a final report still has not been completed. The completion date for the Phase I report has already been delayed a number of times. I see no reason why this report cannot be submitted to the MPCA by April 1, 1983. Please submit at least four copies of that report to me by that date. •