CC MINUTES 07081986 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-ti- the preliminary report from RCM had not estimated the capital costs .of' the alterna- tives they were suggesting, he perceived the consultants ' intention had been to • provide the City with some justifi.cati.on for requesting further Environmental Protection Agency consideration of these alternatives for "getting the City's water supply back .to the point where it was before it was contaminated". Mr. Childs said he understood the Department' of Natural Resources had somewhat modified their original position related to digging deeper wells by indicating that if that was the most reasonable alternative which was selected for the City and the economics were there to support the selection, the DNR might allow the City to dig into the Mount Sinai/Hinkley aquifer in this instance. Rieke, Carroll , and Muller had also pointed out in their comments on the CDM study that the EPA consultants had failed to estimated. the cost of dismantling the City's iron treatment plant, had failed to address emergency power, or standby sources and their study had contained no documentation of the air stripping design or calculated the costs of that alternative. Mr. Childs .said the consultants had perceived the CDM report had not accurately computed the energy costs for the alternatives they had proposed nor the costs of the carbon absorption system because RCM had checked and found the costs of carbon purchase and disposal would actually be twice as high as the CDM study had suggested. The Manager said the RCM study had also indicated the costs .of carbon would be governed by the types of contaminants which had to be treated, a fact that had not been addressed in the EPA study, which had only estimated the capital costs of a temporary system rather than the costs which the City could incur with a 30 year permanent system which RCM figures could cost an additional $150,000. • Mr. Childs indicated that historically the MPCA had refused to pay for standby costs such as digging new wells in addition to what is needed for basic supply, but the Manager suggested that it would be a cost which could be recovered from the Army. The Manager also indicated he perceived the City's needs would have a higher priority for EPA funding Of such funds are ever available). than New Brighton's because the contaminated wells are St. Anthony's basic water supply while the New Brighton well is only a standby. Mr. Childs said he would research Councilmember Ranallo's infor- mation that New Brighton was getting their funding but he was more inclined to believe that what that city 'had actually gotten had been advance authorization to dig the well if funds are ever available for the project. When the Council was asked for their reaction to the RCM study, Councilmember Ranallo said he perceived there would be a great deal of resident opposition to having Roseville water substituted for the high quality drinking water St. Anthony now enjoys. That perception was sheared by Councilmembers Enrooth and Makowske and the Mayor said he believed "the City would have to give back to our citizens what they had before the contamination, even if it meant carbon filtering the two wells and sinking a deeper well as the study had suggested" . He said the first mistake St. Anthony had made had been to allow New Brighton to dig into the Mount Sinai/ Hinckley aquifer and the Mayor -said he had always assumed the DNR wouldn't let anyone else do that again. Mr. Childs read the portion of the RCM report which quoted the DNR's new position that "the deeper aquifer could be used as an alterna- tive source of water for St. Anthony if that can be shown to be the most feasible of all possible alternatives" . The Manager then compared the costs of the proposed systems saying it would cost • the City about $400,000 to dig the deeper well or provide carbon filtration on the third well , but the cost of carbon and maintenance on the system could run those costs much higher than the ongoing cost of the deep well . He also indicated