United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R05-92/213
September 1992
SEPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Reilly Tar & Chemical (St
Louis Park), MN
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the reQuest 01
. the issuing agency. They contain material which supptement. but adds no further applicable information to
the content of the document. All supplemental material is. however. contained in the administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R05-92/213
1 ~
~ A8cipI8nI'8 ~ No.
... 1118 8l1li SIMIe
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Reilly Tar & Chemical (St. Louis Park), MN
Fourth Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
1.~8)
5. AIpart Dnt
09/30/92
L
L ~1I1kIg 0rg8nIId0n AIpt No.
I. P8rfomIIIIII Orgelnlz8tlon NIm8 8l1li Add!-.
10. ProIIctfT8IIIIIWCIIt tINt No.
1 t. ConInct(C) or Chnt(G) No.
(C)
1~ Spon8arIng Orpnlz8llon NIm8 8l1li AdIhu
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
washington, D.C. 20460
(G)
t~ Typ8 01 A8p0rt. PwtocI Co-.cI
Agency
800/000
t4.
15. 'iI' H" .l8tll8ly No..
PB93-964124
tL Ab8tr8ct (limit: 200 WDId8)
The 80-acre Reilly Tar and Chemical (St. Louis Park) site is a former coal tar
distillation and wood preserving plant in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Surrounding land
use is predominantly residential. The site overlies a complex system of six aquifers,
including the St. Peter Aquifer, that provide drinking water to area residences. The
St. Peter Aquifer contains one municipa-l well, which is used during periods of peak
demand; however, the majority of the drinking water in St. Louis Park is obtained from
the deeper bedrock aquifers. From 1917.to 1972, coal tar distillation process
wastewater was discharged to onsite surface water; as a result, small wastewater spillS
occurred into onsite soil. In 1972, the site was purchased by the City in response to
complaints about wastewater contamination and the plant was dismantled. State
investigations from 1978 to 1981 identified site~related ground water contamination.
Four previous RODs in 1984, 1986, 1990, and 1992 addressed remediation of specific
aquifers, the filling of a small onsite wetland, -and offsite soil contamination. This
ROD addresses a final remedy for the contaminated Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer, a
surficial aquifer that is not used as a! drinking water source. This aquifer does
provide recharge water for the bedrock aquifers and is hydraulically and
(See Attached Page)
t7. Docunwnt An8Iy8I8 .. D88cItpIDI8
Record of Decision - Reilly Tar & Chemical (St.
Fourth Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Contaminated Medium: qw
Key Contaminants: organics (PARs)
Louis Park), MN
b. ~&DdT-
Co C08A 11 R8IcI/GroUp
tl. AVIiI8biIty SIII8ImInt
tl. S8curIty CIM8 (1hi8 AIpart)
None
2Q. S8curIty CIM8 (1hi8 P8ge)
None
21, No. 01 ......
40
22. Pric:8
.
(588 Af8.Z3I. ta)
S88~on~-
(FCII'INIIy N'J1S.8)
Ulpr 1Io._"0Ic-c.
-------
EPA/ROD/R05-92/213
Reilly Tar & Chemical (St. Louis Park), MN
Fourth Remedial Action - Subsequent to follow
Abstract (Continued)
geologically connected to the Platteville and St. Peter Aquifers. Future RODs will
address the remaining contamination problems presented by the site. The primary
contaminants of concern affecting the g~ound water are organics, such as PARs.
The selected remedial action for this site includes intercepting and containing
contaminated ground water using gradient control wells; discharging the water offsite for
treatment at the local POTW; and continued monitor~ng of the discharged water to
determine if within 3 to 5 years, the wat~r could be discharged directly to a storm sewer
and then to surface water. At that time, if necessary, an onsite or offsite treatment
facility will be built to treat the water using activated carbon, prior to discharge,
with regeneration and reuse of any spent carbon. The estimated capital cost for this
remedial action is $370,000, per extraction well, and if the offsite treatment facility
is deemed necessary, additional capital costs are estimated at-$300,000, with an
estimated annual O&M cost of $45,000 per extraction well for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND GOALS: Chem~cal-specific ground water clean-up goals are based
on site-specific Drinking Water Crite~ia. These levels,' which were developed by state
and EPA experts, include benzo(a)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene 5.6 ng/l, carcinogenic
PARs 28 ng/l, and other PARs 15 ng/l.
-------
-1-
. Declaration for the Record of Decision
Si te Name and IDeation
REILLY TAR AND rnEMICAL ~rn SITE
lOmiERN ARFA OF '!HE DRIFT ACmFER
ST. IOOIS PARK, MINNESOrA
Statemant of Basis and Purpose
This decision document represents the selected ranedial actions for the
R:>rtheD1 Area of the Drift JlJqui.fer, Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation Site
(Site), developed in accordance with the Ccmprehensive Environmental Response,
CCl11pensation and Liability Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund AneJ'ldnents
and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution Control Plan.
This decision is based upon the contents of the administrative record for
the Site.
The U. S. EnviroI1l1eJ1tal Protection Agency and the state of Minnesota
agree on the selected .L€lIi::dy.
Assessment of the Site
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances fran the Drift
Aquifer, Northern Area, at this Site, if not addressed by implemanting the
response action selected in this Record of Decision, ITk3.y present an irrmi.nent d.'}j
substantial endangeIJttent to public health, welfare, or the environment.
-------
-2-
Description of Remedy
The objectives of the response actions approved for the Site are to protect
public health, welfare and the environment and to canply with applicable federal
and state laws.
The Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer represents one operable unit wi thin
the overall Site strategy.
This remedy addresses only the Northern Area of the
--
Drift Aquifer, and will prevent the further spread of ground water contaminated
with Polynuclear Ara11atic Hydrocarbons in this aquifer.
The major canponents of the selected remedy include:
- The interception and contai.rment of contaminants by use of gradient
control wells which will prevent the further spread of contaminated
ground water in the Northem Area of the Drift Aquifer.
- The discharge fran the new wells will initially be routed to the
sanitary sewer for treat:nent at the Metropolitan Waste Control
Camri.ssion wastewater trea:tnent plant to .rem:we contaminants fran the
collected ground water.
- Continued water level and water quality m::mitoring of the ground water
contaminant plune during remediation activities.
- Within three to five years, it is anticipated that the water quality of
ground water pumped fran the gradient control wells will be improved
sufficiently to neet National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES ) limits.
This would allow the city to route the ground water
-------
-3-
pumped fran the gradient control wells to a stom sewer for eventual
discharge to Minnehaha Creek.
If necessary, an off-site treatment
facility will be built to treat ground water discharge fran the gradient
control v.lells and an NPDES peDlli t wi~l be obtained for the discharge
fran such facility.
Declaration of Statutory DeteDTIinations
. .-
The selected Laltedy is protective of human health and the envirorunent,
c~lies with federal and state requi..ratents that are legally applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the rercedial action, and. is cost~ffective.
This
Letlwady utilizes pennanent solutions and al ternati ve treat:rlent (or resource
recovery) technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the
statutory preference for raredi.es that anploy treatm:mt that reduces toxicity,
mbility, or volume as a principle el€!lTent.
As this re:.edy will initially
result in hazardous substances ranaining on-site above health-based levels, a
:review will be conducted within five years after CameIlC€!ITent of ratEdial action
to ensure that the .calledy continues to provide adequate protection of human
health and the environment.
~r/c ;2-
Date
9~A:<
r ,
-------
DECISION SUMMARY
-------
-1-
Decision Sumnary for the Record of Decision
1.
Site Description
The Reilly Tar and. Chanical site (Site) is defined in Part C.1 of the
Consent Decree and in Section 1.21 of the Reredial Action Plan (RAP) as the 80
acre property where Reilly Industries (Reilly) operated a coal tar refinery and.
wood preserving plant.
The Site is located in the western part of the Twin
Cities. matropolitan area, in St. Wuis Park (City), Minnesota (Figure 1).
The
. .
approximate location of this Site is west of Gorham, Republic and l.J::>uisiana
Avenues, south of 32nd Street, east of Pennsylvania Avenue and. north of Walker
Street.
This Record of Decision (ROD) addresses the contamination in the Northern
Area of the Drift Aquifer underlying the Site.
The Northern Area is located
adjacent to the Site and is lx>unded by the West 3200 Street to the north,
Alabama Avenue to the east, Highway 7 to the south, and IDuisiana Avenue to the
west.
The Drift Aquifer is the surficial aquifer which is catq?Osed primarily of
glacially deposited sand and gravel and extends fran near the CJroUnd surface to
approximately 90 to 100 feet belO'N the surface.
There are no wells that use the
Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer for drinking water.
2.
Site History and Enforcarent Activities
The Site history infonnation surrmarized in this section is excerpted. fran
the Proposed Plan for the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer Report dated August
1992.
-------
-2-
Be~n 1917 and 1972, Reilly operated a coal tar distillation and wood
treatment plant, known as the Republic Creosote Canpany, on 80 acres of land in
the City (Figure 1).
Wastewater containing creosote and coal tar fran plant
operations was discharged to a ditch that drained to a swamp south of the Site.
Additional releases of creosote and coal tar resulted fran drippings and spills
onto the soil at the Site.
These releases led to extensive soil, surface water
and ground water contamination, not only at the Site, but also in areas
downstream and downgradient (i.e~, south and east) fran the Site (Figures 1 and
2) .
The major constituents of coal tar are phenolic catp:>unds and Polynuclear
Aranatic Hydrocarlx:>ns (PAHs).
Sc:ne PAH catp:>unds are carcinogenic and are a
concern when they occur as contaminants in a source or potential source of
drinking water.
As used here, "contaminated" or "contamination" neans that PAH
or phenolics are present in the soil, surface. water or ground water due to the
wood treatment activities of Reilly at the Site.
Due to extensive residential developrent in the area around the Site in the
1940s and into the 1950s, carplaints about shallow well contamination and odor
(i.e., air quality) problems becane camon.
As a result of the continuing
problems with air emissions, soil and surface water contamination, the City and
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) filed suit against Reilly in 1970.
In 1972, the City purchased the Site fran Reilly, and the plant was dismantled
and remJVed.
The City dropped its lawsuit against Reilly as a condition of the
sale.
The MPCA's suit was eventually dismissed as a Part of a ccmprehensive
settlement in 1986.
-------
-3-
In 1978, after results of the Minnesota Depart:ment of Health (MDH) program
indicated that extensive ground water contamination had occurred, the MPCA
anended its canplaint in the lawsuit with Reilly to include claims for ground
water contamination.
In 1980, the u.s. Envirormental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the MPCA (Agencies) brought legal actions in federal court against Reilly
under the .imninent hazard provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). After the enactIrent of Canprehensi ve Envirormental Response,
Canpensation and .Liability Act (CERCIA) and the Minnesota Envirormental Response
and Liability Act (MERIA), the canplaints were anended to include claims under
those laws.
Both Agencies also took administrative actions against Reilly in
the early 1980s pursuant to the applicable federal and state Superfund acts.
Both the lawsuits and the administrative actions by the Agencies sought to
c~l Reilly to undertake necessary raredial actions. All the Agencies' claims
were resolyed in a canprehensive settlement with Reilly approved by the federal
court in Septanber 1986.
St. lDuis Park, Hopkins, and landowners of the fOImer
Reilly property were also parties to the settlement.
The work to be perfoDTECI.
under the settlement is covered in the Consent Decree/Reredial Action Plan
(CD/RAP) .
In the mid 19705, lDuisiana Avenue was constructed through the Site and
Sate multi-family housing units were constructed on the northern half of the
Site.
In 1978, the MDH began a program to analyze water fran municipal wells in
the City and nearby cc:mmmities for trace concentrations of PAtf.
The City uses
ground water fran the St. Peter, Prairie du Chien-Jordan, and Mt. Silron-Hinckley
Aquifers as sources of drinking water.
Nearby carmunities, such as Hopkins and
Edina, rely primarily on the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer for their drinking
-------
-..-
water.
During the period fran 1978 to 1981, the analytical program revealed
unexpectedly high concentrations of PAH in six city ~lls and one ~ll in the
city of Hopkins.
Ai; the PAH contamination in these municipal ~lls was
discovered, the wells ~re closed.
In 1978, after results of the MDH program indicated that extensive ground
water contamination had occurred, the MPCA amended its canplaint in the lawsuit
with Reilly to include claims for ground water contamination.
Subsequent legal
actions ~re taken by the Agencies against Reilly uncter-- RCRA, CERCI.A, and MERLA..
Both Agencies instituted administrative actions against Reilly pursuant to the
applicable federal and state Superfund acts.
In these actions the Agencies
sought to ccmpel Reilly to undertake necessary J:'E!m9Clial actions.
Following the
administrative actions, negotiations restmed between the EPA, MPCA, the City,
and Reilly.
A general agrearent for the rarecliation of the Site was reached in
the summer of 1985.
However, because of the canplex nature of the agLeenent and
the number of parties involved, final ag.Leenent was delayed until Septanber
1986.
The agreement is embodied in the CD/RAP entered by the u.s. District
Court for the District of Minnesota in u.s. vs. Reilly Tar (Case No. 4-80-469).
The raredial action discussed in this ROD is the latest in a series of
renedial actions at the Site.
The raredy as described in this ROD is
specifically intended to prevent the further spread of contaminated ground water
in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer, and as such, is only one part of the
overall rarecliation of the Site.
Further investigation and rarecliation of the
Platteville Aquifer, as required by the CD/RAP, will be addressed separately.
The following is a list of canpleted and ongoing rare<:lia1 actions that are
required by the CD/RAP.
-------
-;)-
- Ground Water Sampling
An annual sampling plan, which specifies municipal and m:mitoring wells
to be sampled during the following year, is subnitted by Reilly each
O::tober for the Agencies I approval.
In March of each year, an annual
report presenting the analytical results of the previous year I s sampling
is subnitted for the Agencies I approval.
- Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer
Drinking water fran the City wells #10 and #15 currently being treated
with Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) as outlined in a ROD issued on
June 6, 1984.
Source control well W23 has been punq:>ing at a rate of 50
gallons per minute (gpn) since November 1987 to control the spread of
contaminated ground water. Water fran the well will undergo GAC
treatnalt before being discharged to Minnehaha. Creek.
- Mt. SinDn-Hinckley Aquifer
Annual sampling of the Mt. SinDn-Hinckley wells is ongoing.
Municipal
drinking water f:ran this Aquifer will be treated with GAC if the
m:mitoring data show that drinking water criteria (defined in Section I X
below) have been exceeded.
-------
-'",.i-
- lronton-Galesville Aquifer
Source control well WI OS began operating in November 1987.
Having met
the cessation criteria outlined in the CD/RAP, the Agencies granted the
City's request to cease pumping, and the pump was turned off in Decanber
1991.
l-bnitoring of well WI0S will continue for the duration of the
CD/RAP .
- St. Pet~ Aquifer
Gradient control well W410 began pumping at a rate of 70 gpn in May
1991 .
Discharge fran the well is currently being routed to the sanitary
sewer for treatment.
This renedial action was detailed in a
September 28, 1990, ROD.
- Drift Aquifer
Drift source control well w420 has been operating since ():tober 1987 at
the CD/RAP required pumping rates of 40 gpn.
Discharge water fran this
well undergoes GAC treat:Jtent and is subsequently released into Minnehaha
Creek.
Drift gradient control well W422 has been punping since ():tober
1987 at the CD/RAP required rate of 50 gpn with its discharge being
routed to the sanitary sewer for treat:Jtent.
-------
-j-
- Platteville Aquifer
Platteville source control ~ll W421 has been operating since
-------
-b-
The Agencies also held a public meeting on September 9, 1992, at the City
council chambers to present the Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) and the Proposed Plan for containing the spread of contaminated ground
water.
All of these documants are available at the St. Louis Park Public
Library which is the repository for the Site.
Caments received during the
public cament period were to be considered in the Agencies' final decision in
selecting a :ranadial alternative.
No caments were received on the
Proposed Plan during the cament period or public meeting.
4.
Scope and Role of Operable Unit or Response Action Within Site Strategy
This ROD surrmarizes the alternatives considered for the Northern Area of
the Drift Aquifer and, in particular, fonnally evaluates the preferred
alternative specified in the CD/RAP against the nine criteria identified in
Section VII of the ROD.
The preferred Letlledy consists of using multiple
gradient control wells to prevent the further spread of contaminated ground
water in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer.
In accordance with the raredial objective stated in the CD/RAP, of
maintaining drinking water quality in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer,
this alternative addresses water quality in the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer.
Section 9.3 of the CD/RAP dealt with the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer.
Section 9.5.1, Northern Area RatEdial Actions, specified that:
"The
Regional Administrator and The Director may, for the purpose of preventing the
further spread of ground water exceeding any of the Drinking Water Criteria
defined in Section 2.2, require Reilly to install and operate a gradient control
well systan consisting of one or ITDre gradient control wells." The Northern
-------
-9-
Area of the Drift Aquifer gradient control well will operate independently of
other remadi.al actions required. by the CD/RAP for the purpose of preventing the
further spread of contamination.
RelTedial Actions taken at other areas of the
Site may, however, influence the duration of ~his alternative.
The acti vi ties described in this ROD are intended to remadi.ate the
contamination in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer, which is one of the six
aquifers underlying the Site.
The full range of Site related activities that
address other remaining contamination issues is specified in the CD/RAP.
One or
Irore future RODs will address the remaining problems presented by the Site.
The
Remadial Action for the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer described in this
doc::umant addresses the principal threats to health and the envirol1ltent posed by
contamination in the aquifer at the Site.
5.
Sumnary of Site Characteristics
Contamination in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer exists in the fODn
of dissolved concentrations of PAHs in the growrl water.
,
PAHs may have arrived
in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer by dissolved PAHs following ground
water flow patterns fran the Drift-Platteville Aquifer.
Migration of PAHs
through this pathway has created the current plurre of dissolved contaminants in
the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer.
Based on these conditions, the primary
potential effects of contamination are on drinking water supplies and on the
natural resource value of uncontaminated portions of the aquifer.
-------
- ~v
6.
SlIITI11aIY of Site Risks
The ground water, soil and surface waters on and near the Site have been
impacted by site-related contaminants.
This decurrent represents the objectives
of response actions for one operable unit, the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer, wi thin the overall site strategy.
The purpose of this section is to
discuss the risks posed by the contaminated ground water at the Site to human
health and the envirorment.
The exposure pathway of greatest concern for human health is the ingestion
of contaminated ground water through drinking or cooking.
Presently, there are
no drinking water wells in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer.
The main
supply of drinking water for the City is obtained fran the deeper bedrcx::k
aquifers.
It is inp:>rtant to note that the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer
is,
in places, hydraulically and geologically connected to the Platteville and
St. Peter Aquifers.
In addition, the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer
provides recharge water for the bedrock aquifers.
Because of these factors, and
because of the potential for future use of the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer as a source of drinking water, exposure through ingestion of water fran
the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer is a primary concern.
The reuedy will contain the spread of contaminated ground water through
interception and contairnent effects created by the pumping of multiple gradient
control wells, including using existing well W422.
By containing the spread of
contamination in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer, the remedy will
preserve and protect the quality of ground water in the rest of the Drift
Aquifer and will also reduce the potential for additional contamination of
deeper aquifers currently used for drinking water supplies.
-------
-11-
7.
Description of Alternatives
The objective of the ranedial action is to prevent, reduce, and control the
spread of contamination in the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer.
Alternative 1 -- No Action with l>bnitoring
The Natio~ Contingency Plan (OCP) requires that the "No Action
Alternative" be evaluated at every site to provide a base line for canparison.
If the No Action Alternative is selected, the first two evaluation criteria
(overall protection of human health and the environment and canpliance with
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Req\.lirerIents [ARARs)) will not be met.
Water quality data fran the Northern Area of the Northem Area of the Drift
Aquifer presented. in the Rerred.ial Investigation (RI) and Supplenental Rerred.ial
Investigation (SRI) Reports indicate that total PAR concentrations exceed
drinking water criteria by as much as 1000 times.
Therefore, the No Action
Alternative does not address the first two evaluation criteria, and is not given
further consideration in this cioclmEnt.
Al ternati ve 2 -- Use of Gradient Control Well (s )
This al ternati ve includes the use of multiple gradient control wells
including well W422 for gradient control. Well W422, pumped at an average rate
of 55-70 gpn, has been shc1wn to provide sane gradient control but is not
adequate to prevent the spread of ground water contamination in the Northern
Area of the Drift Aquifer within the Northem Area.
The need for an addi tiona 1
-------
-J.":'-
gradient control well or wells was deteDnined fran the ground water m:mitoring
data as stated in the Technical Merrorandmn of May 20, 1992.
The discharge fran the new gradient control wells will be contaminated with
PARs and will ini tiall y be routed to the sanitary sewer for treatment at the
Metropolitan Waste Control Ccmnission (!vW:C) water treatment plant.
In three to
five years, it is anticipated that the discharge will eventually be routed to
the stonn sewer or to surface water provided that all effluent limitations set
by. the CD/RAP and by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systen (NPDES)
peDni ts are met.
To meet discharge limitations, the discharge may require
treatrnent with activated carbon at an off-site treatrnent facility, if necessary.
If this treatment facility is constructed, an NPDES pennit nnlSt be obtained fran
the MPCA.
One of the requirarents for iroplenenting this ratedy is continued
water level and water quality m:mitoring, not only to c::iocunent the effectiveness
of the remedy, but al~o to detenni.ne the need for off-site treatment prior to
<'~.,
discharge to the stonn sewer or to surface water.
8.
SurrmaIY of Cc.mparative Analysis of Alternatives
--'!'--
The remedial alternatives the City developed in the RI/FS were evaluated by
the Agencies using EPA's nine criteria.
Since the no action al ternati ve is not
protective of human health nor does it meet ARARs, only the selected alternative
(Alternative 2) will be evaluated against the nine criteria which are as
follows:
-------
-13-
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Envirornnent
Addressing whether an al ternati ve provides adequate protection and
describes how risks are eliminatedr reduced or controlled through treatment
and engineering controls.
Canpliance with MARs
Addressing whether an al ternati ve will neet all of the applicable or
relevant and appropriate requiratents or provide grounds for invoking a
waiver.
lDng-tenn Effectiveness and Pennanence
Referring to the ability of an alternative to maintain reliable protection
of human health and the envirorment, over time, once cleanup objectives
have been net.
Reduction of Toxicity, I-bbility, or Voltme
Referring to the anticipated perfonnance of the treatment technologies
an al ternati ve may employ.
Short-tenn Effectiveness
Involving the period. of time needed to achieve .protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the envirornnent that may be posed during the
construction and implarentation period until cleanup objective are
achieved.
-------
-14-
Irnplementability
Addresses the technical and administratiye feasibility of an alternative,
including the availability of goods and se:rvices needed to implement the
ratEdy .
Cost
Including capital costs, as well as operation and maintenance costs.
Agency Acceptance
Indicating whether, based on their review of the RIfFS and Proposed Plan,
the Agencies agree on the preferred alternative.
Ccmnuni ty Acceptance
Indicating the public acceptability of a given alternative.
This criteria
is discussed in the Responsiveness SUI'IItIaJ:y.
The following is a detailed analysis of each of the evaluation criteria for t.hE"'
selected alternative:
-------
-15-
Overall Protection of Hunan Health and the Environment
The selected alternative provides overall protection of human health and
the environment by preventing the further spread of contamination within
the aquifer. At this time there are no drinking water wells in the
Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer and thus human exposure to the
contamination is limited.
The primaJ:y function of gradient control wells is to provide overall
protection to uncontaminated portions of the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer, a potential source of drinking water.
The preferred al ternati ve
will also reduce the potential for contamination of deeper aquifers
currently used for drinking water.
By preventing the further spread of
contamination, overall protection of the erwirorment will be achieved.
Canpliance with ARMs
Applicable or relevant and appropriate requi1:arents for this al ternati ve
are defined in the CD/RAP, Sections 2.2 and 2.5.
These two sections of the
CD/RAP define Drinking Water Criteria and Advisory levels, and Surface
Water Discharge Criteria, respectively.
The Safe Drinking Water Act specifies Maximum Contaminant Levels (M:Ls) for
drinking ~ter fran public water supplies.
Since M:Ls for PAR ccmpounds
were not developed through the Safe Drinking Water Act regulations, it was
necessary to derive site-specific Drinking Water Criteria.
This was
accanplished through consultations with experts fran MDH, MPCA and EPA.
-------
-...u-
These Drinking Water Criteria are not ARARs since they are not prattUlgated
requirements.
However, the Drinking Water Criteria are defined as a TBC
(To Be Considered) .
TEes are advisories, criteria, or guidance ,that were
developed by EPA, other federal agencies or states that nay be useful in
developing CERCIA rem=dies.
The drinking water criteria developed for the
site are as shown below.
DRINKIN:; WATER CRITERIA
Advisory
level
Drinking Water
Criterion
The sum of benzo(a)pyrene
and dibenz ( a, h) anthracene
3.0 ng/l*
5.6 ng/l*
Carcinogenic PAH
Other PAH
15 ng/l**
28 ng/l
280 ng/l
175 ng/l
* Or the lowest concentration that can be quantified, whichever is greater.
** ng/l = 1 part per trillion
The Clean Water Act (CWA) and the regulations under it are applicable to
the proposed renEdial activities concerning the discharge of extracted
ground water, or contaminated surface water fran the site, to either the
surface water or the sanitary sewer.
The CWA and its regulations set forth
peDnitting requiratents for point source discharges that inplement minimum
trea:bnent technology standards and protect the quality of the receiving
water.
The conditions in the CD/RAP are intended to require full'
canpliance with the CWA regarding NPDES peDnitting and pretreat:ritent
requi.renEnts.
-------
-17-
Initially, pumped ground water will be discharged to the sanitaJ:y sewer and
then be treated at the I-W:C wastewater treatment plant.
issued a pe:cnit to the City for this planned discharge.
The I-W:C had
Publicly owned
treatment works such as the I-W:C treatment plant are required by the CWA
pretreatment regulations to limit the introduction of toxic or hazardous
substances which may interfere with the treatment process or pass through
untreated to surface waters.
The I-W:C pe:cnit contains pretreatment limits
for various contaminants including PAHs.
The discharge fran the Site will
meet the lKC pe:cnit pretreat:nent limits.
plant also has an NPDES pe:cnit.
The lKC wastewater treatment
The gradient control wells will initially discharge to the lKC wastewater
treatment plant for treat:nent of the contaminated ground water. Within
three to five years, it is anticipated that the water quality of ground
water punq:ed fran the gradient control wells will improve sufficiently to
meet NPDES limits.
This would allow the City to route the ground water
pumped fran the gradient control wells to a stonn sewer. for eventual
discharge to Minnehaha Creek.
If necessary, an off-site treatment facility
will be built to ensure that the groW1d water meets NPDES limits shown on
the table below.
SURFACE WATER DISOiARGE CRITERIA
Daily Maximum
Paraneter
Concentration
30-Day Average
Concentration
Carcinogenic PAH
Other PAH
34 ug/l**
65 ng/l*
17 ug/l
Phenanthrene
2 ug/l
1 ug/l
10 ug/l
Phenols
* ng/l = 1 part per trillion
** ug/l = 1 part per billion
-------
-18-
RCRA may be an ARAR for the Site.
If on-site treatment is required for the
discharge fran W422, the process will generate "spent carbon."
This tenn
refers to GAC contaminated with PAHs.
Spent carbon will be returned to the
manufacturer for regeneration and reuse.
If the testing of spent carbon
indicates that the carb:m is a hazardous waste as defined by ReM, and if
regulated quantities of spent carbon are generated, then the requirements
of ReM would be ARARs for the Site.
The Land Ban requirem:mts of RCRA
will not apply to the disp:>sal of spent carbon since the carbon will be
regenerated and reused and no land disp:>sal is contemplated.
The operation of the gradient control wells in the Northern Area of the
Drift Aquifer will be governed by these ARARs, TBCs or other limits
established by the Agencies.
The Drinking Water Criteria will be used to
assess the need for ground water control measures throughout the aquifer,
while discharge options for extracted ground water will be evaluated
against the Surface Water Discharge Criteria.
IDnq Tenn Effectiveness and Permanence
Once the resp:>nse objective is net, and the further spread of contamination
has been prevented, residual levels of PAR will remain in the aquifer.
On
the basis of their relatively large voltnre and lCM nobility, residual PAHs
are expected to remain in the aquifer for at least the 30-year life of the
CD/RAP .
Pumping will continue as long as it is necessary to prevent the
further spread of contamination.
The potential risks posed by residual
contamination in the aquifer after plume rnanagarent activities are
-------
-19-
concluded are very SIl'a.ll because of the lack of a human exposure pathway,
and because the relatively lCM m::>bili ty of the PAH canpounds will reduce
their tendency to migrate.
Trea't:Inant residuals would be generated fran an on-site GAC treatment
facility if the discharge is shifted fran the sanitary sewer to the stODT!
sewer.
These materials would consist of spent activated carbon and would
be disposed of in conjunction with spent carbon generated at the
Drift-Platteville Aquifer source control wells treatment facility, and the
St. IDuis Park 10/15 drinking water trea't:Inant plant.
Spent carbon fran the
St. lDuis Park 10/15 drinking water treatment plant has been evaluated for
acute toxicity by the City, W1der guidance provided by the MPCA Hazardous
Waste Division, and was found to be non-toxic.
The carbon generated fran
other plants treating gradient control water is expected to be similar.
Therefore, no significant additional risk fran spent carbon is anticipated.
The pumping technology for the selected alten1ative is standard, reliable,
and a proven technology for neeting project objectives.
System canponents
may require replacerent during the life of this raredi.al action, but
replacerent should be a straightfo:rward proceduI:e.
The City has been
operating and maintaining ground water pumping systems for over 40 years,
thus no problems with the adequacy or reliability of controls are
anticipated.
The need for additional response actions in portions of the Northern Area
of the Drift Aquifer that are outside the influence of the pumping wells
will be addressed based on future ground water m:mitoring results.
Monitoring of available wells canpleted in the Northern Area of the Drift
Aquifer is ongoing.
-------
-L.U-
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
The rrost important feature of the selected alternative is the control
exerted by the pumping well (s) on the volume and rrobility of contaminants
wi thin the aquifer.
During pumping, the rrore rrobile PAR will be reroved
first, leaving less rrobile PAR in the aquifer.
Although treatment of the pLm1ped water will only destroy a relatively 511\3.11
portion of the total voltmte of contamination in the aquifer, the preferred
alternative canplies with EPA's statutory mandate of treatment to the
maximum extent practicable.
Thus, the preferred al ternati ve will reduce
the rrobility and voltmte of the contaminants.
Short-TeDm Effectiveness
The construction and implementation phase of this alternative will not lead
to camnmity exposure, and will not cause adverse enviromental impacts.
Pumping well W422 is already in place and operating.
During the
construction of additional pumping, well neasures will be taken to minimiZE'
workers' exposure.
This alternative presents no other short-tenn risks to
the camnmity at large.
Implarentability
There are no outstanding issues relative to the technical feasibility of
iroplarenting the selected alternative.
The technology for pumping grourd
-------
-Ll-
water is reliable, and easy to maintain.
There should be little potential
for schedule delays, or conflicts with other remedial actions taken at the
Site.
Repair work on system carq:x:>nents will be similarly straightforward.
There are no administration problems that would prevent inplementation of
the preferred al ternati ve.
The sane remedial actions are currently being
practiced elsewhere at the Site.
Other agencies such as the I-H:C, the
Minnesota Depart:ITent of Natural Resources, and! or the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed D~strict have a precedent to follow in dealing with this
activity.
Services and materials for this work are all available at
ccmpetitive bid prices, and will not limit the inplementability of this'
alternative.
Costs
Project costs are minllnal at this point due to the aIlDunt of work that has
already been done to construct and test the wells.
Well W422 is currently
in place and, operating and no further installation costs will be incurred
for this well.
Monitoring results indicate that additional gradient control wells are
needed .
It is anticipated that the cost of the installation of each
additional well would be approximately $370,000.
These costs would cover
equipnant, installation, engineering, permits, startup, and contingencies
and includes a $170,000 availability charge.
The availability charge is
prorated over a five year period fran the I-H:C and is a fee for the
utilization of !-K:C for ground water pump-out systems.
These anticipated
-------
-1.1.-
costs would be required for each additional gradient control well needed to
achieve the remedial goals of the project.
If a treatrlEnt facility is required for a surface water disposal option,
the capital cost of the facility is estimated at $300,000.
Annual
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs are reduced for this alternative
because many other operating wells are currently maintained by the City.
O&M, ITIi3.terials, energy, disposal of residues, purchased services,
administrative costs, and other post-construction costs that ITIi3.y be
required to ensure the effectiveness of this J:a1Edial action are estimated
at no Irore than $45,000 per year.
Major canponents of the annual O&M costs
include:
sewer charge per well
$ 17,000
electricity per well
$
3,000
labor per well
$ 20,000
If ITIi3.jor equiprent problems occur, and replacenent is required at sane ti.ne
during the first 30 years of operation, then two to four weeks should be
sufficient to correct the problem.
No cost sensitivity analysis was perfonred due to the certainty of overall
project costs.
-------
-23-
Agency Acceptance
The Agencies agree ulX'n the ranedy because it is protective of public
health and the environrrent and satisfies the nine required evaluation
criteria.
The raredy is also consistent with the ratECtial action specified
in the CD/RAP.
In sunmary, the alternative provides the best balance of tradeoffs anong
available alternatives with respect to the criteria used to evaluate
remedies.
Based on infonnation available at this tine, the Agencies
believe the selected alternative will protect human health and the
environrrent, will ccrnply with MARs, will be cost-effective, and will
utilize pennanent solutions and alternative treatment teclmologies or
resources recovery technologies to the max.i.mum extent practicable.
This
alternative will satisfy the preference for treabnent as a principle
;i;;:,
elenent to the max.i.mum extent practicable.
Ccmnunity Acceptance
There were no cc.~nts received during the public cament pericxi on the
prolX'sed plan.
9.
Selected Remady
The selected remedy of using nultiple gradient control wells, including
well W422, will be required to provide the appropriate gradient control and will
satisfy the nine evaluation criteria.
The wells will be pumped at a rate
-------
-~'t-
depending on the extent of contamination in the aquifer as detennined by ground
water rronitoring to control the further spread of contamination in the Drift
Aquifer.
The rem:rlial action al ternati ve involves bUilding new well houses and
installing appropriate pumping equipnant in tJ1e wells.
For the first five years following the effective date of this ROD, ground
water samples will be collected on a saniannual basis fran the following wells:
W2, W6, WIO, WII, Wl2, W15, Wl16, W117, W128, W135, W136, W422, W423, W425,
. -.
. W427, PI09, Pl12, P307, P308, P309, P310, P31l, P312, P313, and fran the new
gradient control wells constructed under this remady.
These samples will be
analyzed for the carcinogenic PAR and other PAR listed in Appendix A of the
CD/RAP .
The wells to be sampled and the frequency of sampling will be
re-ev~luated after the five year period.
Water level measw::emants will be taken
at all the above wells on a quarterly basis for the first year, and
saniannually thereafter.
If the prop:>sed range of pumping rates is not
sufficient to control the spread of contamination, additional wells may be
required for gradient control.
Well W422 and the additional wells will initially discharge to the ~c
wastewater treatment plant for treatment of the contaminated ground water.
discharge will be rronitored, as stated above, to detennine if treatment is
The
necessary to route the discharge to a stonn water sewer within approximately
three to five years.
If necessary, an off-site treatment facility will be built
to ensure that the ground water meets NPDES limits.
An i.mpJrtant aspect of this
alternative is continued rronitoring of water level and water quality to assess
the effectiveness of the gradient control wells.
-------
-~;J-
The selected reTEdy is consistent with the CD/RAP, Section 9.5 which
specifies the installation and operation of one or ITDre gradient control wells
to prevent the further spread of ground water exceeding any of the drinking
water criteria defined in CD/RAP Section 2.2.
Because the CD/RAP requires that
the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) control the gradient in the Northern
Area of the Drift Aquifer and specifies this particular raredial action, the
analysis of this alternative builds on various earlier studies, referenced in
the CD/RAP, that develOPed and screened alternatives.
10.
Statutory DeteDninations
The selected .L€!u.:dy must satisfy the requirellents of Section 121 of CERCIA,
which are:
- Protect human health and the envirormant;
- Canply with ARARs or justify a waiver;
- Be cost effective;
- Utilize peIJnaneI1t solutions and. alternative teclmologies or resource
recovery teclmologies to the maxiJm.Dn extent practical; and
- Satisfy the preference for treat:nent as a principal elerrent or explain
why preference was not satisfied.
Protection of Hlm1an Health and the EnvirormEnt
The selected ranedy provides overall protection of htnnan health and the
envirormEnt by limiting the spread of contamination within the aquifer.
The ITDst important effect of this .L'aledy is to provide protection to
-------
-,f.,V-
uncontaminated portions of the Northern Area of the Drift Aquifer, thus
achieving overall protection of the enviroIlItent.
Canpliance with ARARs
The selected al ternati ve will neet all ARARs of federal law or rrore
stringent state laws.
The following discussion provides details of the
ARARs that will be net by this ranedial action.
- Safe Drinking Water Act (SmA)
As previously discussed in Section VII B of this ROD, the Drinking Water
Criteria developed for this Site are a TOC.
The raredial action is
required by the CD/RAP to prevent the spread of contaminated ground
water in the aquifer that exceeds these Drinking Water Criteria.
- Clean Water Act (CWA)
Surface water discharge criteria for the Site are set forth in Section
VII B of this ROD.
Treat:nent of the discharge fran well W422 will
initially occur at the r-N:C wastewater treatmant plant.
The discharge
fran the Site will carply with the pretreatmant requi.retents of the CWA
(40 CFR Part 403).
In three to five years, the ground water fran the
gradient control wells may be discharged to a stonn sewer.
The
discharge to the stom sewer will require a NPDES penni t which will
incorporate the surface water discharge criteria identified above.
An
off-site treatmant facility may be necessary so that the discharge fran
the wells will neet NPDES pennit limits.
-------
-27-
- Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
RCRA may be an .MAR for the Site.
If treatment is required for the
discharge from the wells, the process will generate" spent carbon."
This te:cn refers to GAC contaminated with PARs.
"Spent cartx:m" will be
tested before being returned to the manufacturer for regeneration and
reuse.
If the testing of the spent carbon detennines it to be a
hazardous waste as defined by RCRA, and if regulated quantities are
generated, then the requiratents of RCRA would be ARARs for the Site.
The land Ban requi.raTents of RCRA do not apply to the disp:>sal of spent
carbon since the carbon is to be regenerated and reused and no land
disp:>sal is contemplated.
- Cost Effectiveness.
Well W422 is currently in place and no further costs will be incurred
for this well.
Ratedial costs each additional.well will arrount to
approximately $370,000 in capital costs.
Since the only other
alternative that was considered was the No Action alternative, a
rigorous cost effective canparison cannot be made.
It is unlikely,
however, that any other prop:>sed al ternati ve could be nore cost
effective .
Armual operation and maintenance costs will be no nore than
$45,000, which is lower than at other sites because of the many other
wells currently maintained by the City.
-------
r
N
""\
.
1
,
I L-
. HENNE?!N CO. i
I' . .
. \
I .
\
(
/'
93-25' I .
I .
------1
: I GOLDEN VALLEY
Y 22"30'"
~ --- . I
~ r' ---------
~ I
o
~ L-
~ I
~ 4A8S730..J
I
I
I
I
(
L-. I
L_,
L_-
ST. L OUJS PARK
. MINNETONKA aOULEVARO
-- ----:
I I
I
,
Site or
'for.ner pfam
HOPKINS
'I
I A_. .....aha .
~ne\': ' ,C'
J -., ,~
. ,~
.'
"
CJ '
,.....~~
. I
r---------L
- I . I EDINA
""""-5.. l
'/1
o
o
.5
Source: USGS, 1967. Hopkins
and Minneapolis South, MN
Ouadran~le Maps.
Photoc'evlsed 1972.
I .
I
I
! 93820' I
L.--L-....:
I
I
!
r.
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
r-I\
I I
J I
'\ I
_1. I
r
c,.,
-
-.I
o
c.. -
"'
l:.J
:<
<
-
..,.
.<
1 MILE
, KILOMETER
FIGURE 1
Reilly Tar Site and Northern Area
Location
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
~
i
L
.,
..."
..:':'
.
f
, ;~.
. .
'f'c,::
'.. ..
'':'';''
..
, .'
. -
[.
~.
,
~ .
! .
~
~ .
,
. t'.:.:
..oe;
,".
I
[
f
r
~
f.
I
f:c.
;;-:~
.
.
t
-------
-,'
1.-."
-.:)
-
-
I
I
I
.1
I
I~:)
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
\
0/
~
'£
51
EXPLANATION
81
Scale in feet
Inferred Area of Contamination
in the Northern Area. Drift Aquifer
o
1000
2000
~ 886-------
Drift Aquifer Water Level Elevation
Contours. March' 9. '992
Et£RW
Consulting and. Eng1ncer1ng
Northern Area Boundary
Figure ~
Well 422 Capture Zone. March 19. 1992
St. Louis Park. Minnesota
- -
Well W~Z2 Capture Area
-
C~ntours drawn using the
SURFER contouring program
It!. HO~ 16~7
Dun: U6
o.ut: ~ro m
.
-------
ATTACHMENTS
-------
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ~
Superfund Proposed Plan Fact Sheet for
Reilly Tar site
Drift Aquifer, Northern Area
August 1992
. .
This fact sheet summarizes the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) and Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency's
(MPCA) joint proposed cleanup
plan for the Drift Aquifer pornon
of the Reilly Tar and Chemical
site. This recommendation
follows a complete investigation
of ground water contamination
in the Drift Aquifer and a study
of feasible cleanup options.
What is the history of the site?
Between 1918 and 1972.
Republic Creosote, a subsidiary
of Reilly Tar and Chemical
Corp., operated a coal-tar
distillation and wood-preserving
plant on an 80-acre site in St.
Louis ~~k. The fonner site is
north of Highway 7 and west of
Louisiana Avenue. Oak Park
Village condominiums are
located on the nonhem portion
of the site. .
During those years, wastewater
from the distillation process was
disposed of in a series of ditches
..--..-.---.- -
emptying into what had been a early 1980s. Although the
swampy area south of the site. . -- immediate drinking-water
Spills and leaks also contaminated problems have been resolved,
the surface soils, and tar-like ground water in the area is still
materials were found deep in a contaminated.
water well on-site.
These activities contaminated the
ground water in the area of the
Reilly site with creosote and
polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons (P AHs).
Contamination was detected in -
public water supplies as early as
1974. The site has been the object
of a state and federal Superfund
. investigation and cleanup since the.
In 1986, the former owners of
the Reilly site, along with the
/ City of S1. Louis Park, signed a
Consent Decree with the EP A
and MPCA. Under this
agreement, the parties
responsible for the ~ite are to
continue investigating the
extent of the problem and
conduct necessary cleanup
actions. The cleanup plan for a
THE MPCA WANTS YOUR OPINION
. .- . . ,". ... .. . .
. ...
. .
. The MPCA is asking for public comments on this proposed plan
. between August 29 and September 28. 1992. The M PCA will .
.'. present the plan at a public meeting on September 9th. at 7:00. p.m.
Comments are welcome at the meeting, or by phone or mail during
the above period. The meeting will be held at:
St. Louis Pari< City Hall
50.05 Minnetonka Boulevard .
New Brighton. Minnesota. ..
. .
.. ..
. .. .. .. ", .. ..,.. . . . . .
'. . .. "". . ," . ", '" . .
. Forrriore information or to comment on the proposed plan, contact
: Ralph'Pribble in the MPCA's Public Information Office. 296-7792.
. -~~- i::.4?l:"'-<>:'~"I~~r~~t~d ().n _~e~Y~le~.pop~r:': ~.:>: ':';':.' -<:' ~~~~::~.
-------
'.
Page Two
pan of the site, the Northern Street on the north, Alabama - after its perfonnance is
Area of the Drift Aquifer, is now Avenue on the east, Highway 7 observed, the need for funher
ready for public 'comment. on the south, and Louisiana wells will be evaluated.
Avenue on the west.
What is meant by the "Drift Why was this plan chosen?
Aquifer" and the" Northern What is the proposed plan for
Area?" the Drift aquifer? Remedies in Superfund cleanups
are evaluated against a number
The Reilly site is underlain by A pumpout well (designated as of criteria. The proposed plan
five separate aquifers (layers of well W 422) has been operating was carefully considered in light
earth and porous rock containing in the Drift aquifer since 1987 at of the following criteria:
ground water). These aquifers the rate of 40 gallons per minute.
are stacked atop one another, This well acts to control the 1. This remedy provides overall ..
separated by various confining source of the contamination in protection of human health and
layers, going down hundreds of the aquifer, that is, it limits the the environment by limiting the
feet below the surface. Most of funher spread of contaminated funher spread of contamination
them are contaminated to ground water. Water from this within the aquifer.
varying degrees in the area of the well is discharged directly to the ./
site. Because the ground water sanitary sewer system. (The low 2. Applicable local
in each aquifer "behaves" levels of P AHs it contains are requirements are complied with
differently, they are being biodegradable in the in that the water will me~t state
addressed separately. Each Metropolitan Waste Control surface-water criteria when
aquifer has or will have its own Commission's treatment plant. discharged from the MWCC's
cleanup plan, and the plan for 3?d the discharge is ~nIrined by treatment plant.
the Nonhern Area of the Drift the MWCC). This well was
aquifer is now ready for public specified in the Consent Decree. 3. The toxicity. volume, and
.comment. The decree also specified further mobility of the contaminants in
study of the Northern Area. the aquifer will be effectively
The Drift aquifer lies betWeen 90 That'study has been completed reduced over time by the pump-
and 100 feet below the surface. and a proposed cleanup plan out.
There are no wells in the area . now has been selected.
that use the Drift for drinking 4. The remedy will provide for
water. But the contamination in The study of the Nonhern Area long-tenn effectiveness and
this aquifer needs to be concluded that W 422 cannot be permanence by ensuring that the
addressed because it has the pumped at a rate sufficient to pump-out will continue as long
potential to spread to other control ground water flow over as necessary to prevent the
drinking wate~ supplies and/or the Nonhern Area. Therefore, further spread of contamination
aquifers. The proposed plan the proposed plan for the in the aquifer;
detailed below is specifically Nonhern Area of the Drift is to
intended to limit the further continue using W 422 for its 5. The construction and
spread of contamination in an intended purpose but to augment implementation of this remedy
area called the Northern Area of it with one or more additional presents no worker or
the Drift Aquifer. The Nonhern pumping wells. One additional community exposure, nor any
Area is bordered by West 32nd well will be installed at first; adverse environmental impacts.
-------
Page Three
6. The technology for this
remedy is p~oven, oost-
effective, reliable, and easy to
maintain.
7. The final criteria are state and
community acceptance. The
MPCA prefers this remedy, and
now the community has an
opponunity to review and
comment on the p~posed
remedy before it becomes final.
What's the next step?
The MPCA is holding a 30-day
public comment petjod. on this
proposed plan, from August 29th
through September 28th, 1992.
The comment period inc1udes a
public meeting (see box on first
page) at which the MPCA wil1
discuss the proposed plan.
Following the public comment
period, the MPCA will finalize
the cleanup alternatives for the
site after considering the
comments received. The
MPCA's response to comments
will be available for review at
the St. Louis Park Public
Library, along with the Record
of DeciSion for the site, which
documentS the reasons for this
cleanup plan.
For more information
The complete repons o~ the
investigation and study of
response alternatives for the
Nonhern Area are available for
review at the MPCA's S1. Paul
headquarters. In additiori, the
EP A maintains an Information
Repository containing these
documents at the St. Louis
Public Libl'aJ)'. The library is
located at 3240 Library Lane in
St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Requests for information or .
comments on the proposed
cleanup plan should be
addressed to:
Ralph Pribble
MPCA Public Information
Office
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612) 296-7792
Comments should be phoned in
or postmarked no later than
September 28, 1992.
/
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
~
"'
News Release
~
j '-- Printed on Recycled Paper
.J
...
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road, 81. Paul, Minnesota 55155
August 26, 1992
For immediate release
Contact: Ralph Pribble, (612) 296-7792
MPCA PROPOSES CLEANUP FOR PART OF REILLY TAR SITE
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is seeking put1fic comnient on a propos"al to deal with
pan of the ground-water contamination related to the Reilly Tar Superfund site in S1. Louis Park. The
agency has scheduled a public meeting for interested parties to discuss the plan.
The proposal aims to limit the further spread of contaminated ground water in an area called the Northern
Area of the Drift Aquifer. The Drift, one of five aquifers beneath the Reilly site, lies between 90 and 100
feet below ground. The Nonhern Ar~a?f the Drift aquifer is bordered by West 32nd Street on the north,
Alabama A venue on the east, Highway 7 on the south, and Louisiana A venue on the west "
The MPCA proposes to install Dne or more ground-water extraction wells in the Nonhero Area. Water
pumped from the wells would be discharged directly to the sanitary sewer system for treatment at the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission's main treatment plant in St. Paul. The additional welles) would
augment a single well that has been pumping the Nonhero Area of the Drift since 1987; the MPCA has
determined that well is unable to control the contamination alone.
The Reilly Tar site has been the object of a state and federal Superfund cleanup since the early 1980s.
Ground water in the area is contaminated from operations of a former creosote plant on the site (northwest
of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue) owned by the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation. Other
contaminated aquifers at the site are being cleaned up under separate plans.
The MPCA will present the proposal for public comment at 7:00 p.m. on September 9th, in the
Community Room of the St. Louis Park. City Offices, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard. The plan is open for
. comment through September 28, 1992. 'or more information about the cleanup plan or the Reilly site,
contact Ralph Pribble at the MPCA, 296-7792.
###
-------
8Q9K01200
CLASS #203
86 LINES
203 LegaINotic..
PUBLIC MEETING/
COMMENT SOUGHT
i The Minnesota Pollution
i Control Agency (MPCA)
: and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EP A)
seek public comment on a
ProPOsed remeay for tne
. Reilly Tar Superfund site
. SI. L.ouls Park. Minnesota
i The MPCA and EPA are S881c-
. ing pUblic comment on a I)ro-
. posed' remedy (cleanup plan)
. tor ground-water contamina-
: tion retated to the Reilly Tar
site in the Nonhern Atea 01 the'
Drift AQuifer. 1h8 Northern j
~~.:;~ C:'~ne:~:rh~,:,S~:.2~~ I
. Avenue on the east. Highway 7 i
. on the south. and I.ouislana I
! Avenue on tne west. ,.
The MPCA and EPA 11<0--10
instaU one or more orOUnd-
, water extr.ctl~n wells in tne
, Nonner" Atea In oraer to limit
! the turtl'ler spratt of contami- ;
'1 "ants in this a'.8. The dis- .
: charge WOUld be rouilld CUracl-
~~~~m~~~ :fr~~a~e~=it~~
Waste Contro, Commission's
ma'n tr.arment facility. A copy
0' tnis proposecl remedy, along
wlln other ~um.nls relating
to tne site. 15 available for pub-
lic rev_allhe 51. Louis Park I
~~~~~:~ 5~t'':''r$ p1a~:O u- I
I
~= 1:~~~ln~~o~or:~~~:
man health: comply with envi..
~~:n~~~:~~~:~~~~~~
tamtnatlon: and recluce the
toxicity. rnotHlity. and volume
ot the contaminants. The
MPCA has also consld."ed Ihe
plan's long..term effective-
ness. cost effectiveness. and
lechnical laasil>illly. AIt." Ihe
public commenl periOd. Ihe
~P:~::~61~:~:'D~~~:t~:r :~: !
puDiIc. :
Interested parUes are invited to !
comment on this Ploposal .t
etther a PUblic meeting on
September 9th. 7"00 p.m. in
the first flOOt community room
. ft~~~ 5~~~i'~:'~~~~i'eIV~.~
: St. Louis Park. Of In writing to:
Ralgn Pribble
MPCAPUDlic
Inlormallon Oltlca
~~c:.~\~lm~~g
(612) 296-7792
The proposed ramaoy is open ,
tor oubhC comment frOm Au.. .
guSI 29 Ihrough Seplember 28 '
.~: :
MN Pollution Control
520 Lafayette Road
st Paul, MN 55155
ATTN: Ralph Pribble
Agency
STAR TRIBUNE
a division of Cowles Media Company
STATE OF MINNESOTA }
COUN1Y OF HENNEPIN ss.
Karen Williams being duly sworn, on oath says he/she is and during all times herein stated has
been an employee of the Star Tribune, publisher and printer of the newspaper, published 7 days a week,
known as Star Tribune and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: .
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
(1) Said Newspaper is printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and sheet
form equivalent in printed space to at least 1200 square inches. (2) Said newspaper is printed daily and is
distributed at least five days each week. (3) Said newspaper has 2S per cent of its news columns dCV?ted to
news of local interest to the community which it purports to serve and does not wholly duplicate any other
publication. (4) Said newspaper is circulated in and near the municipality which it purports to serve, has at
least SOO copies regularly delivered to paying subscribers and has entry as sccond
.
Karen Williams
KRISTEN L. SCHWAB
NOTARY PUBlIC . MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
My CommIuIon EJ!Pres Mer. 4, 1998
------- |