Agenda - Council - 11/13/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I i October lB, 19B4 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Mr. HarolO P. Cahill, Jr., P.E. Waste Management, Inc. Northern Region 3333 North Mayfair RoaO Suite 306 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222 Dear Mr. Ca~ill: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff have received your c~ent letter of September 26, 1984 regarding the inclusion and ranking of the Anoka Municipal Sanitary Landfill (landfill) on the Permanent List of Priorities. We would like to provide some clarification of the MPCA staff's use of the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) and explain some of the reasoning used in developing the score. Your comments centered on two main aspects of E. A. Hickok's analysis of the ranking of the landfill: A narrowing of the scope of review to wells which are directly or indirectly oowngraoient from the landfill. A discussion of geology and ground water flow patterns in areas downgradient from the landfill. MPCA staff response to these con~nts are as fol)ows: Staff acknowledge that ground water flow within the surficial aquifer is generally to the soutm-southeast from the landfill and that these areas are the most likely to be affected by contaminant migration from the landfill. However, the Hazard Ranking System employeO in prioritizing sites for the State priority list Eas well as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's {EPA) national priority list) does not allow for consideration of flow direc- tions. The ranking system specifies that all wells within a three mile radius of tn, site be included in the targets score. This system of prioritizing sites has been adopted as State and federal law, so there is no flexibility to alter the scoring of ground water targets score in the face of more definitive information on Phone: 612/296-7280 1935 West County Road B2, Rosev~ie, Minnesota 55113-2785 Regional Offices · Duluth/Brainerd/Detroit Lakes/Marshall/Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer