Agenda - Council - 01/22/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-2- ~en it was suggested that on the basis of the Agency's evaluation of past samples, one could conclude that the landfill is improving the quality of ground water, your representatives agreed that there could have been flaws in the agency's reliance on Well #$ as a control well. ;~en your representatives were asked if your Agency had any guidelines or criteria for determining the levels at which changes in water quality are sufficiently serious to precipitate more extensive sampling or remeSial measures, their response was that the agency has no such guidelines or criteria. When it was suggested that PH determinations should be made in the field at the time of sampling rather than in the laboratory, your rep- resentatives agreed. When representatives'of the City pointed to numerous samples from the re- maining monitoring wells that show abnormally high levels of several of the "indicator" constituents and suggested that-laboratorydocuments show- ing such results should either include an explanation, if there was one, or precipitate resampling if there was no explanation, your representatives agreed. When representatives of the City suggested that the monitoring program should place more emphasis on detection of complex organics, your repre- sentatives appeared to agree. Also in the course of the November 9 meeting, your representatives re- quested suggestions for improving the ground water monitoring program. With the belief that the request was offered in good faith, the City's en- gineering consultants, in a letter dated November 29, 1978, offered some sound and positive suggestions. Mr. Clark's failure to even acknowledge that letter can only be interpreted as his rejection of those suggestions without discussion of their merits. It is against this background that Mr. Clark now concludes that your Agency has conducted an adequate ground water monitoring program and that no change is justified at present. It would be simple to dismiss the December 8 letter as bureaucratic arrogance or even to believe that in the month that elapsed between the meeting and the 1.etter, the details of the meeting could have been forgotten. It is also possible that your staff is insensitive to public health consider- ations and thus fails to grasp the far reaching impact of ground water pol- lution from a potential source as massive and complex as this landfill. If that is the case, the Minnesota Department of Health should be invited to play a role in upgrading your monitoring program. Finally, we are fully aware of the fact that our City is asking for a pro- gram that will undoubtedly have a financial impact on the landfill operator and,-if ground water contamination is proven, it may result in public pressure to shut down the operation.