Laserfiche WebLink
V 41kow; 2 <br />CW <br />March 11, 1988 <br />Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <br />Mr. Joe Pallansch <br />Washington Scientific Ind., Inc. <br />2605 West Wayzata Boulevard <br />P.O. Box 340 <br />Long Lake, Minnesota 55356 <br />Dear Mr. Pallansch: <br />Re: organic Solvent Contamination Investigation Report for the Washington <br />Scientific Ind., Inc. (WSI) Facility located in Long Lake, Minnesota <br />(WSI Report) <br />The Minnesota Pollution Control Aqency (MPCA) staff received the above <br />referenced report on January 4, 1988. The MPCA would like to compliment WSI for <br />moving forward in an expeditious manner in orde -velop a plan to remediate <br />the contamination at your facility. <br />The MCP.A staff have completed their review of the .,,I report. The report is <br />well stated and contains accurate and concise information. However, the MPCA <br />staff feel that there is some amount of incompleteness with regards to the <br />definition of the contaminant plume at Site 2 and possible problems with the <br />proposed remediation scheme. Following are specific comments and possible <br />alternatives for addressing the ccmments: <br />Although no remedial action may be appropriate for Site 3, as proposed, <br />continued monitoring of MW-5, MW-7, and the New Plant Well is <br />recommended in order to monitor future horizontal and/or vertical <br />movement of the contaminants at Site 3. <br />2. Considering the screen placements of MW-6 and MW-4, and the high <br />contaminant concentrations in MW-L'D, the conclusion that "it i. not <br />likely that contaminants have spread laterally beyond the area of MW-6" <br />appears prematurE. Placement of a well screen and sampling at an <br />elevation comparable to that of MW-2D adjacent to MW-6 and/or KW-4 <br />would more properly address this question. <br />Phone: <br />520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 <br />Heritonal Offices - Dui tit hiBiainerdlDettoil Lait@SiMaâ–ºshalI/Rochest& <br />