Laserfiche WebLink
SPECIAL MEETING <br />A special meeting of the Board o <br />9:40 a.m., on Wednesday, December <br />M. McMahon, with Mr. McMahon, Mr. <br />E. Kernan present. Also present <br />Rosenfeld. <br />DECEMBER 18, 1980 <br />f Public Works was convened at <br />18, 1980, by President Patrick <br />Richard L. Hill and Mr. Joseph <br />was Deputy City Attorney Robert <br />RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION OF CONTAMINANTS -*OLIVE ST. PUMPING STATION <br />Mr. McMahon stated that the purpose of the special meeting of the <br />Board was to enter into the record a summary of where the city is <br />with the investigation of contaminants which were found at the <br />Olive Street Well Field. He explained that, as a result of odor <br />problems at the beginning of the year, Well No. 4 had been taken <br />out of service in April, and the balance of the field was shut <br />down in June for precautionary measures. Mr. McMahon.advised <br />that, in May, the city looked for professional consultants to <br />conduct an investigation on behalf of the city in an effort to <br />determine the extent of the pullutant and its source. He intro- <br />duced Mr. Bruce Carter, representing the firm of Converse /TenEch. <br />Mr. Carter explained that his firm began its investigation in early <br />June of this year. The company examined the types of contaminants <br />found and they were identified as chlorinated.salts and an attempt <br />was made to quantify the contaminants. He advised that the con- <br />taminants were entering into four of the six wells and the Board <br />of Public Works had decided it would be wise to shut down the <br />wells. Mr. Carter explained that there was an absence of a clay <br />barrier in the vicinity of the well field. He further stated <br />that, throughout most of the well. field, there was a protective <br />barrier of clay; however., near Well No 4, there was no protective <br />barrier. He advised that the water from the monitoring wells was <br />analyzed and it was determined that the contaminant was entering <br />from an easterly direction. He explained that the ground water <br />flows in a northward direction east of Olive Street and in a <br />northwesterly direction west of Olive Street. As a result of the <br />tests conducted and the analysis made, it was determined that the <br />contaminants were coming from a point 2,600 feet southeast of Well <br />Field No. 4, between Indiana Avenue and the Penn Central Railroad. <br />Mr. McMahon furnished copies to the media of a diagram of the entire <br />Well Field and a list ofthe contaminants found. Mr. Carter stated <br />that it appeared the area had been polluted sometime prior to the <br />fall of 1977 because the time and travel between the source of <br />the contaminant and Well No. 4 was roughly two and one -half years.. <br />He explained that the contamination of the aquifer was still <br />occurring because of the contaminated soil. He stated that the <br />depth of the contaminant has not yet been defined but it was felt <br />it would be rather shallow. He advised that soil analysis was <br />performed and the contaminants were found to be above the ground <br />water table. Mr. McMahon stated that the particular location shown <br />as the source of the contaminants is an empty lot located between <br />Steel Warehouse and Ashland Chemical Company. He stated that it <br />was believed the lot was owned by a subsidiary of Steel Warehouse; <br />however, he cautioned.that the city had no reason to believe that <br />Steel Warehouse was involved and the city was of the belief that <br />it was not the potential source of the contaminant. He stated <br />that this matter had been fully discussed with the other adjacent <br />property owner, Ashland Chemical, and all of the data and research <br />had been supplied to the firm. He advised that the city has not <br />yet had a response from Ashland Chemical but hoped to within the <br />next couple of weeks. Mr. Hill stated that, because of the possibility <br />of a potential litigation in this matter, the city was not in a <br />position to affirmatively identify the company as the source of <br />the contaminant at this time. Mr. McMahon explained that relocation <br />of the well field would be extremely expensive, and the city did <br />not believe that would have to be done but were in the hopes that <br />the contaminants could be removed and the Well Field back in full <br />service within two or three years. He advised that the city has <br />experienced some operational losses and he cited as an example, the <br />restricted sprinkling ban imposed during the summer. He estimated <br />