Oakdale PFAS project would divert water around former 3M dump
The Abresch Disposal Site is the largest of three former disposal locations that comprise the Oakdale Disposal Site, a state and federal Superfund site.
3M is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to remediate soil and groundwater at the site. The project is proposed to further reduce PFAS impacts to stormwater discharge from the site, according to an environmental review of the project.
The proposed project would collect surface water upstream of the site and divert it to a three-acre flood-retention basin, where water would then be reintroduced into the natural flow of the watershed, according to the environmental assessment worksheet.
A three-quarter-mile conveyance pipe would bypass the Abresch Disposal Site, thus bypassing PFAS detected within the site, according to the EAW. 'This would reduce the discharge of PFAS in surface water and improve downstream surface water quality in the Twin Cities east metropolitan area,' the EAW states.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is accepting comments until 4:30 p.m. June 26 on the EAW.
A copy of the EAW is available on the project page of the DNR website; a print copy may be requested by calling 651-259-5522.
The EAW is also available for public review at the Oakdale Library, the DNR Library and the Minneapolis Central Library.
'An absolute privilege': Darts President Ann Bailey offers advice, reflects on 10 years in Dakota County aging services
Mahtomedi school board adds second referendum question to fall ballot
Forest Lake detours begin as MnDOT undertakes $17M Highway 97 reconstruction project
Forest Lake School Board hears input on possible contentious policy changes
artOPENer Studio Tour hits 19 St. Croix Valley stops
Comments on the EAW must be submitted no later than 4:30 p.m. June 26. Email comments should be sent to environmentalrev.dnr@state.mn.us with '3M surface water diversion' in the subject line. Comments can be mailed to Becky Horton, EAW Project Manager, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25, St. Paul, MN 55155-4025.
Anyone providing a mailing address or submitting comments via email will receive a copy of the subsequent decision document, which will include responses to comments, according to the DNR.
Because all comments and related information are part of the public record for the environmental review, commenters' names and email or postal addresses will be published and publicly available as they appear in the materials commenters submit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
a day ago
- E&E News
EPA plans on PFAS spur questions about groundwater
The Trump administration has defended its partial rollback of a federal drinking water rule for 'forever chemicals' by pledging to stop the chemicals from entering water supplies in the first place. But the strategy received mixed reviews recently from state and tribal water officials on an EPA advisory panel. Of particular concern is the fact that preventing new discharges of the chemicals will do little to protect people who rely on groundwater for their drinking water. 'We would not immediately benefit from reducing upstream sources of PFAS,' said Steve Elmore, director of the drinking water program in Wisconsin and chair of EPA's National Drinking Water Advisory Council, during the council meeting last month. 'Most of our contaminated systems are contaminated due to historical processes. They are contaminated now.' Advertisement Used in products like firefighting foam, nonstick pans and carpets, forever chemicals now pollute the drinking water of more than 1 in 3 Americans. Scientists have linked the notoriously indestructible chemicals, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, to a slew of concerning health problems, including cancer.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
New study makes concerning discovery after testing samples from nearly 200 homes: 'It's a global problem'
New study makes concerning discovery after testing samples from nearly 200 homes: 'It's a global problem' Many people trust private wells to deliver clean, natural water — but a new study reveals that's not always the case. What's happening? A three-year study from Pennsylvania State University found that nearly one in five private wells tested in Pennsylvania contained PFAS — manmade "forever chemicals" linked to serious health problems. According to WESA, the researchers tested 167 private wells across the state and discovered that 18% showed PFAS contamination, with some exceeding federal safety limits. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of long-lasting chemicals often used in products like nonstick cookware, water-resistant clothing, and firefighting foam. They're known to build up in the human body and the environment, and they're now showing up in unexpected places — including people's homes. "It's a global problem that I think researchers as a whole should come together to figure out how to support communities who may be impacted vastly," said Faith Kibuye, a water resources extension specialist at Penn State, per WESA. Why is this finding concerning? Research has linked PFAS exposure to increased risk of cancer, weakened immune systems, hormone disruption, and developmental issues in children. With over 1 million households relying on private wells in Pennsylvania alone — many of which are located in rural or underserved areas — this issue has significant public health implications, WESA reported. Since state and federal water regulations don't cover private wells, homeowners must handle testing and treatment themselves. That makes PFAS contamination an invisible threat — one that families may not realize they're exposed to until it's too late. Unfortunately, this isn't an isolated case. One study revealed that nearly half of the U.S. tap water contains PFAS, and experts in the U.K. have called for tighter regulations on the presence of "forever chemicals" in their drinking water. These stories show just how widespread the problem is becoming. What's being done about PFAS in well water? The researchers hope their work will help spread awareness and prompt more homeowners to test their water. "It's also a good thing that we're getting a lot of awareness out there about PFAS in general and what people can do," Kibuye said, per WESA. In Pennsylvania, homeowners can turn to state-certified labs to test their well water for PFAS. If contamination shows up, filtration systems — like activated carbon or reverse osmosis — can help remove the chemicals. On a larger scale, several states have begun tightening regulations on PFAS use. Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized nationwide limits for six types of PFAS in public water systems, and it confirmed this spring it intends to uphold those regulations under the new administration. Although current regulations exclude private wells, increasing awareness of the issue could help close that gap and give more families peace of mind about the water they rely on every day. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
New York Times
5 days ago
- New York Times
So Your Workout Clothes Are Made of Plastic. Now What?
It's true that some synthetic fabrics commonly used in workout clothing, such as polyester, nylon, and spandex, might expose you to a range of potentially harmful chemicals. 'These chemicals are not necessarily present in all synthetic fabrics, but they are commonly used or can be residues from manufacturing processes associated with these materials,' said José Domingo, professor emeritus of toxicology at the Universitat Rovira i Virgili School of Medicine in Spain, in a written response. They may include skin irritants that could trigger contact dermatitis, such as azobenzene disperse dyes, which are commonly used to color synthetic fabrics, and formaldehyde releasers, which are often used in wrinkle-free textiles. Synthetic clothing may also contain some endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which are linked to a range of health impacts that affect reproduction, physical development, neurodevelopment, metabolism, and immune system function, as well as cancer risk. These chemicals include phthalates; bisphenols such as BPA; benzothiazoles, used in chemical processing; antimony, a catalyst residue often found in polyester; and aromatic amines from dyes. Some may also contain PFAS, a broad class of chemicals linked to cancer, pregnancy complications, and weakened immune function, though they may also appear in other types of fabrics. (And, in fact, some states have already started banning PFAS in clothing.) The presence of all these chemicals 'depends on specific manufacturing processes, dyes, and finishing treatments used,' said Domingo. And not all synthetic textiles are alike. There are petroleum-based fabrics, including polyester, nylon, spandex, and acrylic, which are often found in clothing items like leggings and sports bras. Plasticized bio-based fabrics, such as some bio-based nylon and polyamide, use corn or other plant materials but may be mixed with petroleum-based plastic and chemicals (similar to bio-based plastic bags), said Alden Wicker, a journalist who covers environmental health and sustainability in fashion. Cellulosics, such as rayon (sometimes called lyocell or modal), are another category of synthetics. They may be used in exercise clothes, as well as blouses, dresses, slacks, and other garments. These are made primarily from woody plant pulp that has been chemically dissolved and processed into a textile. From an individual health perspective, cellulosics may be less concerning than petroleum-based or bio-based fabrics, Wicker said, though they do require chemical-intensive processing. Many experts I spoke with said that natural fibers are less likely to have high concentrations of some of those potentially harmful chemicals, like azobenzene disperse dyes and antimony. But broadly, there's no guarantee that clothes made with 100% cotton or other natural fibers are automatically lower in harmful chemicals than synthetic ones, said Miriam Diamond, an environmental scientist and professor at the University of Toronto's School of the Environment. Diamond noted that even 100% cotton has been found to sometimes contain chemicals, such as bisphenol. Complicating matters, manufacturers aren't required to disclose chemicals in clothes, and 'they may not even know themselves given the complexities of global supply chains,' said Justin Colacino, associate professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan, in an email interview.
