Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Superior College gets board approval for Phase 1 PFAS investigation at burn‑pit training site
Summary
Trustees approved a Phase‑1 remedial investigation budget (~$4.5M) for PFAS contamination at Lake Superior College’s Emergency Response Training Center. College officials said PFAS from historical firefighting foam is in soil and groundwater and further phases will evaluate remediation options and costs.
The Minnesota State Board on June 16 authorized Lake Superior College to proceed with Phase 1 of a remedial investigation into PFAS contamination at its Emergency Response Training Center (ERTC).
President Linda Kingston told trustees the college used aqueous film‑forming foam (AFFF) for aviation fire training for decades; after the EPA designated PFAS compounds a hazardous substance, the state directed known sites to investigate. Earlier work identified PFAS in soils at the burn pit and in groundwater. The board approved a Phase‑1 scope — including soil borings, hydrogeologic work, monitor wells and surface‑water sampling — budgeted at about $4.5 million and to be funded from a systemwide reserve set‑aside while the college pursues state and federal funding and legal remedies.
Kingston said the college will vacate the burn pit by June 2027 and may need to vacate the adjoining classroom building by June 2028 depending on investigative results. Trustees were told the investigation could expand beyond campus property if contamination is found to have migrated offsite; subsequent phases would include a feasibility study and design of response actions. System counsel said the office is working with the state attorney general and outside specialists to pursue possible cost recovery options.
What’s next: Phase‑1 fieldwork will be executed under an MPCA‑approved scope; the college and system office will continue to seek state/federal funding and report progress to the board. The board emphasized transparency and long‑term monitoring obligations.
