N※N

Minnesota Adds Three Contaminated Sites to Hazardous-Waste Cleanup List

  //health-fitness.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. nated-sites-to-hazardous-waste-cleanup-list.html
  Published in Health and Fitness on Monday, December 15th 2025 at 13:44 GMT by Patch

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source
• 🞛 This publication contains potentially derogatory content such as foul language or violent themes

Toxic Solvents Prompt Minnesota to Expand its Hazardous‑Waste Cleanup List

In a move that underscores the growing concern over legacy industrial contamination, the state of Minnesota has announced that three previously unlisted sites will now be added to the state’s hazardous‑waste cleanup roster. The decision, made by the Minnesota Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and announced in a press release linked in the Patch article, follows new findings of high‑level toxic solvent contamination at the sites in the St. Paul area. The update comes as part of a broader state effort to address a backlog of Superfund‑style cleanups and to protect communities that have been exposed to volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for decades.

What the Sites Are and Where They Are Located

The three newly added sites are:

1. St. Paul Industrial Site (SIPS) – an abandoned warehouse complex that once housed a chemical distribution center on the west bank of the Mississippi River.
2. Riverview Manufacturing Plant (RMP) – a mid‑century factory that produced dry‑cleaning and automotive parts, now vacant and surrounded by residential neighborhoods.
3. Parker Processing Facility (PPF) – a former paper‑board mill that operated until the early 1990s and sits on a ridge overlooking the Cedar River.

All three sites lie within the 10‑mile radius of the city’s downtown, where families and businesses rely on groundwater for drinking water, irrigation, and industrial use. The Patch story provides a detailed map that places the sites against the backdrop of the Twin Cities’ historic industrial corridor.

The Contaminants: Trichloroethylene, Perchloroethylene, and Others

At the heart of the issue are toxic solvents commonly used in dry cleaning, metal degreasing, and chemical manufacturing. The DEQ’s groundwater sampling, detailed in a linked PDF of the agency’s monitoring data, shows concentrations of trichloroethylene (TCE) and perchloroethylene (PCE) that far exceed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) maximum contaminant levels of 5 µg/L for TCE and 5 µg/L for PCE. In some wells, TCE levels have reached over 50 µg/L, a ten‑fold exceedance that raises immediate health concerns.

TCE and PCE are well‑documented carcinogens, with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listing both as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans). Chronic exposure has been linked to kidney and liver damage, as well as neurological effects. Residents of the surrounding neighborhoods, many of whom rely on private wells, have voiced alarm after learning that their water could contain these hazardous chemicals.

The Patch piece also highlights other contaminants detected at the sites, including benzene, toluene, and xylenes—a group of VOCs that add to the complexity of the cleanup. While benzene levels were lower than the EPA threshold (1 µg/L), the combined VOC signature creates a “mixed‑solvent” contamination scenario that complicates remediation efforts.

Why the Sites Were Previously Unlisted

Historically, Minnesota’s hazardous‑waste cleanup list, maintained by the DEQ in partnership with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), has been dominated by the larger, well‑known Superfund sites. The three sites in question had been on the radar for several years, but their contamination had been “incomplete”—meaning the DEQ had not yet fully documented the extent of the problem or committed to an official remediation plan.

The article notes that in 2019, a state‑wide audit conducted by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Division (EQD) identified gaps in the documentation for these sites. The audit’s findings, which are summarized in a linked report, led to the realization that the sites met the criteria for inclusion on the state’s cleanup list: they pose a significant risk to human health and the environment and lack a comprehensive remediation strategy.

The Clean‑up Plan and Its Regulatory Path

Once a site is added to the state’s list, it becomes eligible for a coordinated cleanup plan that involves:

1. Phase I Site Assessments – confirming the presence and extent of contamination through soil and groundwater testing.
2. Phase II Remediation – employing technologies such as pump‑and‑treat systems, in situ bioremediation, and, where necessary, excavation and off‑site disposal of contaminated soil.
3. Phase III Long‑term Monitoring – ensuring that contaminant levels remain below health‑risk thresholds and that the remediation remains effective over time.

The DEQ’s press release, linked in the article, indicates that Phase I assessments are already underway at all three sites, with initial findings expected by the end of Q2 2025. Funding for the cleanup will come from a mix of state allocations, federal grants (including the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund), and, where applicable, liability contributions from former site operators.

The article also points out that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) will oversee the environmental monitoring, ensuring that cleanup activities comply with the state’s Groundwater Quality Management Act. A link to the MNDNR website confirms that the agency has a dedicated “Legacy Sites” portal where the public can track progress.

Community Response and Legal Implications

Local residents, many of whom have lived near the sites for decades, have voiced both concern and frustration. A quoted interview in the article features Maria Hernandez, a mother of three who lives just two blocks from the SIPS site. Hernandez says, “We’ve been drinking this water for years, and now we’re told it might be dangerous. I just want assurance that the cleanup will happen fast.”

The article notes that the sites were the subject of class‑action lawsuits in the early 2000s, with several former employers settling for a combined $23 million in damages. However, those settlements did not cover the full scope of remediation needed, according to the DEQ’s own assessment.

Environmental groups, such as Minnesota Clean Water Action (MCWA), have also weighed in. The article links to a MCWA press release that applauds the state’s decision but calls for transparent communication and public involvement in the cleanup process. MCWA’s spokesperson says, “Adding these sites to the cleanup list is a step in the right direction, but the real test will be how quickly and thoroughly the state can remediate the contamination.”

What to Expect Next

The Patch article outlines a clear timeline for the next steps:

• June 2025: Completion of Phase I assessments; public release of findings.
• September 2025: Selection of contractors and finalization of remediation designs.
• Late 2025 – Early 2026: Commencement of Phase II remediation activities.
• 2027 and beyond: Ongoing monitoring and reporting, with an anticipated full remediation completion by 2030.

The article’s linked DEQ website provides a downloadable “Statewide Hazardous‑Waste Cleanup Calendar” that tracks each site’s projected milestones.

Bottom Line

Minnesota’s decision to add the St. Paul Industrial Site, Riverview Manufacturing Plant, and Parker Processing Facility to the state’s hazardous‑waste cleanup list reflects a growing recognition that legacy industrial contamination remains a pressing public health issue. The toxic solvents found at these sites—particularly trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene—pose serious risks to groundwater quality and community health. While the cleanup process will take several years and involve multiple agencies, the inclusion of these sites on the official list is an essential first step toward restoring environmental integrity and protecting the residents of the Twin Cities. For those interested in staying informed, the article links directly to the DEQ and MNDNR portals where updates and detailed monitoring data will be published as the work progresses.