Laserfiche WebLink
''� <br />Submittal by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant <br />November 29, 2010 <br />to the Roseville City Council <br />� <br />Item #1: Mischaracterization of the status of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet <br />(EAW) <br />In a letter dated November 10, 2010 written on behalf of Bituminous Roadways, Gregory <br />Korstad of Larkin Hoffinan Attorneys states: <br />•"The result of the environmental review process to date is that an environmental <br />assessment worksheet has been prepared which concludes that the proposed facility <br />does not present a potential for significant environmental impacts from the proposed <br />project." <br />•"The present status of the environmental review is that the technical and scientific <br />analysis of the project demonstrates the lack of adverse effects from the proposed <br />project." <br />It is inaccurate and misleading to state that the EAW "concludes" or "demonstrates" anything <br />authoritatively. The EAW's current status is that: <br />l. It is a draft document. <br />2. The MPCA received 167 comments on the EAW, many of which raised specific and <br />significant questions about the methodology used and conclusions drawn in the EAW. <br />3. The City of Roseville submitted comments and requested that an EIS be required <br />because "the City believes the proposed project will have significant environmental <br />effects that need to be further studied and finds that the current EAW response <br />inadequately addresses the environmental effects of the proposed asphalt plant" (City <br />letter to the MPCA, Sept. 10, 2010). <br />4. The MPCA suspended the environmental review process without responding to any <br />of the comments or formally accepting or adopting the EAW. <br />The City should consider the EAW to be only a draft document. Additionally, based on the <br />manner in which numerous statements and estimates were revised by the applicant between the <br />CUP submittal materials and the EAW submittals, the City should consider the information in <br />the EAW to probably be underestimates and understatements of conditions on the site and <br />environmental impacts of the proposed project. <br />Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant submitted formal comments and a contested case hearing <br />petition related to the EAW. The following issues were raised. These issues have not been <br />addressed by the MPCA or any other regulatory body. <br />Issues #1. The traffic analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #2. The stormwater (surface-water runoffl analysis in the EAW is insufficient and <br />flawed. <br />Issues #3. The dust analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #4. The air emissions and odors analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Issues #5. The noise analysis in the EAW is insufficient and flawed. <br />Submittal by Neighbors Against the Asphalt Plant November 29, 2010 page 1 of 4 <br />