pf_01547 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Findings of Fact - page 10 Metropolitan etropolitan Metals Re cove ry EAW September, 1983 C. Solid and Hazardous Taste The facility must meet RCA and state requirements for solid and hazardous wastes. disposal of nonhazardous, will be disposed ofdatnMpCA aert pproved generated, if in Minnesota. Mixed metal sludges PProved sanitary landfills Posed of at a g (hazardous wastes) will be dis- pproved hazardous waste facilities. D. Alternatives Three major alternatives were considered by the task was formed by the F,etro force which Council tion of Metal Finishers Loistudy the and the Turin Cities Assctcia- to treat metal wastes the fasibility of a central facility alternatives studied included el in the metropolitan Pretreatment df area. The three individually affected shops, metal wastes by by a central P �) Pretreatment with no recovery metals Of metals by processing facility, and 3) pretreatment and recovery a central eluded that there was Processing facility. The task force con - no substantial difference in costs betwee,.1 the three alternatives. A central alternative because it would reduce fthell n ty was the Preferred hazardous metal wastes andfilling of to and Also, without a central facility, usable metal from the waste. shops would not be ' the smallest metal finishing have to able to afford any type of treatment and would cease operation when the April 27, 1984. (Personal c WCC regulations take effect on Solid and Hazardous Waste,amunication -Steve steed, Division of Central Recovers, Facility Fe�si/.bility Studydraft Executive Sum dated November.30.`1982) Site alternatives considered b included several industrial sites the®�intCani �� Corporation metropolitan area. gyration The Shoreham railroad ties seven, -county because of its central location with respectyard site was selected the relatively long distance from the sitetotneig�rgnnerators and (personal communication neighboring residences. tion, 9/7/83) - Gam' Dodge, MetraoPolitan Recovery Corpora - VI. CONCLUSIONS The Proposed project will meet all MPCA ments and standards. Areas which• MWCC, TSCA and RCRA require- couldsiSmificant environmental effects havhave had a Potential for No potentially significant enviro Veen identified and analyzed. nmental impacts have been identified. Based on the findings and condlusions contained herein and the including all coements received in the environmental assess reference document::, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determined on Q1ent worksheet, the that an environmental impact statement is not required on the 0 1983 Proposed project. Sandra S. Gardebring Executive Director