pf_01547 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mrs. Deborah R. Pile, Director November 7, 1984 Page Three (2) Item 7: Construction Costs. The EAW estimates the construction cost at $5, 00,0 . Correspondence from MRC's attorney attached as Exhibit A indicates the cost will be $6,000,000. Other information we have been provided indicates that the cost for acquisition of the property and con- struction of the facility together could be in excess of S6,000,000. The cost of the facility obviously directly affects its economic viability. If the facility is not economically viable, it will not be adequately constructed or operated. Therefore, it is important that the true cost of the facility be ascertained. The information contained in the EAW appears to be incorrect. (3) Item 12 (A): Land Use Ordinance. The EAW states that this project is not inconsistent with any adopted land use ordinance. That statement is incorrect. The proposal is inconsistent with the Roseville zoning code. The City of Roseville has not amended its zoning code to permit this activity. (4) Item 13: Surrounding Development. Apparently describing the Boise Cascade Corrugated Container Plant, the EAW referes to "forest products manufacturing" as a neighboring activity. This description substantially misrepresents the nature of the activities at the Boise Cascade facility. As previously stated, the facility manufactures packaging material over 50% of which is used to package food. The nature of this activity may be incon- sistent with the activities proposed to be conducted by MRC. The EAW de- scription of surrounding activities is, in this respect, inaccurate. (5) Item 15: Soil Types. According to the EAW, "nearby well logs" indicate "clay and sand gravel surfaces with area characterized by clay to 12 feet." Soil composition is critical to this project in view of the hazardous waste handling which will take place and the potential for spills. In our experience, well logs are extremely unreliable for determining soil composition. Soil borings should be 'taken to accurately assess soil composi- tion. The discussion of soil type, although critically important in review of the environmental effects of the project is inadequate and possibly inaccurate. (6) Item 17: Ground Water Depth. According to the EAW, there is a 140 foot average static water level at this site. We believe that this statement is in error and that the ground water level (surface of the saturated zone) is more likely of 30 to 40 feet and could be shallower. Again, the depth of the ground water is extremely critical in assessing the potential for ground water contamination from hazardous wastes spills at the site. Again, we believe the EAW is factually incorrect. (7) Item 21: Effect on Water Quality. The EAW states that the project will have no effect on the quality of either surface or ground water. This statement ignores the obvious. A significant portion of the hazardous wastes in the State of Minnesota at any one time will likely be concentrated at this site. There is a potential for serious hazardous waste spills at this site. Any such spills would substantially impact surface and ground water quality. Failure of the EAW to acknowledge the potential for adverse water quality impacts has resulted in a failure to address measures to mitigate such impacts. The EAW is inaccurate in stating that there will be no water quality impact.