Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />th <br />Duren construction, the contractor uspdustly lcontrol <br />9 <br />Minnesota Rules Part 7005.i i0 and implement <br />ne <br />ve <br />measures <br />as necessary to minimize airboavedfugAslsuch, <br />ust. <br />All roads within t e facduetto truck11 etpraffic will be kept <br />reentrained particulate <br />to a minimum. [1] <br />B. Water Quality <br />No adverse impacts to ground or surface water are <br />t. The project will .comply <br />expected due to the fMPCA permitting requirements for <br />With federal RCRA or PCA <br />spill prevention and control. <br />The paved truck p9 <br />arkin and unloading area will have <br />stormwater drainage facilities which Connect t thesystem <br />municipal stormwater drainage syste <br />m. Thwill have gates and traps to enable thediveontrolrsionequip <br />surface liquids ;',to internal sumps and <br />ment if a waste till occurs. [1] <br />C. Solid and Hazardous Waste <br />The facility <br />must meet RCRA or state requirements for <br />die osal of solid and hazardous was. <br />solid <br />inert <br />substances g ll bedisposed <br />p generated, if nonhazar <br />of at MPCA approved sanitary s wastes) andMorganica. <br />Mixed metal sludges (hazardous <br />liquids or sludges will be disposed of at approved <br />hazardous waste facilities. [1J <br />D, Alternatives <br />alternatives were considered by the task <br />Three majorthe Metropolitan Council and <br />force which was formed byst <br />the <br />Twin Cities Association of Metal Fini�eat metaludy <br />the feasibility of a central facility to The three <br />wastes generated in the metroplita.The <br />of metal <br />alternatives studied included 1) pretreatment s 2) pretreatment <br />wastes by individually affected shocentral processing <br />with no recovery of metals by of metals by a <br />facility, and 3) pretreament and recovery <br />central processing facility. The task force costsludedbetween <br />cent <br />that there was no sv�stantAiCendraiefacility was the <br />the three alternate <br />referred alternative because it would <br />reduce thand <br />landfilling <br />p of toxic and hazardous <br />recover usable metal from the wmetal finishingtshopsa <br />central facility, the smallest me <br />not be able to afford to treat theionsApril�27, <br />wouldregulations <br />the implementation of the MWCC <br />1984. <br />