CC PACKET 04261983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

the.preliminary preferred sites. On September 23, 1982, the Hoard designated the Roseville site as.one of 28 preliminary areas. The City of St. Anthony did not learn of the preliminary designations until the first week in November When an article appeared in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune announcing the public informational.meetings to be held in Roseville. In a letter dated November 22, 1982 to the Waste Management Board, the Mayor of the City of St. Anthony expressed his concerns regarding the pro- posed Roseville site and its proximity to the City of St. Anthony. -.(W+IB Ex. III). The Hearing Examiner has considered these comments and other,comments made on behalf of the St. Anthony residents at the hearing on March 15, 1982. Since the City of St. Anthony has been afforded an opportunity to partici- pate in the designation process, the Examiner believes that the City.has not been unduly prejudiced by the Board's failure to include the City in its tial-notificaticns. In any event, throughout the period leading up to the Board's designation and to the present date, the Board has given all the no- tice required by law. The City's complaint must be made to the Legislature. Soil and Aquifer Conditions The soils in and around the proposed area offers questionable protection against contamination from a spill: most of the site is urban land and cannot be evaluated. The PC&'s suitability report concluded its discussion of'soils and aquifer stability with the statement: "Mich of the site could be devel- oped with additional design and operation safeguards for the groundwater." (W MB Ex. NN). Processing facilities; by their very nature, do not demand the kind of protection that must be afforded to disposal facilities. Processing could occur in the site's vicinity:' A more substantial testing of the Soil and subsurface would aid decisionmakers in determining Whether this area is capable of protecting the underlying aquifers from accident. One Examiner recognizes that a more substantial testing of the soil and aquifer suitability would take place during the permitting process if and When a designated site would be proposed for development by a private waste management developer. However, without at least a preliminary determination that the soil coditicne afford a minimum protection against ground contamination in'the event of an accidental spill, the Examiner is unable to make a. finding as to whether soil conditions offer any protection to the acquifers.' Ehissio'ns and Weather Inversions As this.proposed preferred area is for commercial hazardous waste, chemi- cal processing and transfer/storage, and not incineration, questions on emis- sions and weather inversions may not be germane.' The Board may wish to ad- dress the issue of emissions of a processing facility ,if it is likely to be ... greater than negligible. Safety It would seem prudent to locate any.facility away from existing petroleum storage tanks in the area as a safety.•precaution against the possibility of future petroleum explosions and fires. P.A.R.