12/06/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

There is a bias which appears to underlie the EIS discussion of alternatives. It is evident on page 23 with the following paragraph: "Shifts of capacity within the Metropolitan system are likely to occur. These shifts have no bearing, however, on total need for capacity within the system. Furthermore, the shift underway during 1986 (the Flying Cloud restriction on disposal) raises the likelihood of more need to dispose of waste at the Anoka landfill. Since this is the only landfill located in the northern portion of the region, any reductions in use rate at the other fills in the system will tend to expand the Anoka landfill watershed further south;" It would also be just as accurate to state: "Any reductions in use rate at Anoka Landfill will tend to expand the watersheds of other landfills to the north and east (as appropriate)." This bias towards providing additional capacity at Anoka underlies the entire expansion application, regardless of need, of alternatives to the proposed action, or of environmental concerns. On page 25 under the Summary of Alternatives, nearly every one of the eight consequences listed are either incorrect, already have occurred or will occur regardless of the proposed expansion. · The hydrogeologic issues addressed in the EIS have been largely addressed through the Feasibility Study and Remedial Investigation required by the consent order between ~5~.I and MPCA as well as the Detailed Analysis'Report. That process was conducted independently of the vertical expansion issue and ~I will be rec~ired to undertake the clean up actions whether the landfill is exp~nded or not. The City raised concerns at appropriate times over the course of those study periods. Of particular concern, however, is the impact of W~/~I's proposed ski hill development on the integrity of the final cover. This is particularly important where support apparatus would be installed which may penetrate the synthetic liner. Obviously, the impact of the groundwater recovery and treatment system on the drawdown of the water table and water quality remain concerns. Leachate Page 76 indicates that the steeper slopes are projected to decrease the rate of percolation with the proposed final cover by eight to 10 percent over the same cover at currently approved grades. The EIS further indicates "that a net increase in the volume of !eachate generated during the implementation of the vertical expansion will occur". This hardly seems prudent when compared to other alternatives. The EIS indicates that the planned flow barrier system should take care of these volumes with a lifetime net reduction.