10/12/88 Special - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

We also find that the EIS compares impacts of the expansion to a previous condition typical of 1986 rather than comparing the impacts to a severely curtailed operation as presently exists. Thus, many impacts are determined in the EIS to be no greater than presently exist when, in fact, a four to five fold increase in activity would be experienced over 1988 levels. The EIS throughout, bases its evaluation on a time frame which assumes operations would be completed in approximately two and a half years or 1991. However, Waste Management Minnesota, Inc. in their CUP applica- tion with the city of Ramsey is indicating an operating life of approximately five years. Thus, the duration of impacts to the Community is likely to be much longer than that portrayed through the EIS. This can be resolved, however, by placing an operational time limit on the proposed expansion through the permitting processes. Underlying the entire landfill siting and expansion processes, there appears to be some perception at the Metropolitan Council (MC), the County and MPCA that the Community and residents are simply suffering from the NIMBY syndrome. This is not.so. The city and its residents have done their share and more to accomodate the region's waste. There simply has to come a time when, like it or not, a landfill must close in conjunction with its per~itted life. Need for Project The EIS largely depends on the Certificate of Need (CON) application/ analysis conducted in 1986. That process portrayed a near crisis situation with respect to the region's landfill capacity and specifi- cally the need for capacity between 1987-1990. The CON process con- cluded that no feasible or prudent alternatives to expansion exist to serve the region's needs during that time period. The CON %'as reissued (by MC) in January of 1988 at the sar. e capacity as was applied for by ~.".~.i in 1986 to serve 1987 ~h_ough 1990 (635 acre- feet) . We now are nearing ~he _nm of 1988, still discussing the same capacity even ~kough two years have elapsed in ~hat "~indow cf need" (1987- 1990) until ~= RDF ~ '~'~ _a ...... es and Resource Recover}, Systems ~ere to ccm_ =cn ~e. Anoka County's Elk River facility is anticiuated. ~o be a_._cx_~.=.e_y six months after %ke e>:pansicn of Anoka Landfill wcu!d be_...._a,e..~{-{ - ~ Since the CON process, an MC staff report indicates %ha% there is potential capacity ~ithin the existing system ~o provide the !<etro Area heels for %he next 18 years (Landfill Capacity Evaluation, Caswe!! and Rafferty, May, 1987).