12/14/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

There is a bias which appears to underlie the EIS discussion of alternatives. It is evident on page 23 \o;ith the fOl.lo\..'ing 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 port,ion of the region, any reductions in use rate at the other fills in the system will tend to expand the Anoka landfill "ratershed 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 otherlandfi11s 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 Sununary of Alternatives, nearly everyone of the eight conseguences listed are either incorrect, already have occurred or will occur regardless of the proposed expansion. The hydrogeologic issues addressed in the tIS have been largely addressed through the Feasibility Study and Remedial Investigation reguiredby the consent order between \<.'MMI and MPCA as well as the Detailed Analysis"Report. That process was conducted independently of the vertical expansion issue and 'VY'MMI \o.'ill be reguiredto undertake the clean UD actions whether the landfill is exuanded or not. The City raised. concerns at appropriate times over the course of those study periods. Of particular concern, however, is the impact of WMMI's proposed ski hill development on the integrity of the final cover. This is particularly important where support apparatus would be installed which Inay penetrate the synthetic liner. Obviously, the impact of the groundwater recovery and treatment system on the drawdown of the water table and waterqua1ity 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. TheEIS further indicates "that a net increase in the volume of leachate generated during the implementation of the vertical expansion will occur". This hardly seerr.s prudent when compared to other alternatives. The tIS indicates that the planned flow barrier system should take care of these volumes with a lifetime net reduction. 4 5D