HomeMy WebLinkAboutPark and Recreation Advisory Commission Packet 02-04-1982Plymouth Park and Recreation dvisory Commission
Regular Mee -ing of February 40 1982 - 7<30 ppm,
Plymouth, City Center Council Chambers Conference Room
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Nana tea
Visitor Presentations
a. Athletic Associations:
b, Others
Report on :hast Council Action
S. Un:inished Business
a. Comprehensive Park System Plan
b. Playfeld Update
c, 1981 Annual, Report
d., City Parks
S New Business
a. New Plats
b. Beei Permits for Designated Parka
c. Distribution of Park Dedication Funds
d. 1982 Park Usage Policies
e. Hazardous Waste processing
7. Commission Presentation
8. Staff Communications
9 Adjournment
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission
January I, 1982
Page 1,
Commissioners Present; games Rice, Steve Chesebrough., Betty Threinen,, John
WIlan, Frank Dvorak, Davin Berg
Commissioner Absentz Barbara Edwards
Staff Present Eric Blank, Rick Busch, Mary Patterson:
Staff Absent: Nancy Helgeson
Others Present; Councilmember Pat Moen
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7.3S p.m, by Chairman Rice.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion, to approve the minutes of the December meeting was made by
Commissioner Chesebrough and seconded by Commissioner Threinen., Motion
carried with all ayes
3. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
a. Athletic Association Representatives.. No one was present from this group..
b., Mary Patterson and Rick Busch. Mary Patterson gave a, review of the year-
to-date totals of recreation programs and a brief outline of the new
programs that will be taking place in January and February. She also
asked the Commission to give her their opinions on types of music that
might he popular in Plymouth for summer concerts in 1982. Commission
members will have their suggestions ready for the February meeting.
Rick Busch presented naterial with regard to athletics. He gave infor-
mation about the broomball program starting and the skating lessons
that have taken place over Christmas vacation and the ones scheduled
for January and February after school. He also announced that a boot
hockey tourv? „went would, be held on President's Day,, February IS, for
school-age ldven. Participants must register at the warming
houses. This is the final day for warming houses to be open during
the, 198? season.
Chairman Rice indicated to Rick that lie was interested in including
ir. tho annual report the percentages of participants enrolled in
hockey, soccer, softball, etc., this past year. More information
regarding the annual report is discussed later in the minutes
The Commission expressed soave concern over what our current role: is
with the different athletic associations throughout the City.. One
of the suggestions made by Chairman Rice was that we consider training
youth volunteer coaches, and lie asked Rick Busch to explore this
possibility.
4. REPORT ON PAST COUNCIL ACTION
Director Blank- had nothing to report on this item,
PRAC Minutes of January 7, 1982
Page 2
5, UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Comprehensive Park: System Plan. Director Blank reviewed the proposed
Compre ensive Park System Plan for the Commission. During this review,
he highlighted. the questions that had arisen, during the earlier public
hearing and: the responses as. to whether or not staff would recommend
changes made to the proposed plan because of concerns that had come
forth, During his presentation, Director Blank highlighted answers
to the most often -asked questions. These were; 1) why was one:
site selected over alternative sites, 2) the time line for acquisition
of various sites, 3) the method of acquisition, 4) the funding
mechanisms for acquisition, and S) the interim use by landowners of
property up until the time the Council deems it necessary to purchase
it for park. purposes. Some of the specific sites which were reviewed
were: 1) the Troy Land Company site. Staff recommended that the.
alternative site further south on Elm Creel: be incorporated into the
plan as the neighborhood park for the northwest Corner of Plymouth.
2) The Pomerleau Lake site should remain as proposed in the plan..
3) The Hennepin County Regional Trail's proposed location. Staff
noted that the trail's proposed location was accurately reflected
on the maps 4) The Harold Reimer property site should be moved
slightly to the north so that it coincides with a property line,
rather than leaving a narrow strip of land between the park
a different land owner's property. S) Staf" noted that they had
reviewed both the proposed sites owned by Lundgren Bros. and Richard
Dezeil and recommended that neither proposed site be dropped from
the plan at this time.
After presenting the Park, System Plan, Director Blank reviewed. the
Comprehensive Trail System Flan. He noted some recommended changes
that were different frc", the last time PRAC saw, this plan,. One was
the addition of a Class I trail going north from Gleanl;och Park
intersecting with the Luce Line Trail. Second was the reclassification
of the trail on. the east side of Medicine Lake from a community trail
to a regional trail, He also pointed out a number of minor graphic
changes to better delineate on which side of the road a particular
trail was and a short trail in a small, cul-de-sac that had been
overlooked on previous drafts. He reviewed the concern raised by
Don Myron with regard to a trail on the east side of Highway 101
going north from OakwoodElementary. He reiterated that staff was.
recommending that this trail should be a Class I off-road trail.
Following brief comments and questians by PRAC' COMMISSIONER THREINEN
MOVED: AND COMMISSIONER DVORAK SECONDED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PARK AND "TRAIL'SYSTEM PLANS''AND',RECOMMENDED THEN( FOR ADOPTION
BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
Following the motion, Chairman Rice invited questions and comments
from the commissioners. In response to a question from John Mullan
regarding, whether or not East Medicine Lake Park was a City park,
John Worrall indicated that it was a special use park. Mr, Mullan
was also concerned about some information given on Page 16 of the
Comprehensive Plan regarding discrepancies between the deficiencies
FRACMinutes of January 7, 1982
age 3
resulting from neighborhood park standards and the actual property
acquisition. He felt that this part of the paragraph needed to be
more clear, and he made suggestions for simplifying it.
Steve Chesebrough indicated that he also had numerous comments which
he said he would write down and send to Director Blank for inclusion.
in the final draft of the plan. He suggested that each page and map
be numbered and dated for those whQ may be studying: the plan several
years from now.
Director Blank reviewed for the commission where snowmobil.ng is allowed
in Plymouth based on a question from .john Mullan.
David Berg was concerned about how the commission's actions affect the
residents of Plymouth., particu,!rly in the case of acquiring private
land for use as a park. He asked if the Council, always accepts all
of PRAC's recommendations regardless of who they might impact. Chairman
Rice responded that the Council does not always adopt every PRAC
recommendation, but. that they do give much respect to the long hours
put into projects by the various advisory boards.
Following these comments and questions, the vote was taken and the
7ation, carried with. all ayes.
b. Playlield Update. Director Blank reviewed the status of all playfield.
construction to date, and noted that it was anticipated that the skating
rink, pleasure -rink and.shelter at Zachary Playfield would be open
by mid-January.
C. Elm Creek Golf Course. Director Blank reviewed the contents of a memo
he wrote to PRAC dated December 31, 1981. fie. • indicated that the City
was not in a position at this time to undertake the purchase of Elm
Creek Golf Course because of the projected deficit. of $100,000 to
150,00'0 annually in bond and interest debt payments. The Conunission
accepted his recommendation and took.no further action. Director
Blank did. recommend that when the Commission annually reviews the
Comprehensive System Plan, which he expects will be done: again as
early as August or September of 1982, that the Commission_ should look
at identifying future golf courses for public ownership.
City Park: Concept Plans.. John Worrall presented the concept plans
for West Medicine Lake Park. This was an information -item only.
Park and Recx?,ation Advisory Commission members asked a variety of
questions dealing with,the size of parking lots, road relocation,.
trail locations and containment or dredging of soil to create a
ponding area. This item will be further discussed and reviewed at
subsequent PRAC meetings.
1981 Annual Report, Director Blank handed out draft copies of the
1981 Annual Report for Commission review. Upon paging through the
report very quickly, a number of suggestio-as were made by FRAC
for staff review. One was the inclusion of pie charts to show the
PRAC'Minutes of January 7, 1982.
Page 4
distribution of revenues and funds for the department, also charts to
depict expenditures per capita., the percentage of Cit} budget, source
of revenue, and charts to show youth athletic participation. Commission
members will take their reports home and indi,ridually review and send.
comments to the director :for inclusion in the final draft.
C. NEW BUSINESS
a. New Plats. No new plats were presented.
b. Phone Survey. Director Blank handed out the preliminary results from the
Telephone survey showing attitudes. and interests of Plymouth residents,.
General discussion of this material followed. Chairman Rice asked that
staff research the passibility of cross tabbing questions 32 and 33
by age and location. The Commission was also interested in learning
if there was a different response from long-term versus short-term,
residents of the community,
c. Director Blank reviewed ice rink reservation rules and charts showing
which groups have reserved ice time for the winter season..
7 COMISSICN PRESENTATION
Mone.
B'. STAFF CONHUNICATION
None:,
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10.15 p.m.
PRAC Minutes of January 7, 1982.
Page 4
distribution of revenues and funds for the department, also charts to
depict expenditures per capita, the percentage ofCity budget, source
of revenue, and charts. to show youth athletic participation. Commission
members will take their reports home and individually review and send
comments to the director for inclusion in the final draft.
5. NEW BUSINESS
a. New Plats No new plats were presented.
b. Phone Survey. Director Blank handed out the preliminary results from the
telephone survey showing attitudes and interests of Plymouth residents..
General discussion of this material followed, Chairman Rice asked that
staff research the possibility of cross tabbing questions 32 and 33
by age and location. The Commission was also interested in learning
if there was a different response from long-term versus short-term
residents of the community.
c., Director Blank reviewed ice rink reservation rules and chart`' showing
which groups have reserved ice time for the winter season.
7. COMMISSION' PRESENTATION
None,
8. STAFF CONtIUNICATION
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.
CITY CSF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNF-80TA 55441
TELEPHONE, (612) 559-2800
MEM
DATE; January 29, 1982
TO PRAC
FROM. Eric Blank
SUBJECT., Plymouth Site Volunteered for Hazardous Waste Processing Facility
Steve Chesebrougli suggest--d that we discuss the attached information.
at our February meeting. Z will attempt 4o have further information
available by thee.
lnh
Att;
r
IMPORTANT
SPECIAL, PUBLIC MEETING—Thursday, January 21, 1982,
Armstrong High School --Auditorium, 10635 --36th Ave. N.
Between County Rd. 18 and lachary Lane on 36th Ave. N'.
7:30 P.M.
t+DRTM Plymouth W -22-8t
volunteered site)
Maple Grove
Medicine Lake
HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING
Piymou'ch Site Volunteered For Hazardous
1.111'aste Processing Facility!
A BURNING ISSUE that Will Affect. You!
FLAMMABLE socio
I/
A
Nt: A4
POISON
We can label it:; We can legislate it—but can we control it incur
densely populated communities?
Experts say --Not Likely
r Minnesota Waste Management Board says—Plymouth is
the only volunteered site of the remaining 17 sites in
Minnesota.
Anchor Industries says= -Trust us, Give us more time.
CLEAN says Protect your interests --Now is the time for
action.
The Minnesota Waste Management Board (WMB) has selected 17 proposed hazardous waste
sites for the state. Our Plymouth site is the ONLY "volunteered" site remaining and the ONLY
site in Hennepin County,
The Plymouth site was "volunteered" by Anchor Industries as an incineration, transfer/storage
and chemical processing facility. There is a GREAT possibility that this site will be chosen for
the Final Inventory of Preferred Sites due in February or March 1982..
Statements made by an international expert in. the field of hazardous waste management
showed that Plymouth does not meet the criteria established by the WMB, Furthermore, the
Top Ten Most Hazardous Waste Sites in the USA have followedEPA and state guidelines and
stili have contaminated air and local drinking water, supplies.
Our community's environmental and health concerns are: Pollution of air, drinking water,
recreational waters, parks, wildlife, extreme fire danger from volatile liquids or chemicals and
dangerous chemical truck transporting.
Protect your interestsi
Learn more orxbecome involved by attending; a special publi; meeting Thuraday, January 21,
7:30 P.M. at P1y"10TIY'fMIty""Wil.
CLEAN—(Community League for Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc.)
5020 Forestview Lane • Plymouth, MN 55442
Phone 559-1642, 559-4479, or 559-2492
CIT` OF PLYMOUTH,
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
TELEPHONE (612) 553-2800
February 1
1982MEMO
TO PPA
FROM, Eric Blank
SUBJECT: Hazardous Waste Site
Attached is additional information for Agenda Item 6. e. on the
Hazardous Waste Site.
nh «
CITY" OF PLYMOUTH
3400 PLYMOUTH BLVD., PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55441
TELEPHONE (612) '559-2800
J M G
DATE: January 29, 1482
T0: Mayor City Council
FR0FA James G. Willis, City Manager
SUBJECT, HAZARD01jS MMEpWCESSING FACILITY STATUS REPORT
Sumna ' The Hearing Examiner's report on the suitability of the
Aglite site has been received. 11be report recommends that the Aglite
site be included in the Waste Management Board's inventory of
preferred sites. We have also received a letter from the Chairman of
the Waste Management. Board inviting us to appointment an individual
and an alternate to represent Plymouth on a "Citizens Task Force", the
purpose of which is to serve as a link between the Board and the local
cce munities.
Can January 26 we received a copy of Hearing Examiner Alan Nettles' report: on the public hearing held at the Plymouth City Center on
November 9. The hearing examiner notes that his report is a
reocmnendation to the Waste Management Board and that the. Board alone
will make the final decision with respect to the establishment of an
inventory of preferred sites. Nonetheless, the hearing examiner has
that the Aglite site b,e included; within the Waste.
Management Board's inventory of pret.,xred sites for hazardous waste
processing, incineration and/or a transfer and . age facility. The
t irxj examiner's x>tport will now be reviewed by the waste ManagementBoardanditsstaffinconjunctionwithalltheotherhearingexaminer
reports coming from the numerous public hearings held during the
latter part of 1981. Tht Waste Management Board following its review
will establish its own inventory of preferred sites.
be rite Msnagenent Hoard has recently established a "Citizens Task
paroe", which is to include representatives of those areas under
active consideration for inclusion on the preferred site inventory
lista The Task Force is designed to serve as a link between the Boar
and the ,local cam pities. Given the wide distribution of Task Force
I am oonfident that it will also serve as a means of
r
M Hazardous Wkeste Processing Facility
January 29 1982
Page Two
sensitizing* respect ae task rianbe to the points of view of other
ndi6 cels who are oonc ernec about hazardous waste practices proposed
in their own areas. individuals appointed to this task force can
nticipate a substantial time ocmnitnent and it is important
therefore, that any individual appointed by the Council be fully aware
tj-,at a substantial amount of their time could be required to carry out
the task force responsibilities, ass well as communicating with the
city Council. Clouncilm ether `T'hreinen has indicated that vne of the
i,* bers of CLEAN, Gay Varerka, would be an ideal individual if
considered as a task force member.
Prior to the meeting Monday ev ening, mayor Davenport Councibtie—rber
Threinen and I will be meeting with representatives of CLEAN andthe
Waste Management Boards to Further discuss the status of the Herd's
consideration of the Aglite site, as well as matters dealing with the
siting proce8sing yet to be followed by the Board:. We will be in the
position to report verbally cn this meeting to the full Council Monday
evening.
Also arttached to this. my are other iters which the Council may wish
to review before our meeting mmday evening. First, is a copy of the
City's position. statement which was read into the records at the
public hearing by Gerry Neils. Second, are several pieces of
correspondence which we have been provided by CLEAN. Their
correspondence is with various parties interested ir, the hazardous
waste siting process and indicates the depth and scope of their
Cf.'mititment thein concern about the suitability of t_he. Aglite site.
JGW: jM
attach
STATE OF MINNESOTA
WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
23 TH,ORSON BUILDING
7323 58TH AVENUE NORTH
CRYSTAL, MINNESOTA 55428
January 20, 1982
The Honorable David: Davenport
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
Dear Mayor Davenport;
ROBERT'G DUNN
CHAIRMAN
TELEPHONE
ME"RO ARES t612 535 0816
OUTSTATE 1,800.652,9747
On January 14 the Minnesota Waste Management Board decided to establish a specialCitizens' Task Force" that will serve as a link between the Board and local communi-
ties on issues concerning hazardous waste management in Minnesota. The Task Force
will include representatives of 20 "proposed candidate areas" in 12 Minnesota Counties
now under consideration by the Board as possible hazardous waste disposal sites, In
addition, it will include residents from 17 areas in or near 14 Minnesota communities,
proposed by the Board as "preferred areas" for hazardous waste processing facilities.
We are ,writing to request that the Plymouth City Council appoint one Task Force member
and one alternate to represent the community of Plymouth, which includes an area pro-
posed by the Board as a "preferred area" for hazardous waste processing facilities. The
boundaries for that area are as follows: approximately 250 acres owned by the AgLite
Company, west of Interstate 494 between County Roads 9 and 10.
The Cltizons' Task Force willbecome an important group who will interact with the
Waste Management Board as they continue the process of siting hazardous waste facili-
ties in Minnesota and in developing a comprehensive state hazardous waste management
plan. Task Force members will be asked to act as leaders of the Local communities in
the siting process, conveying the views and terns of citizens to the `Taste Manage- ment Board and serving as sources of information for residents in or near the proposed
siting areas.
Task Force members will be asked to attend as many meetings of the Waste Management
Board as possible, from the time they are appointed in early February until the appoint-
ment, in July, of "Local Project Review Committees" in each of the six candidate disposal
sites, to be selected by the Board in June in accordance with state law. When the Local
Project Review Committees are formed the Citizens" Task Force will dissolve. It is
hoped that -in addition to attending and participating In regular Waste Management
Board meetings.—Task Force members will help arrange for and participate in periodic
public meetings within the siting area communities and will keep local residents informed
on the work of the Board and ascertain their views, on hazardous .-caste management
Issues.
In thein activities and deliberations the members of the Task Force will be assisted by
the staff and resources of the Waste Management Board. Board members and staff wild,
at the request of Task. Force members, attend as many local meetings as possible.
The Task Force will begin its activities with, a special two-day seminar, February 18 and
19 at the Minnesota Department of Transportation Training Center at Arden Hills. That
DOARD MEMBERS: DIST11OCT 1
0{STRICT 2
D15TRICT 3
DISTRICT A
LAUAENCE HUNTER. HoNinps
KEITH KUITERS. Grit Grove
WKUAM K1111CHNER, RkfMMid
MILTON KNOLL JR. WM@ Dow lake
DISTRICT S LOUISE KUDERLING, MMOSPOW
DISTRK;T 6 THOMAS RENNER. Elk Rover
DISTRICT T ALLAN EOE, H 1N"q@
DISTRICT B DAVID HARTLEY, HeMsintOwn
Mayor Davenport
Page 2
January 20, 19$2 .._
seminar, and other Taste Force seminars to follow in the. coming weeks, will discuss a
variety of topics and issues related to hazardous waste mons gement, including;
The 1980: Waste Management Act;
The Waste Management Board's development of a comprehensive Minnesota
Hazardous Waste Management Plan;
The two siting processes now being conducted by the Board;
klazordosos waste management activities in other states and nations; and
Such siting issues as ficbility for hazardous waste facilities and the feasibil-
ity of above- or below- ground storage of hazardous wastes..
All Task Force representatives and alternates will be invited to opening seminar February
IS and 19. Following that date the oppoinied representative for each area --or the alternate
acting on his or her bPholf--will be asked to attend Waste Management Board meetings.
Each Task Force rrnember will be reimbursed by the Waste Management Board =or ex-
penses incurred in serving on the Task Force, including mileage, meals, and lodging.
State statute does not allow the Board to pay "per diem" salaries to Task Force members.
For each of the 20 tQproposed candidate ureas" for hazordous waste disposal sites, the
Waste Management Board is requesting the County Boards of the 12 affected counties
to appoint a Task Force member and alternate.
Eleven of the seventeen proposed areas for hazardous waste processing facilities include
parts of bath municipalities and townships. The Waste Management Board is requesting
each County Board concerned with those areas to appoint a Task Force member and
alternate who will represent both the town and township. The other six areas proposed
as "preferred areas" for hazardous waste processing focilitiess however, lie entirely
within municipalities: in those instances City Councils are being asked to appoint the
Task Force representatives. For each community with more than one proposed hazardous
waste processing facility area, the Board hes asked that one Task Force representative
and one alternate be appointed to represent that community.
The members of the Waste Management Board are confident that the Task Force will
oddress the hazardous waste issue comprehensively and effectively. The Task Force
will serve as a tool to foster dialogues and cooperation among the various proposed siting
areas, and to help fGcilitate further public involvement in the work of the Waste Manage-
ment Board.
Please respond iro the Bocrd with your appointments by Friday, February S. If you have
further questicx s or need additional information, please contact Tom Johnson, the Assis-
tant to the Board Chairman. Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
the Waste Manogement Board,
rt G. Dunn
Chairman
RGDsm
cc: Patricia Hoyt
Virgil Schneider.
G. H. Neils
M
STATE OF MINNESOTA -
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE MINNESOTA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
WMB42-010-AN
In the Matter of the Proposed Finditags of Fact, Conclusions, Recommendations,
Hazardous Waste Processing Facility and Memorandum
Area in the City of. Plymouth
The above -entitled matter came on for hearing before Alan R. Nettles, Hearing Examiner,
on: November 9, 1961 at the Plyattorath, City Hall at 1:03 p.m. and 7x00 p.m. LeRoy Paddock,
Esq., Special Assis'ant Attorney Gcnerxi, 1935 West County Road B2, Roseville, Minnesota 55113.
and Sharon Decker, Project Manager, Waste Management Board, 123 Thorson Building, 7323 58th
Avenue North, Crystal, Minnesota appeared on behalf of the State of Mirresots Waste Management.
Board (hereinafter NMB). Appearances by members of the public are recorded in the Transcript
of the Hearing and included statements by the following public officialft; Gerald Neils, acting
Mayor, City of Plymouth, Howard Hunt,, former Mayor city of Plymouth, David Crain, Plymouth
Board of Zoning Appeals and James Rimstad, Minnesota Senate.. The record closed December 8, 1981.
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that this report includes a number of recommendations based upon
facts elicited at the public hearing. it Is not a final decision. The 'WMB will make the final decision
to include or eliminate this proposed site from its inventory of preferred sites after a comparative
review of similar reports on other potential preferred sites throughout the State of Minnesota.
Even inclusion within the Inventory of preferred sites dots rot constitute a final decision that a
hazardous waste facility of any type will be located within the proposed area, because issues re-
lated to specific plans or facility design must be resolved prior to the operation of any facility.
Perscns interested in +pie procedures to be followed by the WMB may contact Special Assistant,
Attorney General, LeRoy Paddock at (612) 296-7726.
ISSUE
ether the proposed area located within the City of Plymouth, Minnesota and more specifically
described ass
An area of approximately 250 acres located in the central part of Plymouth west of
Interstate 494, south of Mud Lake, and east and southeast of Pomerleau Lake. The
property is owned by Anchor bndustrive and InckkW their Aglite Facility.
should be considered for inclusion within the inventory of preferred areas as a location for a
huwdmA waste processing, incineration and/or transfer and storage f kellity.,
Based, upon the proceedings herein, the Hearing Examiner makes -the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
T'sat between Deceiitt4er and April of 1981, the WMB held 8 citizen participation, meetings
regarding the siting of hazardous waste facilities throughout the state, including the Hennepin
County region. in addition, the WMR Circulated and. evaluated citizen questionaires to determine
local attitudes and local concerns regarding hazardous waste facilities (WMB Exhibit G). The WNIB
a also sought the views and advice of representatives of state agencies, industries and waste management
firms on siting criteria.
2. That the WhIB solicited the volunteering of hazardous waste facility sites. (11; S Exhibits
J, K)
3. That the W b1B staff prcposed the area involved herein for inclusion in the inventory of preferred
areas on September 11, 1981. (WMB Exhibit 1`F)•
4. That notice of the proposal for inclusion in the inventory was published on October 19, 1981
in the State R ister. Notice of the hearing was also published in the Minneapoilis Tribune on
October 22, 1981, in the New Hope -Plymouth Post and North Hennepin Post-Robbinsdale on October
22, 1981; in Finance end Commerce on October 22, 1981 On October 16, 1981 a news release was
mailed by the WMB to the Edina Sun, ABCNewspapers, Post Publications, Skyway News, KUaL
AM), KRSI (AM -FM) and WCCO (AM -FM) and TV, several other stations and to local officials in
the affected and surrounding communities. (Y'NIB Exhibits FF, JJ, HH, KK)
S. That the Hearing Examiner viewed the proposed area before the hearing on November 12,,
1981 with LeRoy Paddock, Esq., Ms. Sharon Decker, Allan Gebhardt, Barr Engineering and Daniel
Hoklas, Anchor Industries.
6. That as required by Minn. Stat. 5 115A.09, Subd. 2 the follow-iteris were addressed when
evaluating the suitability of the area as a potential hazardot s waste pro t'-.%.ing facility site:
A) Would siting at the area be conA:tent with:
1) siting requirements found in easing state and federal regulations?
ti) existing local lend use and land use controls?
fio the protection of agriculture and natural resources?
B) What effect would the siting have on existing and future development patterns?
C) Are transportation and *they services appropriate to hazardous waste facilities available?
D) What need exists for a hazardous waste facility in this area and where are the waste
generators:lmatsd In relation to it?
7. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. g 115A.09, li" 2, the WMB must, 3n addition to the aforesaid criteria,
compare the quality of this site to the quality of other potential sites.
Z-
8. State and. Federal Regulations.
All land within a 100 year flood plain, protected wetlands as identified by the Department
of Natural Resources, and all land that is shoreland was eliminated from consideration prior to
the WMB's proposal to include the Coon Rapids site in the preferred site inventory. The WMB definitions
of hazardous waste and waste processing ere basically consistent with federal regulation.
9. Local Land Use and Land Use Controls.
The site is made up of land zoned industrial or future restricted development (?RD). The.
city land use regulations: and zoning regulations allow for industrial districts. FRD districts permit
future residential and non-residential urban type uses. For areas not having city water and sewer
available, a variance must be secured and the regulations require the petitioner to demonstrate
that no unreasonable burden on the city's ability to provide services or deleterious impact on the
natural environment will result. The type of development allowed is any manufacturing, production,
processing, cleaning, storage, servicing, repair or testing of material, goods or products that is
wholly contained within a building and meets and maintains Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
standards. Conditional use permits can be obtained for permitted or accessory industrial uses,
including the storage of materials, products or vehicles, not contained within a building. (t NIS
Exhibit P-6)
10. Protection of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
A. Soils Conditions
The proposed area has a wide variety of soils types. Both north and south of the Soo Line
Railroad tracks, which roughly bisect the proposed area, most of the area is covered with Hayden
clay loam and Hamel and Nessel loams, which have clay and clay loam materials present within
them. These soils have low permeability properties. The exception to these soils conditions is
in the northwest corner of Section 10 where some organic soils and a gravel pit are present. It
is unknown whether the `ravel pit has clay soils beneath it. The topography is comprised of many
short elopes and the surface water drainage is to the west and southeast where Manic soils are
present.. 7Aare is evidence of limestone present in the soil of the proposed site. The proposed
area is of generally higher elevation than the surrounding areas. (WUB Exhibit R, Anchor Exhibit
N)
B. _Aquifer/ Municiyal Water Supply/water Qualitd UWndards
There is no municipal water supply in the area. A well lag for that portion of the area upon
which the Aglite Facility has been located indicates clay at the anrface and that the well taps a
bodiroek water supply approximately 100 feet below the surface in the Prairie du. Chien level• (Anchor
Exhibit 8). The area includes two unprotected wetlands which are likely to become flooded seasonally
3M -
J
1
I
a
or following,storms and are of significant size: Icing T and N acres. A portion of Bass Greek Inter-
sects the site and a marsh exists within the area. (Public Exhibit U laud Lake, Basi Lake, Schmidt
Lake, Pomerleau Lake and Turtle Iake are afi) located within appro imatalg t'100 to 7,000 fest.
of the boundaries. of the proposed area. The shoreland of Pomerleau Lake $ within the northwest
corner, of the site. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shoreland regulations (Minn Rei
N R 81) defines shoreland as land within 1.000 feet of a lake or within 300 feet of a stream. Protected
wetlands exist within approximately $00 feet Of the site, lying just east of Interstate 494 (W.NIB
Exhibit R, Anchor Exhibit 10,
C. Air Qualit
The area is located within an area which is designated as a non -attainment area for total
suspended particulates (TSP), Sulfur Dioxin (SO2). and Carbon Monoxide (GOi Any new source
of emissions would be subject to the off -set rule, and would have to comply with the USFP A Pre-
vention of Significant Deterioration Rules. Because an air emissions facility has been operated
historically 8t the volunteered site pursuant. to an MPGA permit. "off -sets" are available to be
used. The prevailing wind currents over, the area are from the northwest at an average spelt
lo.5 miles per hour. T;.e proposed area is generally west-northwest of the major population L
In the, Twin City Metropolitan arpa. (Anchor Exhibit 13, Public Exhibit 11)
D. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Soils -Aquifer implications Analysis
White the clay texture of the subsoil appears to have natural properties to help mitigate: the
effect of accidental spills and lsachh4 through slow percolation and attenuation of contaminants,
control of runoff to protectedand unprotected wetlands is an important coneern. (WMB' Exhibit
R)
Existing and Future Development Patterns.
All land zoned and planned for residential use as of July L 1961 was Ominated from consideration
prior to the Waste Management Board's proposal to include the Illymouth site in the preferred site
nirssntory. (WKS zxwt as)
The City of Plymouth has been one of the wroat rapidly growing population centers in the.
Metropolitan sm. The city and its' rosidents have a; legi
x
proposed preferred site include 'a golf course, a, junk yard and a septic tank. manufacturer! There
are also a number of midential projects existing orplanaed by Privato entrepreneurs within a mile
to two miles from the site. A'140 family residential development has been approved by the city
for an area about one mile east of the Site, ;Industrial zoning currently covers about 10%, of the
total area, but. covers About two-thirds of the portion represented by Anchor Industries as the area
most likely to be developed for hazardous waste, pmeessing, incineration, tranJrfer or storage.,
Southwest of the site, a residential planned unit has been sorted, but is not complete.. (Anchor
Exhibit 14, Public Exhibit 16)
17:. Vansportation and Services Appropriate to iiazardo4s Waste Facilities,
The. proposed area is adjacent,, but without direct access to, Interstate 494 which has an average
daily 'traffic of 73,000 vRhicles (north and south) and is classified as a primrry arterial highway.
The- accident rate on 494 is 3.5 accidents per million vehicle miles which is less than the statewide.
average of 4.2 accidents. Approximately one-half milt south of the site, County Road 9 which
is a minor arterial highway, crosses 494, East of 454, the average daily traffic on County Road
9 is 9,000 to 9,000 vehicles per day, but drops to 3,500 vehicles per day west of 494. A. collector
highway, County P oad 47, is 'located about one mile north of the site. It crosses under 494 and
has no access to it, Also north of the site is County Road 10, !lass Lake Road, a minor arterial high-
way. All the county roads have 10 tont spring weight .load limits. The seasonal Aglite shipping which
has been carried on at tht proposed site has been primarily across 494, County Road 9 and West
Medicine Lake. Road. Tho location of the Mzardous waste facility on: the, proposed oite could require
the upgtad6* of access into the site itself by either installing a full or partial interchange to 494
at 49th Avinue. North, a frontage road west of 494 from County Road 10 or from County Road
9 or completion of proposed County Highway 61 between County Roads 9 and 10 on the cast side
of 464 (Anchor Exhibit. 7,14
The area is afro serviced by the Soo Lha* main track which bisects the proposed area, north
of existing Agl to facility. Thttraek in that section is rated as sate for freight at ipeods Of 60
wiles per hour. (LIMB Exhibit V, Anchor Exhibit 11. The City of Plymouth hes a (ire insurance
tratieg of L The city is Serviced by the Pigs Eye tewsp Tteatsaent. Plant in st. Paul. There are
M KPCA permitted sanitary land fill sitar within 26 MUSSofthe propasd area which n ny be able
to accept certain types of residues from the various treatment processes contemplated. (WNIB
Exhibit R)
M rogation of Hasardoo Waste t3anee tora.
That the 7 +county M tmeapOVa-dt. Paul Metropolitan area generates approximately eighty-
five thousand (85,000) tons of potentially hazardous waste annually. (WMB Exhibit C)
i-
h. . duality of Other Potential Areas:
At the date hereof, no other reports from othtr<proposed sitar are available, thus making
comparison to other sites impossible in thin report. Ultimately, the. Hoard mutt compare, the various
sites, which are proposed foe inclusion In the inventory of preferred areas,
13. "'That the WMR also eorWdered the fallowing factors in determining whether any` particular
site be proposed for consideration for inclusion in the preferred site inventory, natural heritage
sad archeological sites, local attitude toward industrial development, and, in: the case of Volunteered
sites, the Uklihood that a volunteered sit* would be developed.
16. Natural lieritaee and Areheolecical Sites.
here arc no listed prehistoric archeologiceel sites or structures on the National Register
of Historic Places located within the proposed site. (WMB Exhibit T).
Z?, Local Attitude TowardIndustrial Development.
The local attitude toward industrial development of the hazardous waste processing; t}ape
is very negative. The comments of the various members, of the public are too numerous and lengthy
to recite In this Report, but: may be reviewed in the transcript of the hearing and. In Public Exhibits
I through 27: Generally, the comments fall within the following ar tast
a) hazardous wastes are o." unknown toxicity to humans and therefore should be processed
at a sate distance from: population centers (Public Exhibit 18)
b) the proposed area is steep and has adjacent wetlands which would make it impossible
to eeontrol waste spillage run off in a storm-
c) that the. volunteers Anchor Industries, is associated with the Aglite Facility and Aglite
is perceived to have had a poor air pollution compliance record (Public Exhibit 3)-
d) that accidental spills and emissions occur despite compliance standards (Public Exhibit
1,94
e) that public expenditure for environmental eantrois and eontroling agencies such as the
MpCA, (night be cut back and Um provide lea regulatory supererfsioni
f) that the proposed ares will become a regional facility that will process waste; from
other communities and that that would be, unfair to the eftisens of Plymouth;
g) That the values of existing and ;future housliq will be diminished due to the proximity
of the hazardous waste facility whieh'may emit unplaasant odors and be visually unattraca
tiva;
k) that the proposed site was Fret included as a result of a ft'Wutar search conducted
by the Waste Management Board to identify potential areas and is therefore being selected
on the basis of different criteria from other, non -volunteered, sites,
4-
T
f
a
it that not enough study of the potential risks to the environment and human health have
been made rMarding the proposed area.
Ut, Liklihood that a Volunteered Site will be Developed;
It is likely that Anchor LAduatries. Kill proceed with the necessary plans and permit applications
to develop at least a portion of this site for, hazardous waste processing, incineration and/or transfer
and storage. The portion on which Anchor Industries would most probably recommend for actual
construction of a hazardous waste facility isthe approximate site of the present Aglite flacllity
19. That no; alternative site was proposed by, the county.
Based on the foregoirq Findings of Fact,, the, bearing Examiner makes the following
CONCLUSIONS
1. Pursuant to 1981 Minn. haws, Ch., 352, S 10 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. S 115A.09), this
hearing, is neither a rulemaking proceeding nor a contested ease proceeding. The hearing did afford
all interested persons an opportunity to ask quutions, testify, and present evidence on the subject
matter.
2: The Minnesota Pollution Vontrol Agency fulfilled its statutory obligation, pursuant
to 1981 Minn. Laws, Ch. 352, 110 (to be codified as Minn. Stat, S 115,A.09, Subd. 2), by preparing
a suitability report on the proposed hazardous waste processirg facility area in Plymouth,,
I The Minnesota Waste, Management Board has eomprmd with all requirements of substan-
tiae and procedural law, The Minnesota Waste Management Board and the Hearing, Examiner have
jurisdiction in this matter,
4. Any of the foregoing Conclusions which should be more properly deemed Findings, or
any of the foregoi:V Findings which should be more properly deemed Conclusions, are hereby* adopted
as such;
Bared upon the foregoing Findings of Fast and Com"04k the Hearing Examiner makes
the following.
RECOMMEh_ "DA71ONS'
L That the propose area daeuibed as;
An area of approximately 250 serer located in aha aentral part of Plymouth Meat of
interstate ill, Lauth of Mad Laka„ and east and southeast of Pomarlaau Lake, The
property i8 owmd by Anchor k0ustries and includes their Aglita: Facility.
int eonsidared far inchWen in: the iiwwtarlt Of preferred ayes for the iooation of a 1103erd"d waste
chemical pr geembW (wilily, a Aasardowr waste inekwration facility and a hazardous waste storage
and trwdar facllity.,
f
a
it that not enough study of the potential risks to the environment and human health have
been made rMarding the proposed area.
Ut, Liklihood that a Volunteered Site will be Developed;
It is likely that Anchor LAduatries. Kill proceed with the necessary plans and permit applications
to develop at least a portion of this site for, hazardous waste processing, incineration and/or transfer
and storage. The portion on which Anchor Industries would most probably recommend for actual
construction of a hazardous waste facility isthe approximate site of the present Aglite flacllity
19. That no; alternative site was proposed by, the county.
Based on the foregoirq Findings of Fact,, the, bearing Examiner makes the following
CONCLUSIONS
1. Pursuant to 1981 Minn. haws, Ch., 352, S 10 (to be codified as Minn. Stat. S 115A.09), this
hearing, is neither a rulemaking proceeding nor a contested ease proceeding. The hearing did afford
all interested persons an opportunity to ask quutions, testify, and present evidence on the subject
matter.
2: The Minnesota Pollution Vontrol Agency fulfilled its statutory obligation, pursuant
to 1981 Minn. Laws, Ch. 352, 110 (to be codified as Minn. Stat, S 115,A.09, Subd. 2), by preparing
a suitability report on the proposed hazardous waste processirg facility area in Plymouth,,
I The Minnesota Waste, Management Board has eomprmd with all requirements of substan-
tiae and procedural law, The Minnesota Waste Management Board and the Hearing, Examiner have
jurisdiction in this matter,
4. Any of the foregoing Conclusions which should be more properly deemed Findings, or
any of the foregoi:V Findings which should be more properly deemed Conclusions, are hereby* adopted
as such;
Bared upon the foregoing Findings of Fast and Com"04k the Hearing Examiner makes
the following.
RECOMMEh_ "DA71ONS'
L That the propose area daeuibed as;
An area of approximately 250 serer located in aha aentral part of Plymouth Meat of
interstate ill, Lauth of Mad Laka„ and east and southeast of Pomarlaau Lake, The
property i8 owmd by Anchor k0ustries and includes their Aglita: Facility.
int eonsidared far inchWen in: the iiwwtarlt Of preferred ayes for the iooation of a 1103erd"d waste
chemical pr geembW (wilily, a Aasardowr waste inekwration facility and a hazardous waste storage
and trwdar facllity.,
4
i
wxnw •a`+k`w a rz..
S. 4
2;. That When the Minnesota Waste Management Board considers including the'proposed.
area in Plymouth in the final preferredarea inventory. the Waste Management Board should. consider
the following factorst
a) -'tw proximity of population centers to the proposed area and surrounding the transpor-
tation routes servicing tate; areal
b) Thr prevalent northwest wind and population centers downwind from the: site;
c) The non -attainment status of the are in respect td certain air pollutants',
d) Toe problems, caused by runoff In case of storms,
a) The presence of limestone deposits in the solll
f) The local. ordinances restricting the type and characteristics of industrial operations
within the eltyl
g) The; proximity of protected wetlands, marsh, creeks and recreatio!asIty-used lakes to
the area-,
h) The possibility of leakage, spills and accidents regardless of design and regulatory safe-
guards,,
ii The possibility of unknown toxic effects of the chemical' waste which might be processed
or produced at such facility,,
j) The naturally mitigative and low permtobility p;rperties of the clay soil in the area;
k) The probable to allabillty of air pollution ",qff-sets" for facility located at the site;
1) The probability that Anchor Industries, will proceed to develop plans and seek permits
necessary to locate: &,hazardous waste processing plant on the site-
m) The historic use of tt`e site for industrial purposes s1wee 1959.
1: It is further recommended that the Waste Management Board reduce the Area of the
proposed site by eliminating therefrom, unprotected wetlands. and that portion of the proposed site
which is in within 1,000 feet of the shoreline of Vomerleau Lake.
Dated thisA.ZiR`rday of January, 1912. c
n ett as
Bearing Examiner
NOTICE
Minn. Stat. Ch. 15 and I MCAR S 2.215 C do not govern this proceeding. Therefore the WMp
is not required to serve its final decision on the Bearing Examiner. However, the: Board is respect-
fully requested to do so.
A
i`
Ilk MEMORANDUM
slim Slat. 116A.03 Cl1) dafines Maardous Waste as .. any refuse: or discarded material or
combinations of refuse or discarded materials in solid,, semi-solid, liquid or gaseous form which
cannot be handled by routine waste management techniques because; they pose a substantial present
or potential haaard to human. health or other living organisms because of their chemical, biological
or physical properties. Categories of hazardous. waste materials include, but are not limited to.
Explosives, flsmtnables, oxidisers, poisons, irritants,, and corrosives.: Hazardous waste does not
include sewage sludge: and sotarce, special nuclear, or by-product material as: defined by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1951, as amended.
In Minnesota, approximately 123,000 tons of potetzdally, hazardous waste is ii'.Wnerated each
year, of the total tons generated, an estimated 15,000 ton; (66%) per year Of Potentially hazardous.
waste ren be identified as being,generated in the Minneapolis -St, Paul metropolitan area alone.
Approximately e6% of this is waste oil, with, over half of the waste oil generated by motor vehicle
maintenance. The second largest category is miscellaneous chemical sludge (11% of theidentified
total). lion -combustible pesticide containers (plus container rinsate) equals about L3% of the hazardous
waste stream in the metropolitan area.
Even in the 80 counties outside the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan ataa, an estimated
43,000 tons (34% of the State's total) are generated each year. As in the case; In the metropolitan
area, generation ouUtate is dominated by waste oil, which represents 47% ^f'the total. Miscellaneous.
chemical sludge is the next highest total (Yl%), followed by non-combustible pesticide containers
plus eontainer rinsate) (about 18%) and than solvents (1596).
Aftwding to a report entitled, "liazardmw Waste. ManapMont: Minnesota's WuesfOptions"
W,yB Far, C), approximately 57% (73,600 tons)of the total has &-is wasteenerated annuallyY I,
in Minnesota is disposed of €slroug4+, enviranmentallyt tnn aund methods. Hasardous wastes are likely
disposed. of In publiely- owned unitary sewer systems, sanitary landfills or unwsigulaeed land. disposal
@its& no unregulated dispels) of hazardous waste into them throe a wre" sanies in obvious:
and signifiorant human and enrironsaental risk.
Ila1960 Hinneeots Legislature,, aware that the indiscriminate and unregulated disposal of
hazardous waste pceft a potential threat to the public health and natural rew react, enacted the
insets. K&ft-rmwct Act, Mitre. Stat. Ch U5A. Under the Acta a Waste Manmip.ment Board was
emoted and (mandated by law to prepare an inventory of "Preferred areas" for commercial hazardous
caste processing facilities. `nus inventory must include at just three areas for a chemical process4
facility, 1 161 incineration facility and a transfer and storage facility.,, *lone of the preferred
inventa[y arts will be. developed by the state rovarnment, )instead, any preferred area must be
rdevdoped by private industry. The inventory of preferredat*" is; a first step In encouraging de.
velapment of processing facilitles. which we 1mg overdue to help manage the state's hazardous
waste problem.
The VMS's Criteria.
Under the waste Managamant Act, the: Board is . P . "scot required to promulgate rules pursuant
to Chapter 16 to govern its evaluation and, selection of araAe for the Inventory of preferred. areas.:
1981 ldinnP Laws, M 3521 110 (to be codified as Minn, Stat, § l)SA.04, subd. 2, requires the Board
to consider at least the following factors`,:
l'he consistency ofareas with state and federal regulations, local land use and land usecontrols, the protection of agriculture and natural resources, existing and future developmentpattam, .,41risportation and other, services appraf+ritte to the, hazardous waste facilities,
the cluslit,; of other pottlitial areas, and the location of hazardous waste generators,,"
Before com\,qencing its search for preferred areas, the Board held a series of public meetings
throng wt the Stag: to allow citizens to suggest to the Board what factors should be used in ldcntifying
areas for the preferred area inventory. Based on the information received at those meetings, the
requirements in the act and: technical input, the Board devised very general criteria. The criteria
developed by the board, in very general terms, were the processing ffoilities should be (I) near
the source of generation of hazardous waste, (2) on or near safe transportation routes, (3) located
in a manner to, protect water quality (i.e., avoid wetlands, skoreland' areas and areas having a sustained
Yield of surf icial deposits greater than 800 gallons per minute), and: (t) compatible with existing
1. A hazardous waste chemical processing facility separates the unusable portims and contaminants
from the usable portions of certain types of hazard" waste ((such as solvents, oils and volatile
organics), Through such chemical proeeases asextraction, separation and purificat'lon, some
valuable aomponenta of hazardous waste can be recovered and reintroduced into the market -
piece. Any aharaioai pr__ng *par tion will tikety ranerate by-products and waste, residues,
which will require some form of additional treatment and disposal (further Incineration or
burial at a regulated land fill after detoxifieatisnl,
1lazardroua waste Imbi gyration swolvar tM Wo temperatcxe Zonvaetion of hydrooarbonr-hayed
hazardous waste to harmless by-oroducts such as oartion dioxide, steam, and ;eon -toxic ash
residues. exhaust pats are passed through air pollutIOA teruabers for cleaning and removalofharmfulfumes. An avwage Iasinoration facility would require approximately fou touffive
acre of land,, eze"ve of the land required for ash dkpoaal and treatment of spun bber
fluids.
A hazardous waste transfer/stdr a facility taill be w: 1N4marily for the collection and short-
term storage of hazardous waste front multiple loom to preparation for shipment to a
final destination point for trestmoat, disposal or ultimate storage. A transfer/storage stationpneraUyconsistsofanumberofstoragetanksandassociatedbuildingstoshorewastebefore. they art hauled to an Incinerator, chemical:pI g. plant or a land disposal facility. Trans- portation to and from a transfer/storage facility can be accomplished by true=k or rail,
land uses and with current land use plans (i,c., avoid urban residential. lands and use industrial lands)
using these criteria and: & eomputeriaed: regiooal screening CecM**, t0 preliminary areas. were
identified for possible Inclusion in the preferred area inventory,
I August,, 19$1, the ;'Werth: developedadditional criteria cc factors which were to be applied
first to the preliminary areas to reduce the number of areas. These factors, are listed below;
Chemical Prucessiae andd lncinerailon
kenos Factarx 2nd Level of 205 ideration
Transportation access Nan -protected wetlands
ii+ailslaquifer Solid waste landfills
towage treatment capacity Air quality
Liklihoad of Development (volunteered sites) liistorie}'archeologicalsites
Ist Level of Coosideration 3rd Level of Consideration
Geographic distribution Water supply reservoir
Amount of available compatibIt industrial land Economic hub
Fire rating Local community attitude toward industrial development
Natur l heritage
Transfer and Storaee_Facilities
lNajor Factors Ind Level of Consideration
Geographic distribution basedon waste, sheds Sonslaquifer
minimum 5,000 tans per year gener&tion) Non -protected wetlands
Number of generators Wastewater treatment
Liklihoad of Development (preferred, sites) Historic/archeological sites
Availability of industrial land
Ist Level of Consideration 3rd Level of Cti)nsideratlon
Transportation access; Air quality
Fire rating Racal attitude toward industrial development
Natural heritcge Uistint landfills,
Water supply reservoir
The major factors were applied first to reduce the number of (Ti) preliminary areas,. Then,
the minor, tactors were listed on "fact, sheets"' for each of twee romaln nS areas. 'These
remaining areas were then fated, using a "point, system" and giving "weight"to the )minor tactors
in the designated order of preference,, After a comparative review of each area, the Board selected
V areas for possible inclusion in the preferred area inventory:
As allowed by statute, the board solieitod Kroiunteteered site" from, private waste management
firm iU determining; whethw a v" iteeurd site should be ineloded in the preferred inventory
proposal, the Board considered the lklfhood of development as the major tactor. ,At the hearing,
a, uuumber of e t Ow sosataanted that Vol cot side -ed the inalnsdon and weighting of this factor
to be inappropriate because different criteria were followed' for non-valunteered sites, Tine inclusion
and weighting of this factor * h0w0m, appropriate brecause it war earidsred in conjunction with.
the gt+tYtWUy-"jdstod neaten set forth In M.S A. MA.89 Subdiv. !, ftwort for the board's
diaer+ationary powers to include and weight this factor may be found in. the exemption from rulemaking
w
a
and the ratiuire:iaent that private; industry develop the actual facilities, Minn, Stat. 115A.10 states;
n preparing k , , the inventory of processing facility sites under 115A,09 .. , the Beard shell
solicit thw active participation of private, waste m6nag4ment firm and a conduct its acti-
vities as to eneuragt pAvate permit applicatkno for faeUltim needed in the state.'"
All the faders Mwidered MUl receive furthsr and asoee detaUedd ewytiny when the Board;
makes its,eomparetive review of the k site& and when permits for the +sperstion of actual processing,
facilities are ht.
ARN
is
LISTQF EXHIBIT'S
ANCHOR INDUSTRIES
L Map of volunteered area,
2. Map of volunteered area, larger scale.,
s< Map of.' volunteered area showing transportation access,
j. Map of volunteered vraa showing existing land use.
S. Map of volunteered area slowing present coning,
8. Mapof volunteered area showing planned future land use,
T. Hennepin, County Envision Public Works Intersection Accident Rates, and,
Segment Accident Rates..
i. Log of Bedrock We?l located on volunteered area.
9 zoning map, Cite of Plymouth revised per City Ordinances 80-15 through
81-2.2,
10. Land Use Guide Flan, City of Plymouth.
11.. Topographical map of volunteered area.
12. Letter, MMT Environmental, Inc. to Mr. ban Hokles, Aglite Inco
13, Supplemental testimony, of Daniel W. Hoklas before the WMB.
1, Barr Engineering, Supplemental Information in support of Testimony of
Allan Gerhard,, Barr Engineering Co, Representing Anchor Industries Plymouth
Volunteered Hazardous Waste Processing Facility Area.
PUBLIC EX4113rm
1. Zoning Haag, City; of Plymouth.
USGS map,.. City of Plymouth (shading explained at Tr... 46-54).
J. Written statement concerning Aglite Ines compliance with air Quality regulations,
i. Letter, Charlton Consolidated Companies, Inc. to WMB
5. Petition by Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and Members of
the Dasa Lake Naighbonccod.,
i. City of Plymouth Capital Improvement Plant 1982;
T., (Letter, Jim Ramstad, Minnesota Sonsto to Heating Eau+miner.
8. Written statement of Gerald Wails.
9. Written statement of ", GlIvin.
A. Written statement of Wendell Davidson.
1l: Written statement of Howard L. Hunt, former Mayas, City of Plymouth.
IL Petition by Ceneerned C tBcens of Plymouth and Members of On Schmidt
Lake improvement Association.
u—
13, Letter, Larry & Mary Loftus; to WMB,
14.. City of Maple Grove, Resolution No. 81-188 and letter from Gerald E. Butcher,
City of Maple Grove, City Engineer to Hearing Examiner.
1s. Letter, Richard and Janette Nissen to Hearing Examiner.
16, Latter, Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company to Hearing Examiner,
17., Letter, Assoclation of Medicine Lake Area Citizens to WMB.
lt. Letter, H. David Grain to Nearing Examiner with'report of John. M. wood,;
Professor of Biochemistry and Ecology, Gray freshwater Biological Institute,
University of Minnesota, Navarre, Minnesota.
19. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and Members of
the Schmidt: Lake improvement Association-
20. Written statement of Kingsview Juneau Lane Neighborhood
21. Petition, Citizens of Plymouth.
22. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and. Surrounding
Areas:
23. Petition, Concerned Citizens of the City of Plymouth and of the Bass Lake
Neighborhood,.
24. Written of statement Jack Serger.
25, Resolution Regarding Hazardous Waste Disposal (sic) Site in the City of
Plymouth, Independent School District No. 294, Wayzata, Minnesota.
26. Letter, Loren A. Scheibe, NorOwest Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
to WMB.
27., Letters, (identical) to WMB from interested citizens.
PLYMOUTH CITY COUNCIL STATEMENT ON INCLUSION OF
AGLITE VOLUNTEERED SITE IN AN INVENTORY OF PREFERRED AREAS
FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE PROCESSING' FACILITIES
1.1/12/81.
I am Gerald Neils and I reside at 3890 Orleans Lane, Plymouth, Minnesota.
I am a Plymouth City Council Member and appear before you as Acting Mayor,
representing the City Council.
As a City Council, we accept the premise that our society produces "hazardous
wastes, and that there exists a. real and compelling need to improve our society's:
management of these waste streams. We recognize hazardous waste management
encompasses the components of packaging, collection, storage, processing and
ultimate disposition of a wide variety of .materials. We acknowledge a serious
need to establish and site physical facilities to implement a rational hazardous
waste management ` plan.
he subject of this hearing is Consideration of a "volunteered site" in
Plymouth as a potential location to accommodate as yet undefined hazardous
wast(, management components for as yet unspecified hazardous waste streams.
Recogizing that at this stage the Waste Management. Board has in a preliminary
Nay designated the site as suitable for all components of waste management
including incineration, but has no specific proposal' to put before us, the
City Council can respond only in terms of general concerns on behalf of our
citizens.
First, we are concerned with the appearance that: this site, volunteered
by Aglite Company. is being rushed to public hearing cerely because it is a
volunteered site. Our reading of statute and rule indicates the Board has an
obligation to evaluate a proposed site against the Board's preliminary site
selection criteria prior to taking a site to public hearing to determine
whether that site MMU be included in the final inventory of "preferred
areas." After two very recent occasions of discussion with haste Management
Boardstaffmembers, we can find no indication such a site selection evaluation
has been accomplished to date.
We have examined the suitability report prepared and issued by the PCA for
this site. It does not address the Board's site selection criteria. It drawn
no conclusion as to intrinsic suitability. It discusses hydrology and soils
only very generally. The report suggests, from limited information and without
site survey vi:itq that some parts of the site wi ht be suitable for something
depending on what might ultimately be proposed. to the point, the information
evailable.indicateR that neither the PCA nor the Waste Management Board have
yet fulfilled the Board's obligation to measure the site against the Board's
site selection criteria. Yet we find ourselves at this public hearing to ascertain
t" whether the site should remain on the final inventory when no apparent measure
was made against the criteria to judge whether the site was suitable for
inclusion on the preliminary inventory list.
A few observations are in order relative to the Board's site selection
criteria;
1. The Aglite site has no access to an interstate highway by way
of improved roads. Its only access route is an unimproved
cartway embellished with gravel from time to time It has not
been construLtod as an engineered gravel roadway with suitable
subgrade and thus becomes virtually impassable in we.t weather.
2. Only a small portion of the 240 acre site has been classified
and zoned for industrial use. The: present extraction industry
is a non -conforming interim land use, and most of the balance
of the site is classified for residential use.
3. The site lies within the headwaters of Shingle Creek; is in
the immediate proximity of wetlands and in near proximity of
three lakes of that watershed. Incidentally, the upper reaches
of Bass Creek:, which the PCA report so ignominiously refers, to as
an "undefined ditch," actually bisects the only portion of the
site zoned and classified for industrial use., This makes the
site unusually sensitive to potential consequences ofchronic or
accidental liquid discharges which might emanate from a waste
management facility.
4. Historical experience with the present industrial use reveals
evidence that the site resides in a topography that has an
unusually high incidence and persistence of local atmospheric
inversions. Hence this site is unusually sensitive to unaccept-
able consequences of potential chronic or accidental airborne
releases which might emanate from a hazardous waste management
facility.
5. Public sewer and water services are not available to the site
at this time, and the schedule for extending these public services
to the site is indeterminate. The site is near the boundary of the
Metropolitan Urban ServiceArea, and the City is obligated under
the Metropolitan Land Planning Act to preclude "leap -frog"
extension of these s,ry#ces across intervened un -urbanized open
lands.
In the role of City government we acknowledge that we have some direct or
reciprocal responsibility for the management Of hazardous wastes generated
within our city. However, it js patently obvious that, if this site is
ultiawtely approved and developed as a hazardous waste managemnt faciiityoitwouldnecessarilyprovidearegionalserviceandreceivewastesoriginating
from far beyond our city bcundaries.
3..
Since it would necessarily be a regional facility, Plymouth would have
a responsibility to defend our citizens against the imposition of costs and
risks that could potentially be imposed upon us as a consequence of developing
this site to provide a regional waste management services.
More to the point, we don't want hazardous wastes of regional origin trans-
ported to the site through our city and our residential neighborhoods on
local streets and local thoroughfares.. Nor do we want to see our citizens
bear the local cost of building highways and interchanges to provide an
appropriate regional transportation access to the site. The only acceptable
regional access to the site would be direct access from 1.494, and that
requires construction of a new interchange.
If after due process and detailed technical review, this site is approved
for development of a hazardous waste management facility, then an interchange
will have to be part of the program.
In summary, w submit that this site has not been adequately evaluated
and would not likely pass an evaluation against the Board's own preliminary
site selection criteria. We further submit that because of other site -
related factors, this site should not and would notass the PCA detailed
evaluation test of intrinsic suitability. And finally, should this site
ultimately be approved for development as a regional waste management facility
without concurrent development of regioi)al access by way of an 1-494 inter-
change at no cost to Plymouth, then a most difficult impasse will have been
created.
k;LEAH
Community League for Environmentally
Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc.
o w etaln;
us -l"2
rwd mum
Jim oar
W -W 37
At 01601""Iff
W-06120
tbpet Eppen
54 SM
Kee [slot
69 5.422
Me RtyV,V,tea
555 16,42
s. 151
Ee KVrrch -t
659.4272
Donna Maus
359-!1539
John -E Maeyan
59.1119
Don Miller
559-264?
y Gerald Neils
5!5.2619
Don Pemrick-
669-0620
Stan Phelps
5•251
Spencer !ianken
669.!0075
Patricia Vomhot
564.5243
Sieve weld
ss U23
Janxaary 28, 1982
Mr. Robert Dunn, Chairman.
Minnesota Waste Management Hoard
7.2r3 58th Ave. No.
Crystal, MN 55428
Dea Mr. Dunn:
On Thursday, January 14,; Howard Hunt advised Sharon, Decker
that Anchor Industries lease on the site in Piymouth they
volunteered for hazardous waste processing had expired
on December 31,, 1961. Anchor had rejected a six month.
lease extension offered by the land; owner. You were
advised of this situation on Monday, January 18 at your
meeting with.Plymouth City officials and representatives
of CLEAN.
As Anchor does not have any control of the site now,
and has not had control since December 31.1 1981,.we
believe the site should receive no further consideration.
by the Taste Management Board. Certainly no further action
on the site should be takenuntil this issue is reviewed
by the Attorney General's office and an attorney General's
opinion on the continuing validity of the volunteering
of this site is issued.
Sin erely ours,
Davis Crain
President
DC/mm
cc: Warren Spanaus
LeRoy Paddock
Tom Johnson
Andy Datko
Sharon Docker
Dave Davenport.
J TreinanmWillis
M PomtWow Lone a Mynnouft UN 51442 0 Phone 559-1642
CLEAN
Community League for Environmentally
Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc.
Davit Chin
it_su
Howard "b"t
tiW3W
Jim Dunbar,
6-os37
At CWtOr"N et
US -M)
doge` E4gen
646-n»
Ken Ester
559-5422;
Wayne Eeyermsen
539-1132
or Hili
653-1365
Ed Karschke
539.4272
tpnns Maus
SSR -1039
John E. Meeaan
5501119
Dan Miler
69.2447
Gerald Nails
6454679
Don Pemriick
SY-0620;
Stan Phelps
539-2,7st
sP+cer ianken
E"75
Patricil Vomnol
569.5243
a"" weld
S-5223
January 27, 1982
Mr. Alan.R. Nettles
1814 First Bank Place. West
Minneapolis., MN 55402
Dear Mr. Nettles
Yesterday we received a copy of your report on the Plymouth,
site volunteered: by Anchor Industries for hazardous waste
processing. We found the report disappointing but not
surprising. It is unfortunate that you were forced to
base your analysis on the fase and mis-leading information
provided by the. PCA and Anchor. We will be making every
effort to get accurate data before the WMB prior to their
final decision.
One troublesome portion of your 'report is the: attached
memorandum in which you address the need for processing
facilities, the WMg criteria and the legitimacy of
volunteered sites. particularly bothersome is your use
of Minn. Stat. 115A.10 in discussion of the legitimacy
of volunteered sites.
In the memorandum you quoted part of 115A.10: "In pre
paring . . the inventory of processing facility sites.
under 11.5A.04 . the board shall solicit the active
participation of private waste management firms and,
Conduct its activities as to encourage private permit
applications for facilities needed in the state." Anchor
Industries does not qualify under -this portion of the
Waste ManagementAct Anchor is not a waste management
f irm.
Furthermorer a following portion of 115A.10 states; "she
board shall promulgate rules for acceptingr evaluating,
and selecting applications for permits for the Construction
and operation of facilities at sites preferred or selected
by the board pursuant to section 115A.09 or sections
115A.1h to 115A.30. The rules shall include standards
and procedures for making determinations on the minimum
qualifications, including technical co tence (emphasis
added) and financial capabl y, o permi applicants."
1020 FOMtuiuw Larm 9 Plymouth, MN $5442 * Phoao $59-1642
Mr-. Alan R. NOttlea
January 27, 1982:
Paige
c
Technical competence should be a criterion applied to Anchor
in considering their volunteered site. Anchor has presented
no evidence of technical competence. in fact, they have
shown technical incompetence as evidenced by their violations
of PCA, •tandard)c in operating A lite (Public exhibit 3). The.
technology involved in the Aglite operation is extremelyelementaryincomparisontothatwhichwouldbeinvolved
in operating hazardous waste facilities.
Obviously, we are concerned that your flimited
and selective
application of 115A.10 will create
ion
of Anchor and its volunteering of the site where we believe
such an impression unwarranted.
Sinperely,yours
I
Dave Crain
President
HDC/Mn"
Enclosure
CC: Robert Dunn
Tom Johnson
Andy Datxo
Sharon Decker
LeRoy Paddock, Esq.
T, J
1
January 6, 1982
Mr. Richard Schumacher,. Vice -President,
Anchor Block Company
P. 0. box 43360
St. Paul, MN 55164
Dear Dick,
This letter is to reiterate the position of the Community League for
Environmentally Acceptable Neighborhoods, Inc. (CLEAN) relative to
Anchor Block Company's volunteering; of their Aglite location in
Plymouth for processing hazardous wastes. We recognize the serious
need for the establishment of proper facilities and procedures for
handling and.making safe the volume of toxic substances being gen
orated in Minnesota. The major incidents such as creosote in the
St. Louis Park water supply and the contamination occurring around
the Ironwood landfill have become all too frequent and must be
stopped. However, it is irrational to pretend to solve the current
problem by placing hazardous waste processing facilities of anykindinthecenterofHennepinCountyonasitesurroundedbypro-
tected wetlands and bisected by the headwaters of a major drainage
creek that feeds several lakes in the metropolitan area.
CLEAN is an organization of concerned citizens in Plymouth and
Maple. Grove. Our Board of Directors is composed of the leadership
of the neighborhood associations in central and. eastern Plymouth and
parts of Maple Grove, and individuals who are not associated with
a,neighborhovd association. we are also receiving support from
some of the developers and companies located in Plymouth. According
to Aongtime active citizens of Plymou h, CLEM is by far the largest
organization of its, type ever put together in Plymouth. The board.
and other active members include many of the most politically
active and civic vAnded residents of the city.
We recognize the situation that Anchor is in, in that you have a
major investment in the Aglite facility that has become unprofitable
due to the extended weakness in the construction industry. Weare
also fully aware of the serious_ problems facing any attempted
development of the Plymouth site due to inadequate access and the
lack of sewer and eater. These development problems would be difficult
and time-consuming to solve under circumstances of even normal
citizen concerns about new industrial development.
As you are also awerep Anchor already has a very poor reputation
in Plymouth due tothepollution problems associated with Aglite.
utever the size of your investment or your intention* past or
present, your track record in Plymouth. and the Odors of Aglite
and violations of PCA standards are what the residents of that
area Will resrmber
kr. Richard Schumacher
January 60 1982
Page Z
in light of our desire to have the Aglite site withdrawn fromconsiderationforhazardouswasteprocessingandrecognizing your
problems with developing the area,th/e Board of CLEAN authorized
Gay Varecka,, Howard Hunt, Trygve ward and myself to meet with
you and discuss possible approaches for resolving both our problems.
us, therefore, met with you and Mike Wolford.on December, 1+6. At
that meeting we expressed our willi;3gness to work with. AnchorforanearlydevelopmentoftheAglitesitewithinthepresentlyestablishedlanduseguideplansandthepermittedusesdescribed
in the present zoning ordinances oftheCity of Plymouth,. we
told you that with the proper development of your site you couldturnaverystrongcitizengroupfromapersistentoppoAentinto
a friend. At the worst, from your perspective, if you would
withdraw your vonteering of the site from consideration by the
WMB you would neu°,;,raxlize a force that will make it virtually
impossible to develop your site for hazardous waste processing. After much discussion it was agreed that we would explore theimplications; of a modular combustion unit on the site that would,
by burning the garbage generated in Plymouth, serve as a heat
source for a small industrial park. Mike told us that if our
examination of this possibility led. us to believe that this approach
would be more acceptable than hazardous waste processing, Anchor
would let us know by January 6 whether you would withdraw yourvolunteeringofthesitefromconsiderationbytheWMB.
Following this meeting I toured the facility recently installed
at St. John's University and talked at length with Hennepin Countyofficialsandtechnicalexpertsaswellaswithairqualityexperts
at the FCA. other members of our group also talked with county
and PCA personnel as well as with many other members of CLEAN. Our
conclusion was that while we have concerns about garbage incineration
at the Aglite site, we feel the problems are far easier solved and
the threat to the health and safety of our families is far less
than with toxic waste processing. Paraphrasing a chemical
engineer at the PCA; it is possible to develop a clean modular
combustion facility.
we again met with you and Mike on December 31 with the intentionofexpressingthispositionandseekinginformationonthestatus
of your plans. Needless to say we were extremely disappointed to
discover that you would not be able on January 6 to tell us your
plans. Mike said that it would be the and of January before youcouldsortoutyouroptionsasyouwereawaitingdevelopmentson
at least a couple of new possibilities. We advised you that due
to the pressures of a WMB decision in. March we must proceed fullscalewithourplanstofightagainstplacinghazardouswaste
facilities in Plymouth, in particular we must go ahead with a
mass community information meeting on January 21.
Xr. Richard Hchwnacher
January 6, 1982
rage 2
CU W would still rather work with Anchor than against Anchor. The
people of Plymouth can be very cooperative with industry when industry
meets the quiLde plans and zoning laws of the city. On Sunday, January
3g the board of CL AN unanimously passed the enclosed resolution asevidenceofourContinuedwillingnesstocooperateintheproper
development of the Aglite site -
However, time for this cooperation is running very short. The
antagonistic attitudes towards Anchor are going to harden very soon..
In fact I believe that after the meeting on the 21st Anchor willrunintoextremelystiffoppositiontoanyproposalyoubring
forth after that time. We don't want to have to spend the time and
money that would be involved in fighting a toxic waste processing
facility, but we will. Any proposal that threatens the health and
safety of our families will be fought through every agency and
court necessary until the threat is removed. I 'know Anchor has
made a major investment in the site and in the studying of what to
do with it. However, you must keep in mind that the hundreds of
people you would be fighting have a far greater investment in their
families, homes, lakes, and parks. We have the resources, people
and money, to carry the battle on for as long as it, takes
Dick, I again urge you to immediately withdraw your site from.
consideration by the Waste Veagbutnwe canaandCwill defeat
theN
can be a
good friend for Anchor
hazardous. waste processing proposal.
Vincerely yours
H. David Crain
Chairman of the Board
CLEAN
5020 Forestview LN
Plymouth, MN 55442
HDC/MM
cc: Mr. dames Nerhaugen, President
Mr. John K. Bush, Vice-president
Mr. Vince Eichten, Treasurer
Ms Eulslia Villoar secretary
Mr. Mike Wolford
Pursuant to dwr aall and aotics thereof, a directors "ating
of tM Cseeawaity La&" for ttrirassMastally AcceptableNeighborhoods
Ma Sold this Ste gay -of January, 1982.
Stan pj»lps introduced the toilowing dissolution and s+vvsd its
adoption:
iM", a site knows as the gagelits Site, In Plys"th,
sot& was volunteered as a possible hazardous waste treatwmt
facility site to the K Nwsota waste X&u&gsmnt Board. The "Agelite
Site` via volunteered by ]ichor Iadws1"t'i+ss with approval of the
owner of the site, lortk Central, Lightweight Aggregate Coff"nY, and.;
VKZRW, an organisation meed the COMPAMity Lague for
Asviroawentallr kccsptsble neighborhoods. bereinaftar *=*times
referred to as CLtJ1N, has been organised for thQ purpose of otirevenng
the use of the site in this Mannar through. its sass membership and
resouzcasr andz
WBU, CLIA recognises tbst development of the site could
not be detrimental to the City or its neighborhoods if such
development seats the standards of the guide plan maps adopted by
the City of Plymouth and is within the permitted uses described
in the City of plymouth's current zoning
ordinances, and;
U :IT Ts EW- ORi ltfSOL,jE,O, that cI.E7!1N urges Anchor industries.
and North Central Ligbtv!sight !Aggregate Company to notify the
Ainnesota Waste ddanag"wnt Soard, at the earliest possible date,
that they are withdrawing the application volunteering the site
as a possible hazardous waste trestMMt facglity and thereby
demand that the site receive W furter consideration as a possible
hawdous waste trestsent.facility, and;
1t IT tLiR'1'llL1t RC$OiLvm• that CLZAN Will got oppose an early
dewalopment of the site nitbis nessatly Mst busied lased, use guide
13asa ami tie MMitUd 'tea destribsd is the present soaiAg
os0 a of idle City of Plymouth-
W
Resolution was
Ales Notion for tis adoption of tie toreq
dull MaODW by pat moi as& ape Grote taken
thereon, the
diasolatios`was dwalared duly Passed and adopted
f.
t
ASM N.MA/h'••Yi/W1^
December 30p 1991.
Mr. Dale L. wikre
Director, Solid s Hazardous Waste Division
Minnesota pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Dean Mrd Wikre
I recently came into possession of a copy of the ,suitability"
report prepared by the MPCA .for use by the Waste Managemtheent
Board in their consideration of sites
rfor
incuslusiteonon
sing.
inventory of preferred areas for hazeAsaresidentofPlymouthandChairman of the Community League. table Neighborhoods (CLEAN), I am
for Environmentally Accep antit of data and, the poor qualityappalledbytheladeofquYportionofthisreport.
of analysis
contained in the Plymouth
e and commenting on only the 250 acreIbelieve- your examining
site in Plymouth will result in the WMB making
inappropriate
comparisons of this stir
w1thofheourCrevewepermitsalternative
MPCA
areas.
The limited geographic scope yive
andthe wMB to ignore the istel
nadjacentttoof sthispsiteCteThe
waters and wetlands immed Y
Land immediately to theeastdirectly into
Bassof
this site is lLake andlhence
protected wetlands Which go
into Shingle Creek and the oat rnortheast of
theus
lakes that hproposedesite
irunsthrough. To the meds
in Plymouth are more protek'sdthlrecip
ands and pomerleau
run-offfrom
aSchmidtLakeandTurtle . La Hennepin County's
the site, are less than a mile from the site. Medicine Lake Regional Park is also Yess than a mile from the
site. From your reports on the other areas, these eaters and
arks would have a major impact on the !MPCA assessment of
sksn of the Plymov th location
uitability were a. ass myopic view ta.
The mpCA analysis ignores the fact that a major portion of the
run-off from this site flows into the "unnamed
ditch" inf he
area.. This unnamed ditch bisects the proposed
yeast to the protected
wetlands and Bass Lake. indeed
f Bass Creek. this unnamed ditch, is the beginning o
i,
Mr.; Dale L. wikre
12/30/81
Page 2
Paragraph 2, .Addressing the soils in the area is inconsistent
with the soil boring data provided by Anchor to the City of
Plymouth. The boring data indicates that much.of the soil is
of a type called clayey sand with pockets of sand.
Paragraph 3, "Aquifer/Soil Suitability Implicatiogls" states
the completely unwarranted conclusion that "Generally,corditions
in the area are expected to provide a degree of safety overandabovethatwhichwouldbebuiltintothefacilityasre-
quired by state and federal rules and regulations.." This con-
clusion ignores not only the surrounding water and wetlandscitedabovebutalsothewatertableatadepthof: 10`-l5 feetdescribedinparagraphlofthereportonthePlymouthsite. This water table so near the surface must be a part of the
waters and wetlands in the area. Any contaminants that reach
this water table must get into the neighboring lakes and pro-
tected wetlands. This certainly does not 1°provide a degree
of safety over and above "
Paragraph 4, "Municipal water Supply Reservoir", ignores the
fact that the wells serving Maple Grove are not far away and
in a likely direction of flow of the underlying aquifer. Again,
the MPCA narrow view of the Plymouth site biases possible
conclusions by the WMB.
In summary, the report on Plymouth prepared by the NPCA is short-
sighted and misleading. The fact that this report can lead in
part to the placing of an ecological time bomb in the center of
Hennepin County is frightening.
The way the WMB and the MPCA is going about the whole processofsitinghazardouswasteprocessingfacilitiesisinviting
tragedy. It is absolutely critical that such facilities be
developed as soon as possible. The diaasters such as St. Louis
Park's water supply and the Ironwood dump site, which are
surfacing with increasing frequency, must not be allowed to
continue. However, the current problems gill not be solved
by placing hazardous waste processing facilities in ecologicallysensitiveareasinthemidstofamajormetropolitanarea.
The placing of these facilities should be a technological pro- cess conducted in a competent manner by experts. One of the
world's leading experts is readily available to the WMB and MPGA.
Dr. John Wood of the University of Minnesota's Gray FreshwaterBiologicalInstituteconsultsseveralcountriesplususwastlnyU.S. es and
and international agencies on dealing with
pollution. It is senseless, shortsighted and irresponsible for
the.agencias responsible for siting hazardous waste processing
facilities to ignore his advice. I strongly urge you and by
1
Mr, Dale L. Wikre.
1.2/30/51
Page 3
copy the vm to take advantage of Dr. wood's knowledge and
skills. R modest delay and re-evaluation of proceduresandcriteriaatthispointwillavoiddisasterinthefuture.
Sincerely o rs,
H. David Crain
5020 Forestview LN
Plymouth, MN 55442
612-559-1642)
cc. Dr,. John Wood
John Holck, MPGA
Robert G. Dunn
Laurence E. Hunter
Keith Kuiters
William Kirchner
Milton L. Knoll, Jr..
Louise. Kuderling,
Thomas T. Renner
Allan Po Eide
David Hartley
Al. Shlepsky
Sharon Decker