5.2. SR 05-16-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Steven Rohlf Page 2 Ve would like to note that Elk River is within a region of the state, north of the Twin Cities along the Mississippi River Valley, in which the MPCA hopes to improve ambient ground water quality monitoring. In particular, well igwb0010, at 19861 Gary Street in Elk River, may be included in this network; this well seems to be down gradient of the mining district and may be a useful reference point in the future to track potential impacts of development, mining and non-mining, on the local ground water. Ve are pleased to see that the EIS addresses in detail the Pollution Prevention Plans required by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permit program. It is not clear from MPCA records, however, whether each of the active mining and aggregate production operations in the Elk River mining district indeed has prepared and begun to implement their respective plans. In particular, we question the status of these plans for Barton, Bauerly Brothers, Elk River Bituminous, Midwest Asphalt, and Plaisted at their respective Elk River facilities. Ve recommend that you contact each firm and request to review each of their plans, and then indicate in the final EIS where the city believes each firm is with respect to storm water compliance. This would be helpful in better meshing the city's water quality management efforts, which appear to be well planned, with state and federal storm water permitting requirements. The MPCA staff expects each of the mining companies, as well as other industrial facilities like AME Ready Mix and Shiely Masonry, to fully comply with the requirements of the NPDES storm water program so as to protect local waters from runoff impacts. Page 3-53 of the EIS discusses chemical treatment as a means of dust suppression. Vhile this is a generally accepted method to control fugitive dust, we recommend that chemical application be discouraged whenever there are feasible alternatives, so as to minimize surface and ground water contamination by the chemicals. Regarding air quality matters, we note that the air quality section of the EIS, specifically pages 3-44 to 3-47 and table 3.5-2, gives emission factors for the various operations and total expected emissions from the facilities, but does not give the facility basis for each site. MPCA thus has no way of verifying that the totals given are correct. It also appears that some of the emission factors used may have been extracted from the wrong reference. John V. Ferman of the MPCA Air Quality Division (296-7600) should be contacted to discuss this matter.