Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Council Minutes <br />December 11,1984 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />John Myslajek, 1820 Long Lake Road, asked for clarification <br />that the petition didn't address the permit issue. Ohman <br />responded that the permit issuance is to make sure that the <br />waste is stored properly, not that they are going to contam- <br />inate the wells or the drinking water sources of New Brighton. <br />The permit is to regulate the proper handling of Honeywell 's <br />waste. <br /> <br />Thomas Bartholomew, 2202 Rainbow Avenue, feels this is a cheap <br />way for Honeywell to dispose of their waste because it's the <br />end of their product; no reason for having it set around; felt <br />council should not approve the permit which would allow for <br />what he felt would be further contamination; felt there was no <br />reason why Honeywell couldn't get their waste out immediately. <br /> <br />Ohman stated the reason why congress passed the Resource Con- <br />tamination Recovery Act in 1976 to be sure that wastes were <br />not dumped on the ground, but rather stored properly. Ohman <br />stated that the permit is a final administrative task to make <br />sure improper dumping is not done, violations are then easier <br />to enforce. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Bartholomew stated that Honeywell is a giant employing our <br />people, but there is no reason for allowing that giant to walk <br />allover us; stating that 19,000 people in New Brighton would <br />sign a petition against the permit, while the other 1,000 <br />probably work at Honeywell. <br /> <br />City Attorney clarified that the lawsuit and the permit are <br />two different issues. <br /> <br />Harcus stated that the City has no authority to pass or deny <br />the permit. <br /> <br />Ohman stated that any problems with the permit would be review- <br />ed; the opposition to the permit is not relative to the issue. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Blomquist asked if there was any precedent where past permits <br />have not been granted for storage of hazardous waste where <br />there is some hiqh level of sensitivity regarding potential <br />contamination and if it would be possible to work with Honey- <br />well so that the material would not be stored at that facility <br />but perhaps be transported to another area along with waste <br />from other Honeywell operations. <br /> <br />Ohman stated there is nothing in RCRA (Resource Contamination <br />Recovery Act) that says because of public opposition to having <br />them store waste on their facility, that they can't do that; <br />wasn't aware of a permit being denied because of public oppo- <br />sition. <br /> <br />Schmidt asked if there was anything that would preclude council <br />from simply taking the public position of opposition to any on- <br />site storage and the MPCA taking whatever position they needed <br />to regarding that particular site; the council would not control <br />any position the MPCA would take. <br /> <br />Page Three <br />