Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />4. REVI~ SUMMARY <br /> <br />In summary, the complicated siting processes utilized for locating suitable sites for solid <br />and hazardous waste disposal facilities is very time consuming, technically exacting and <br />highly politically sensitive. The process, in fact, has been underway for approximately ten <br />years. Much has been learned in the past ten years in the various areas of solid and <br />hazardous waste disposal facilities. The technical advances in this multi-faceted discipline <br />have provided a great deal of information necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes in <br />the siting and operation of solid waste disposal facilities. Even with these advances in <br />knowledge, the practice of "engineering away" encountered problems is too often heavily <br />relied upon in an attempt to provide solutions for serious environmental impacts. In <br />order to minimize the level of corrective action eventually needed at such sites it is <br />imperative that the best technically suitable site available is selected. <br /> <br />The conditions present at Site P_ are not what would be described as optimal for landfill <br />site selection. This site fails to satisfy three .primary and six secondary siting criteria, is <br />located in a geologic location highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination and is <br />adjacent to a state Superfund site of an existing solid/hazardous waste disposal system~ <br />with known' SeriOUS groundwater contamination that already extends into the proposed <br />site..~; The potential additional impact on both shallow and deep groundwater aquifers as <br />well as surface waters is highly significant, especially in light of the lack of a proven <br />groundwater remediation system at the existing adjacent facility. <br /> <br />Sites D & Q also have similar characteristics that make them less than ideal locations for <br />solid/hazardous waste disposal facilities failing to satisfy one primary and many secondary <br />siting criteria'. Like Site P, Sites D & Q both have geologic conditions present that make <br />them both highly vulnerable to groundwater contamination and are located adjacent to or <br />in the proximity of existing Superfund solid/hazardous waste disposal facilities that have <br />been and continue to be significant sources of organic and inorganic groundwater <br />contamination. Comparatively, the northern section of Site Q has the best hydrogeologic <br /> <br />26 <br /> <br /> <br />