Minutes - Council - 07/14/1988 - Public Hearing

Home

many questions as might appear and the applicant is satisfied that they have provided all the information, the worksheet is put out for public notice for 30 days. During that 30 days, the public can submit written comments to MPCA's office. At the end of the 30 days, MPCA reviews the comments and presents the application to the Citizens Board with a recommendation. The Citizens Board consists of 9 members of the State and they are not staff of the MPCA, but rather an independent body. The Board determ~.nes whether or not there is a negative environmental impact, negative meaning no environmental impact. If there is a negative declaration, a permit is prepared to establish conditions for the activity. The permit is also placed on public notice for 30 days. The comments from the public notice period are compiled and MPCA staff makes recommendations to the Citizens Board for additions or deletions to the permit. The Citizens Board considers the recommendations and determines whether the permit is able to be issued. If MPCA should determine that there is an environmental impact and the proposer is interested in continuing to pursue the project, there is one avenue of further review and that is the environmental impact statement. EIS's take a great deal of time to compile and generally, MPCA avoids conducting an EIS when it appears an EIS might be the appropriate method of review. In Atlas' case, there are a lot of questions that there are no direct answers to because much of the information has not been developed yet. MPCA is not a siting agency; it reviews proposals to make sure all precautions are taken to protect the environment. Dan Berg - MPCA - The purpose of the environmental assessment worksheet is to determine whether an environmental impact statement is necessary. If there is a positive declaration, then there would be an environmental impact statement; this process takes about one year. Mr. Robert Labat - President of Atlas Incinerators, Inc. - Ninety-three percent of the proposed project is concerned with manufacturing; tonight's public hearing is concerned with the other 7% of the operation, research and development/contract burn. Atlas has a simple corporate philosophy: 1) Manufacture quality products; 2) Provide good service; 3) Use and work with good people; 4) Make a reasonable profit. (At this point, Mr. Labat proceeded to give a slide presentation about Atlas Incinerators, Inc.) Without research and development and a revenue generating stream from contract burning, Atlas cannot afford to continue to develop state-of- the-art equipment; this is true of most companies. There is no test burning performed without prior analysis; only if the analysis is good will there be a proper test burn before contract burn. (At this point, Mr. Labat entered into the record a document entitled "General Technical Information For The City Of Ramsey By Atlas Incinerators, Inc. Dated July 14, 1988". Atlas does not in any way expect Ramsey to do what the State of Minnesota or the U.S. Government is charged to do. It would be wrong to expect that any citizen should have the same responsibility to regulate and enforce regulations that State and Federal agencies are told to do. Atlas has not submitted all the technical information to Ramsey because it is so voluminous and would take so much time and manpower to review. To review that information is the role of MPCA and EPA. If Atlas cannot meet their requirements, Atlas should not be granted a permit. If Atlas can meet their requirements, Atlas should be offered an operating permit. There is City Council Public Hearing/July 14, 1988 Page 3 of 15