Agenda - Council - 05/31/1983 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Several oo~panies stated flatly that t]%ey must heys access tO city sewer,, ~h~ on~ company that does liquid pretreatment felt that access to a city ~ewer provides a built-in regulatory con- trol which benefits both the company and .the public. (Ex. W, p. 2). A public water, supply is, of oouree, important for the provision of fire pro- tecticn. All three of these services (sewer~ water and fire) were "first level of c~neideration" factors during the Board's first search for potential sites~ that '%~ere given the greatest attention by the ~oard in comparing the 'proposed areas". (Ex. O~ p. 10). /n that search~ the proposed site in Grand 9apids was eliminated in part because most of the area did not have water or sewer s~rvice "and it is necessary to haul water in to fight fires". (Ex. N~ pp. 90 ~nd 122). In this case~ such services are not a~ailable for the entire site. Aco0rding to Exhibit YY~ of the 18 proposed sites~ only Ramsey and the Inver Grove Heighte-~osemou~t sites have no public or private sewer systems. Avoiding existing residential develol~ents is a th{rd very importagt site selection factor from the perspective of potential hazardous waste processir~3 companies. In the Board Staff surveY~ several cc~pany representatives men- tioned the need to stay away from existing residential development and company "even buys up land arour~d their sites to avoid fq~ture encroachment of incompatible develol~uent". (Ex. %;Vi p, 2). 7h~s is also a very important fac~.or in the eyes of the public. Indicative is the response to question- naires distributed to persons attending meetings with the Board Staff. A majority of the people who suggested s.cme m~dification of the Board's approach urged more emphasis on avoiding residential areas. (Ex. EE). Extensive resi- dent/al development occurs on and adjacent to this proposed site without any b~f fering features. "Soil and aquifer conditions" is a fourth factor~ examined to'determine potential impacts upon groundwater in the event of failure of facility safe- guards or aocidentlal spills of hazardous substances in transport. It is a very important factor~ particularly in the eyes of most of the people at- tendirg this hearing. Althcu9%% only one of t%~ potential hazardous waste pro- cessing facility companies listed it as "very important" in their siting de- cisions (Ex. W, p. 3), it is a very important factor from the public perspec- flys. The L~gislature specifically provided in the authorizing legislation for the protection of this "natural resource" as a factor for the Board to consider. (Minn. ~tat. § 115A.09~ sub~. 2). 9he Pollution ~ontrol Agency has described groundwater as: . . . Perhaps our most valuable but least urx~erstood resource. In Minnesota~ groundwater is the major freshwater source for nearly 70% of the p~ulation~ and over 90% of the state's urban water systems. In urban areas~ Minnesotans use groundwater at the rate of about 90 gallons per 'person. per day .... While groundwater is not as easily contaminated 'as surface water .... .neither .is .it as easily cleaned up once ccntamina- 'tion occurs. (HE P~l~ort, Air Quality Standards, OA~ Docket No. PCA-S1-003-HK, p. 27). A previous Hearing Examiner. R~port .on the Owatonna prccessing site (~'~B-83-O03-PR, Fi~ing No. 20) sp6~ifically found that~ "Preference should be given'to sites Where the aquifers are 'deep, ccnfined~ dischargingl or ccmb~na- tions of these factors." Here the aquifer is neither deep nor confined. Its -14-