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

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I thickness (up to 80 feet) puts it well below the zone of potential disc~r~e to the Mississippi River. T~e finding goes on, "Preference s~ould be given to areas that have slowly permeable material for the protec.tion of aquifers." Here we have rapidly permeable materials offerin9 no protection. Soil and aquifer conditions here contrast sharply with those at sites pre- viously approved by the Board for processing facilities. The aquifer at Ow~- tonna; for examplel is 700 feet below the surface of the lar~, protected by clay-19am. (Findings 2I ~ 22). Willmar "is generally protected by a heavy layer of glacial till". (%94B-82-011-TJ). The Crookston site is located on "Fargo Clay". (~MB-82-012-ELD). Mankato has 150 feet of 'heavy textured till" a~d clay. (~B-82-O02-PR). · This Ramsay site groundwater is protected by zero to 15 feet of sand a~d gravel. Wetlands and their adjacent shorelands are t]~e kind of "natural areas" which a fifth factor w~s designed to avoid. They are important feeding ar~ ]~reeding habitat for waterfowl and many other types of wildlife. They are or~ of the "natural resources" which the above-cited authorizing legislation re- quired the Board to consider in establishing this inventory of preferred sites for hazardous waste processing facilities. Several of the hazardous waste ccmpanies surveyed by the Board Staff mentioned a need to avoid wetlands as an im~ortant consideration in site selection. (EX. W, p. 3). 'As the attached Report Indicates~ an important lake-wetlar~ c(muplex here oocupies at least one-third of t~e proposed site~ although the larger deeper basins are techni- cally c~ni tted. The above factors take on added importance if all of the sites are rela- tively equal with regard to the other three oomparative factors (if, f~r example~ all sites are planned for industrial develolm~ent and have relatively adequate transportation access). "~he location of hazardous waste generators" As an additional factor which the Waste Management Board is required to consider under the above-cited legislation in cxm,piling this inventory. Citizens r6peatedlY emphasized this factor in urging that central city sites sbottld be selected instead of this proposed location. They argued that such a location would be superior because storage and processing of these w~stes would occur close to where they are generated, where sewerl water and other services are available and where ~ expense and risk of accidents in transport could be minimized. Finally~ the quality of other potential sites" is an additional factor particularly applicable to the proposed inclusion of this area in the inven-' tory of incineration sites. It is a factor that the Waste Management Board'is specifically required to consider in the above-cited authorizing legislation. Five power cc~panies have volunteered 13 po~er plants for possible utilization as incineration facilities. Four of these potentigl sites are located in the seven-COUnty metropolitan area. "~ne Board 'believes that existieg po~er plants may offer the potential capacity for high temperature incineration w/thout t~e capital, coats of co~tructir~3 entirely new facilities." Tne Bc~rd decided~ howeverl in September'of 1981, to place these potential sites "in a separate~ special category"', for. further study, pending ccmpletio{% of 'the state's Hazardous Waste Management Pla~. (Ex. ~I~). -15-