Agenda - Council - 09/13/1982 - Special

Home

I I I I ! i i I I I I ! I I I I I I 2 Emissions from incinerators or methane recovery facilities come under the regulation of the Minnesota Polluti'on Control Agency (PCA). Any such facility would have to ensure compliance with PCA'emission standards before it receives a permit to operate. Odors are difficult to eliminate at a landfill. Possible mitigating methods include establishing an effective buffer around the fill area and ensuring that refuse is covered with soil as soon as practicable. A landfill is likely to result in increased noise from truck traffic to and from the facility, but its impacts can be reduced by routing traffic on less densely populated areas or by limiting landfill operations to certain times of the day. Litter can be controlled by installing litter fences, earth berms and shrubs, applying a cover of soil immediately after dumping, covering incoming trucks and using clean-up crews to pick up blowing wastes. Operation of waste disposal facilities can pose a number of health risks: 1) the contamination of well water by leachate; 2) disease carried by insects and rodents~ and 3) accidents involving waste spills, fires or explosions. Although it is virtually impossible to eliminate possible groundwater contami- nation, mitigating measures, discussed earlier, can reduce the risk. Proper design, construction and operation of waste disposal facilities can greatly decrease the likelihood of any major disease problem. Accidents can be managed through adequate safety and emergency measures. In addition to environmental impacts, landfills can have adverse socioeconomic effects. ~mong these are 1) loss of prime farmland, 2) lowered property values for nearby homeowners, 3) potential tax losses resulting from public ownership of waste disposal facilities, 4) the possibility a community will be stigma- tized for having such a facility, 5) visual blight, 6) an increased burden on public services provided by the host community, 7) possible conflicts between a facility sited on public land and concurrent land uses, and 8) loss of historic or archaeological sites. Returning a landfill site to agricultural use after closure is not easy to accomplish. Long-rooted crops could not probably be grown because of the risk of picking up landfill contaminants. Cultivation could threaten the integrity of the final cover, and heavy farm machinery could tear the soil cover over the refuse, exposing it to runoff from rain and melted snow. Special planning would be required to return the land to limited agricultural use. At present, data is not adequate to determine whether and to what extent a landfill reduces the value of adjacent residential property. But whatever the impacts, it appears likely they can be reduced through careful planning of the location of the fill area and buffer zone, adequate visual screening and plans for a site's end use that are acceptable to the community. If a waste disposal facility is publicly owned, the resultant property tax loss to a community can be offset by monetary reimbursement equal to the assessed value of the property. Over the long term, a community could plan for tax- producing development at the site after it is closed. Although the host community may be stigmatized for having a waste disposal facility, it is more likely to be a problem for the immediately adjacent neighborhood. The problem can be reduced if the facility is well designed, well constructed and well operated, with minimum negative impacts.