08-21-1986 CC MIN - SPECIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Council Minutes August 21, 1986 Page 2 e 2. Landfill Impacts - The City felt that without specific answers to questions like where are the rejects, fly ash, bypass municipal waste, and bottom ash will be transported, to what landfill,it is impossible to make a decision on the impacts that the material will have on a particular landfill. In addition, specific questions on protective measures of the landfill that would be used are not answered. Questions such as, will the landfill be lined with clay or a synthetic liner or both. 3. Economic Impacts - The City felt the Final Environmental Impact Statement was inadequate in respects to economic impacts. The FEIS states that the City of Elk River will recieve $250,000 per year in taxes. The City feels that this is higher than it will actually be. No assessor's data was provided and no estimate of increase maintenance expense on the roadways or a service needs expense was provided. 4. Water Quality - The City felt more information relative to volumn and quality of surface water run off and washed down water should be provided. Also, the City felt the FEIS should have been more specific as to the testing of that water and should have discussed whether that water is proposed to go to the Elk River Waste Water Treatment Plant or not. e 5. The City felt the FEIS should of had discussion in regards to transportation and access points between the processing plant and the UPA Elk River station which is intended to burn the RDF. Also, the City felt that the statement, NSP expects no litter as a result of the RDF plant, was unrealistic and misleading. The primary responsibility for cleanup of that litter should have been discussed. 6. Health Risk - The City felt that the FEIS is misleading in its failure to disclose the nonconservative assumptions in the health rish analyses. The City also feels that the Final Environmental Impact Statement should have provided a specific answer as to whether or not a scrubber as well as a bag house will be required at the UPA site. The Final Environmental Statement says that a scrubber, bag house combination could be required. The City felt that a cost benefit analyses as to the health benefits and economic consequences of that technology should have been provided in order to use the FEIS as a decision making document as it was intended to be. Tom Woods, Elk River citizen, addressed the Council. He indicated that he agreed with the Council's view on where the FEIS was inadequate and stressed the health risk assessment as the biggest inadequacy. Don McConnon of the United Power Association of Elk River stated that the EPA method of determining health risk assessments was the standard method in the U.S. and he felt the FEIS was adequate. There being no further business, COUNCILMEMBER GUNKEL MOVED THAT THE MEETING BE ADJOURNED. COUNCILMEMBER SCHULTZ SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION PASSED 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 10.00 p.m. e Respectfully submitted, ~ flJI! Stephen Rohlf ) Building & Zoning Administrator