08-21-1986 CC MIN - SPECIAL
e
e
e
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ELK RIVER CITY COUNCIL
TO DISCUSS THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE REFUSE DERIVED FUEL RESOURCE FACILITY
HELD AT THE ELK RIVER SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL THEATER
THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1986
Members Present: Councilmembers Gunkel, Schultz, Engstrom and Mayor Hinkle
Members Absent: Councilmember Williams resigned
Staff Present: Pat Klaers; City Administrator, Stephen Rohlf; Building and
Zoning Administrator, Dave Sellergren; City Attorney, John
Klovning; RDF Consultant and Kay Kruse'Stanton, Mr. Klovning's
Assistant
1. Call Meeting to Order
Mayor Hinkle called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2 . Agenda
Considering the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Refuse
Fuel (RDF) Facility.
3.
Minutes
Dave Sellergren gave an opening statement about state laws regarding
Environmental Impact Statements. Mr. Sellergren stated that the purpose of an
EIS was to provide information to evaluate and describe a particular proposal
and to explore alternative methods to the proposal. He further stated the
first step in the process was the scoping process which was to find out what
concerns there are about a proposal. The second step was the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement after which people could comment on the
adequacy of that document. The last step in the process would be the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Mr. Sellergren stated that the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is a responsible governmental unit for the
Envirommental Impact Statement for the refuge derived fuel plant. Mr.
Sellergren further indicated, however, that the City has the right to give
their opinion on the adequacy of that Environmental Impact Statement. He said
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency MPCA will determine the adequacy on
August 26, 1986.
John Klovning commented that the final EIS had a large amount of additional
information that the draft EIS did not cover. He further indicated that there
were some concerns that were not completely answered in the final EIS also.
Discussion was carried on between Councilmembers and Staff as to where the
final environmental statement was inadequate.
Mr. Sellergren was directed by the Elk River City Council to draft a letter to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency commenting on where the Elk River City
Council felt the final EIS was inadequate. The areas of inadequacy in the
City's view were as follows:
1.
City felt that all alternatives, technologies and
not adequately discussed in the Final Environmental
Alternatives The
alternate sites were
Impact Statement.
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