3/19/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Board of County Commissioner; -2- March 18, 1980 the proceedincs before DER. In our presentation.here to' you at this time, we request that you consider the issues not determined by DER. These issues are: 1. The propriety of spending public funds for the construction of this plant at this site. 2. The propriety of constructing this plant in the neighborhood at which -it is proposed to be constructed when there are other areas, both large enough and -remote enough, to accommodate such a plant. 3. The propriety of the County proceeding only with a construction permit knowing full well that after -completion of construction, it will be required to have an operating permit. All the foregoing might be distilled into the question for the Board of County Commissioners being: Is the proposed plant at the proposed site necessary or desirable? The hearing officer rejected our questions concerning the necessity or desirability of this plant by finding that the County had applied only for a construction permit. Questions concerning the necessity or desirability are regulated by the law pertaining to operating the plant. This leaves the County in the position of being confronted with the possibility of receiving a construction permit which permits the plant to be operated only for four months after which the County must have an operating permit. This leaves the County with the.possibility of having constructed a plant which it cannot operate. DER has stated that it has no regulations dealing with discharge of viruses in sewage effluent. As stated in the hearing officer's findings,'in this kind of plant large numbers of virus exist in the effluent. These viruses remain viable. The testimony of Dr. Flora Mae Wellings of the State Department of Health shows a virus is discharged MAR 19 19.80 i 437 - PAGE y'