2006 Minnesota Statutes

115A.24 STABILIZATION AND CONTAINMENT FACILITIES; ESTIMATE OF NEED;
ANALYSIS OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY.
    Subdivision 1. Estimate of need for stabilization and containment facilities. The agency
shall develop an estimate of the number, types, capacity, and function or use of any hazardous
waste stabilization and containment facilities needed in the state.
In developing its estimate the agency shall:
(1) prepare a preliminary estimate of the types and quantities of waste generated in the state
for which stabilization and containment will be needed through the year 2000 based to the extent
practical on data obtained from generators who are likely to use the facility;
(2) estimate the disposal capacity located outside of the state, taking into account the status
of facility permits, current and planned capacity, and prospective restrictions on expansion of
capacity;
(3) estimate the prospects for the continued availability of capacity outside of the state
for disposal of waste generated in the state;
(4) estimate the types and quantities of waste likely to be generated as residuals of the
commercial hazardous waste processing facilities recommended by the agency for development
in the state and for which stabilization and containment will be needed, taking into account
the likely users of the facilities; and
(5) compare the indirect costs and benefits of developing stabilization and containment
facilities in the state or relying on facilities outside the state to dispose of hazardous waste
generated in the state, taking into account the effects on business, employment, economic
development, public health and safety, the environment, and the development of collection and
processing facilities and services in the state.
In preparing the estimate, the agency may identify need for stabilization and containment
only to the extent that the agency has determined that there are no feasible and prudent
alternatives, including waste reduction, separation, pretreatment, processing, and resource
recovery, which would minimize adverse impact upon air, water, land and all other natural
resources. Economic considerations alone may not justify an estimate of need for stabilization and
containment nor the rejection of alternatives. Alternatives that are speculative and conjectural are
not feasible and prudent. The agency shall consider all technologies being developed in other
countries as well as in the United States when it considers the alternatives to hazardous waste
stabilization and containment.
    Subd. 2.[Repealed, 1983 c 121 s 33]
    Subd. 3. Radioactive waste. The agency's estimate of need shall not allow the use of a
facility for stabilization and containment of radioactive waste, as defined by section 116C.71,
subdivision 6 .
    Subd. 4. Economic feasibility analysis. The agency shall prepare an economic feasibility
analysis for stabilization and containment facilities of the type, capacity, and function or use
estimated by the agency to be needed in the state under subdivision 1. The analysis must be
specific to the sites where the facilities are proposed to be located. The analysis must include at
least the following elements:
(1) an estimate of the capital, operating, and other direct costs of the facilities and the fee
schedules and user charges necessary to make the facilities economically viable;
(2) an assessment of the other costs of using the stabilization and containment facilities, such
as transportation costs and stabilization and containment surcharges;
(3) an assessment of the market for the facility for waste generated in the state, that identifies
the generators that would use the facility under existing and likely future market conditions,
describes the methods otherwise available to those generators to manage their wastes and the costs
of using those methods, and establishes the level at which the cost of using the proposed facilities
would be competitive with the cost of using other available methods of waste management;
(4) an estimate of the subsidy, if any, needed to make the facility competitive for Minnesota
generators under existing market conditions and the changes in market conditions that would
increase or lower any subsidy.
History: 1980 c 564 art 3 s 7; 1981 c 352 s 20; 1982 c 424 s 130; 1982 c 569 s 10,11;
1983 c 121 s 26; 1983 c 373 s 24; 1984 c 644 s 22; 1986 c 425 s 47; 1989 c 335 art 1 s 269;
1Sp2005 c 1 art 2 s 161