Laserfiche WebLink
-9- <br />33. At a round of public meetings held in January and February of 1981 the <br />participants were presented with a list of suggested possible siting criteria. <br />Almost 2,500 members of the public attended the second round of public meetings. <br />34. The participants were asked to discuss the suggested siting criteria and <br />to suggest additional criteria. They were then asked to indicate the most impor- <br />tant criteria for hazardous waste processing facilities. The four dominant evalua- <br />tion factors identified in these public meetings were: (1) processing facilities <br />should be near the source of generation of hazardous waste, (2) processing <br />facilities should be on or near safe transportation routes, (3) processing <br />facilities should be located in a manner so as to protect water quality, and (4) <br />the use of land for a hazardous waste processing facility should be compatible <br />with existing land uses and with any current land use plans. <br />35, In February of 1981 the Board retained Environmental Resources Management, <br />Inc., to provide technical assistance to the Board in selecting processing inven- <br />tory areas. In two working papers ERM analyzed a number of specific criteria which <br />fue......:vje.S StcJ six pi'opused combinations of <br />criteria for processing facilities to the Board. <br />36. As the first siting activity progressed there were numerous opportunities <br />for public, agency, and technical comment on the factors used in evaluating the <br />areas under consideration. <br />37.. The factors used to analyze and compare the proposed areas and select the <br />preferred areas were as follows: <br />1st Level of Consideration <br />Land use <br />Transportation <br />