Agenda Packets - 1987/03/16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C DOCKETS UNIT PAGE FOUR MARCH 24, 1987 aware of the existence of the pipeline, its location and methods for responding to a hazard. In fact, residents who have lived at this same location since before the line was constructed, do not even recall receiving notices on the pipeline which were supposedly distributed by WPL. Current public education efforts are, at best, minimally effective and so general in nature as not to attract the attention of those members of the public to whom it is intended. Questions: (a) Would the proposed written notice to land owners of a pipeline's location and emergency response informa- tion be a beneficial addition to the communication required by the current. standard? Response: Current standards do not inform property owners of the _ risks they face or what to do when they encounter a ' situation such as that experienced by the residents of Mounds View on July 0, 1986. The purpose of a public information program is to provide, not withhold, information. (b) What would be the cost of notifying all such land owners? Response: The City is not in a position to determine the possible cost of this proposal, however, it should be pointed out that the proposal is designed to assist in protecting the public health, safety and welfare. Any cost considerations should be balanced against the value of a human life. (c) What compliance difficulties are foreseen for gas distribution systems or other pipelines in residential or urban areas in giving the proposed written notice? Response: Many options are available for distributing notices in residential and urban areas including, but• not limited to the inclusion of notices in utility billings, ( delivery using the services of various private delivery services as well as the U. S. Postal Service, etc.