My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1987/03/16
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
Agenda Packets - 1987/03/16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/28/2025 12:29:50 PM
Creation date
4/28/2025 10:59:26 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
3/16/1987
Description
Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
DOCKETS UNIT <br />PAGE. TWELVE <br />MARCH 24, 1987 <br />Response: <br />Land use is appropriately regulated by State or Local / <br />Government, however, operators have often hidden behind <br />the cloak of interstate commerce to prohibit efforts by <br />states and local units to regulate their operations <br />including the routing of a pipeline. The proposed <br />regulation would enable states or local units to legally <br />regulate pipeline routes as well as the distance of <br />inhabited facilities from such pipelines. <br />(e) How would land use be controlled within the proposed <br />zone after the pipeline is constructed? <br />Response: <br />Based upon this proposed regulation and the expected <br />charge that the "buffer zone" be protected by <br />appropriate regulation of land use, the control of land <br />use would appropriately be regulated by the local units <br />of government. <br />8. Proposal: <br />Specify "chemical fertilizer products" as "Hazardous <br />liquid." (H.R. 262) <br />Response: <br />Any product transported in an intrastate pipeline which is <br />hazardous to the public or the environment should be <br />regulated. <br />Questions: <br />(a) Besides anhydrous ammonia, what products transported by <br />pipeline would be covered by the suggested definitional <br />change? <br />Response: <br />The City is not in a position to respond to this <br />question knowledgeably. <br />(b) Are any of these products transported in pipelines <br />that are already subject to Part 195 because the <br />pipeline also carries a regulated commodity <br />such as anhydrous ammonia? <br />Response: <br />The City is not• in a position to respond to this <br />�- question knowledgeably. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.