Laserfiche WebLink
~:~~.~~ Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <br /> <br /> : ! . <br />Geral~ Isaacs, Chairman <br />Metro~li~an Cocci1 <br />Room ~O,l~e~ro Squ~e BuiidinZ - <br /> <br />De~ ~. ~saacs:[ <br />The ~neSota Pollution Control Agency (~CA) s~f h~ reviewed <br />the e~ir~nmen¢al assessment workshee.t [~W) ~or ~he proposed <br />Fl~in~C10ud. Sanit~y Lan~ill ~SW-14) e~ansion and has several <br />co~e~s to offer for yo~ consideratiOn in the enviro~ental <br />~paO~at~tement (EIS) s~ping decision. ~ese co~en~s pertain <br />to sPeCific issues, including project alternatives, tha~ we believe <br />shoul~d~be ad~essed in the EIS. In addition, work being per~o~ed <br /> <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I- <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />unde~ .~he existing landfill's amended permit that would be of <br />value! ~ox this EIS is discussed. Finally, the requirements of the <br />~PCA S~ll~ Waste permit for the expansion are discussed together <br />with !r~le ~'ant timing issues. <br /> <br />Specific ~IS Scopin.g Issues <br /> | <br /> <br />1. ~attves <br /> Th? o~amination of alternatives to the expansion proposal <br /> ~hb,]l~ be as Thorough as possible, and should be undertaken' <br /> ~a~lyf in the ElS process. If the project as proposed does <br /> ra~,~dverse impacts, this should be known soon enough for <br /> bW~ing-}erris Industries (BPI)/~oodlake to do the engi- <br /> ~*brtng on an acceptable project concept.~ We recommend tha~ <br /> · =~ ~,IS consider at l~ast the alternatives outlined below. <br /> <br /> <br />