Laserfiche WebLink
! <br />! <br /> <br />~Ject Size and Layou~ Alternatives <br /> <br />! <br />! <br /> <br />Expansion is proposed. <br /> <br />Scaled down expansion - based on such considerations <br /> <br />a) increased separation distance to residential areas, <br /> <br />b) <br /> <br />consistency with forecasts of needed landfill ca- <br />pacity in Hennepin County versus total landfill ca- <br />pactly potentially av-,ilable to the county via ~he <br />county's landfill site search and selection process, <br />and <br /> <br />c) <br /> <br />waste abatement efforts as identified by 'the regiona <br />solid waste management plan and Mennepin County's <br />solid waste management plan, such as utilizing curre <br />recycling and composting progr-m-~ in the service are <br /> <br />3i No project/site closure-after cOnsideration of such <br />$ options as using existing .facilities, implementing re- <br />i source recover, including incineration and co-compos.~ing <br />~ t'~ waste with sewage sludge. <br /> <br />P..~,iject Design Alternatives <br />1[ Addition of a liner. <br /> <br />This alternative requires consideration of the liner <br />design including natural versus artificial liner, in- <br />clusion or exclusion of a leachate collection system, <br />and design and collection efficiency of the leachate <br />collection system. <br /> <br />Other ground water protection measures. <br /> <br />If any unacceptable impacts on ground or surface waters <br />are identified, it may be appropriate to consider other <br />design alternatives in addition to or in lieu of a line~ <br />These might include ground water interception or gra- <br />dient control features such as pumping wells. ' <br /> <br />Alternatives to improve the effectiveness of proposed <br />design features, such as a) methane collection/barrier <br />system, b) noise/visual barriers, and c) litter col- <br />lection fencing. <br /> <br /> <br />