Laserfiche WebLink
'1 <br /> <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />-12- <br /> <br /> engineered to function as a resource recovery facility that would <br /> generate methane. This facility would be constructed with a <br /> triple liner for groundwater protection. <br /> <br /> The MPCA staff considers this proposal to change the <br />character of the site from a landfill operation to a resource <br />recovery facility. This is a high technology approach to solid <br />waste disposal not previously used in Minnesota. <br /> <br /> The Waste Management Act requires the MPCA to certify sites <br />for sanitary and demolition landfill use, not resource recovery <br />facility use. The criteria adopted by the Agency for the <br />evaluation of the intrinsic suitability of landfill sites are not <br />designed to evaluate resource recovery facilities. The change in <br />the County's proposal cannot, in the MPCA staff's opinion, justify <br />a change in the recommendation of the Director. <br /> <br /> The Director, in certifying Site P as intrinsically <br />unsuitable for sanitary and demolition landfill use, expresses no <br />opinion with respect to any future application for a permit at <br />Site P to construct and operate a resource recovery facility at <br />'that site. <br /> <br /> Conclusion on Site P <br /> <br /> The MPCA staff agrees that Site P is not within a wetland and <br />thus changes that portion of the previous recommendation. <br />However, the MPCA staff does not ~ange its recommendation that <br />Site P not be certified as intrinsically suitable for either <br /> <br /> <br />