Laserfiche WebLink
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 />I <br /> <br />-17- <br /> <br /> The information on groundwater received at the hearing and <br />during the comment period is not sufficient to cause the MPCA <br />staff to change its recommendation as to the intrinsic suitability <br />of Site R. <br /> <br /> Conclusion on Site R <br /> <br /> No comments or new information on the inherent <br />characteristics of the site was introduced into the record which <br />would cause a change in the recommendation that Site R be <br />certified as intrinsically suitable for sanitary landfill use. <br /> <br /> III. CONCLUSION <br /> <br /> Based on the information in the hearing record, the MPCA <br />staff recommends that Sites D, E and R be certified as <br />intrinsically suitable for sanitary landfill use under the <br />conditions outlined in the Director's recommendation. The MPCA <br />staff recommends that Site Q be certified as intrinsically <br />suitable for demolition landfill use under the conditions outlined <br />in the Director's recommendation. The MPCA staff recommends that <br />Site P not be certified as intrinsically suitable for either <br />sanitary or demolition landfill use <br /> <br /> Failure of the Director to certify a site as intrinsically <br />suitable for sanitary landfill use does not mean that the site <br />could not qualify for permits to operate an alternative type of <br />waste management facility. Such technologically advanced methods <br />as methane generation cannot be properly evaluated within the <br /> <br /> <br />