Laserfiche WebLink
Comments on the SDA landfill expansion petition by Waste Management, registered by Angela <br />Mathison on behalf of the residents of Ridges of Rice Lake, Elk River, MN. <br />1. Waste Management is "100% committed" to placing a new 8 burner gas plant on the 109 <br />acre proposed expansion. <br />- The EIS completed in 2006 does not outline plans for a gas plant <br />- Debra Moynihan at MN PCA was contacted. She could not state with any <br />certainty whether the addition of the gas plant would impact the relevance of <br />the EIS. She could not have an answer for us until Monday, September 21St at <br />the earliest. <br />- There has been no commitment from Waste Management as to where that plant <br />would be located on the 109 acre site. <br />2. There is allegedly some leakage from the old liners in the current site. Has this been <br />addressed and fixed? This should be addressed. If it has been addressed and fixed, do we have <br />evidence that it has been repaired in a permanent fashion? <br />3. The EIS did not address the issue of ground water safety. The potential health impacts have <br />not been met in regards to the ground water issue. <br />4. Waste Management has done a poor job in maintaining a visually aesthetic entrance to the <br />current site. The landscaping is poorly maintained and there is garbage throughout the medians <br />and ditches along 169, as well as a terrible odor. Will this problem expand with the expansion <br />of the landfill? It lends itself to a poor welcome into our city and perpetuates our reputation as <br />"the city with the dump". <br />5. The initial EIS was done with the proposal for the entire 109 acres of land to be used as a <br />lined solid waste dump (9 new cells that would extend to the corner of 221St and 169). Our <br />understanding is that Waste Management has consistently stated that the site would be <br />closed/capped in 2030. <br />- As we understand it, the initial proposal contends that they would reach capacity in <br />2030 using all 109 acres for lined solid waste dump <br />- The revised proposal was for 60 acres of lined solid waste dump, but still closing in 2030 <br />- The most recent revision is for 40 acres of lined solid waste dump and yet still <br />closing/capping in 2030 <br />- If the initial proposal for 109 acres was going to take them to 2030 to reach capacity, <br />and they now contend that they only need 40 acres, there is high probability that they <br />will reach capacity before 2030. If the permit is granted for the 109 acres, what stops <br />them from expanding that lined footprint to extend the life of the site? <br />