East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill (SW ...operations. The ECSWC and its serviced counties developed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 2006 that identifies the landfill

. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency520 Lafayette Road North I St. Paul, MN55155-4194 I 651-296-6300 I 800-657-3864 I 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pca.state.mn.us

June 8,2010

TO: INTERESTED PARTIES

RE: East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill (SW-17) Expansion

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has approved the Findings of Fact, Conclusions ofLaw, and Order for a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement on theproposed East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill (SW-17) Expansion, Kanabec County.The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order document concludes that this project does not havethe potential for significant environmental effects. The decision for a Negative Declaration completes thestate environmental review process under the revised Environmental Quality Board rules, Minn. R.4410.1700, subp. 7. Final governmental decisions to grant a permit or other approval for the project maynow be made.

These documents can be reviewed at the following locations: the MPCA offices in St. Paul, Brainerd, andDuluth; the Minneapolis Public Library at 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis; and the East Central RegionalLibrary at 244 South Birch Street, Cambridge. The document can be viewed on our MPCA Web site athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. Requests for copies of these documents may be made bycontacting the St. Paul office at 651-757-2101. .

We want to express our appreciation for comments submitted on the Environmental AssessmentWorksheet. Comments and responses to them have been incorporated into the Findings of Fact,Conclusions of Law, and Order and have been considered by MPCA staff in drafting permits for theproposed project.

Sincerely, .

~~.Craig AffeldtSupervisor, Environmental Review UnitSt. Paul OfficeRegional Division

CA:mbo

St. Paul I Brainerd I Detroit Lakes I Duluth I Mankato I Marshall I Rochest!!r I Willmar I Printed on 100% post-consumer recycled paper

---

mosborn1

Typewritten Text

g-33-01

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EAST CENTRAL SOLID WASTE COMMISSION SANITARY LANDFILL, AND THE PROPOSED LANDFILL GAS-FIRED ENGINE-GENERATOR SET, ARTHUR TOWNSHIP, KANABEC COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed East Central Solid Waste Commission (ECSWC) sanitary landfill expansion (Project). Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

EXISTING FACILITY 1. ECSWC sanitary landfill (permit SW-17) is located on 226.5 acres in Sections 20, 21, and 29 of

Arthur Township (Township 39 North, Range 24 West) in Kanabec County. The facility currently occupies approximately 160 acres within this parcel. The site is located approximately four miles southwest of Mora, Minnesota on the north side of State Highway 23.

2. The facility includes a closed, unlined mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill, a currently

operated lined MSW landfill, a former demolition debris landfill, and a new demolition debris landfill. Prior to 1991, waste was deposited in the unlined landfill. The unlined landfill, located at the southern end of the facility, was closed in 1991. The approximate area of the closed portion of the landfill is 10 acres, and it holds approximately 629,200 cubic yards of waste.

3. Groundwater contamination (vinyl chloride) has been identified in the southeast corner of the landfill

site and is assumed to originate from this unlined cell. Monitoring has been performed since the contamination was discovered, and the most recent testing has shown a downward trend in concentrations. There is no evidence that contamination has moved off the site. No remediation is currently being done, but is an option if concentrations increase.

4. Leachate is currently managed by trucking it to St. Paul for disposal in the Metropolitan Council

Environmental Services (MCES) wastewater treatment plant, or recirculation in the landfill. ECSWC intends to propose land application of leachate onsite within the next few months.

5. Landfill gas (LFG) is managed by an active collection system and flare. Other facilities currently

located at the site include:

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Conclusions of Law Expansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota And Order

• Scalehouse and residential customer waste drop-off area • Operation maintenance building • ECSWC administrative office • Materials Recovery and Compost building and infrastructure, currently used for equipment

and material storage

6. The property is bounded on the south by Kanabec County Road 60 (180th Avenue) and on the east by Imperial Road (formerly Rittenour Road), maintained by Arthur Township. ECSWC owns additional parcels east and south of these boundaries. The surrounding owned areas (totaling approximately 66.5 acres) are used currently as buffer properties. Property surrounding the landfill is generally zoned for agricultural and rural residential use. Sand and gravel operations are located immediately north and south of the landfill property.

7. Access to the landfill is restricted by fencing along County Road 60 and Imperial Road, as well as along the northern and western property boundary. The main gate to the landfill is located on County Road 60 and is marked by signs identifying the facilities located on the site. The main gate remains open during business hours and is otherwise locked. A secondary entrance to the landfill is located along Imperial Road on the eastern boundary. This entrance is used primarily for access to the soil borrow operations north of the MSW landfill and for facility contractors, and generally remains locked. A third gate is located along County Road 60, west of the main gate, near the stormwater detention basin for the former compost facility. This gate is rarely used and remains locked.

8. MSW collection within the ECSWC service area is supported by transfer stations located near

Cambridge (SW-400) and Hinckley (SW-401). Both transfer stations are owned and operated by the ECSWC. A portion of waste generated in Aitkin County is transported through a transfer station owned by Garrison Disposal before being hauled to the landfill. A portion of waste generated in Chisago County is transported through a privately-owned transfer station before being transported to the ECSWC transfer station in Cambridge.

PERMIT HISTORY

9. Former owners of the landfill originally began disposal activities there in October 1970. In 1979, the

MPCA issued a modified permit for the filling of an additional ten acres at the site. Though the additional ten acres was approved, the entire expansion area was not utilized. The ECSWC, established in 1988 as a consortium of Kanabec, Chisago, Isanti, Pine, and Mille Lacs Counties, took over operations at the landfill in 1988.

10. In June 1991, the MPCA issued a modified permit to the ECSWC to construct and operate a lined

expansion of the existing sanitary landfill. The subsequent permit amendment authorized an expansion of capacity for the disposal of 477,000 cubic yards (CY) of MSW and cover soils in the lined expansion area.

11. A permit renewal issued in May 1999 increased the total capacity for lined Phases 1 through 5 to an

estimated 1,429,700 CY of airspace. The permit authorized the landfill to utilize up to 950,890 CY of airspace as long as the Certificate of Need capacity was available. This includes compacted, in-place MSW and all daily, intermediate, and final cover soil to be deposited in Phases 3A through 5.

12. Another permit renewal in September 2004, which included a vertical expansion within the

previously identified MSW footprint, granted approval for 355,000 CY of additional disposal

2


capacity. The current permitted landfill volume totals 1,784,700 CY (inclusive of all cover materials), providing MSW and demolition debris disposal capacity to ECSWC customers through 2010.

13. The September 2004 permit reissuance also allowed ECSWC to begin a pilot leachate recirculation

study. The purpose of leachate recirculation is to stabilize the waste, reduce its volume, and maximize LFG production to be burned in the flare and engine-generator for greenhouse gas reduction. Leachate recirculation operations are limited to Phases 4 and 5. The leachate recirculation system was constructed in 2004 and recirculation began in October 2004. The permit modification approval included additional facility monitoring parameters, and operation and monitoring reports to be submitted to the MPCA on a quarterly basis.

14. The ECSWC Materials Recovery and Compost Facility (SW-360) was permitted by the MPCA in

1990. This facility was undertaken by the ECSWC in an effort to comply with the goals and objectives of the Waste Management Act. The Materials Recovery and Compost Facility was designed with a capacity of 250 tons per day. The facility operated until the summer of 1994, when it was damaged during a fire. In 1995, ECSWC entered into an operations agreement with a composting and recycling company to operate this component of facility operations. However, the contracted facility operators were not able to produce a useful compost product, and could not operate the system in an economical manner. The operations agreement was, therefore, terminated in 1999. The facility has not operated since, and ECSWC currently has no plans to resume the MSW processing operations. The ECSWC and its serviced counties developed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 2006 that identifies the landfill as a means of disposal for waste that is not reused or recycled.

15. A three-acre construction and demolition (C&D) debris landfill (SW-415) on the 160-acre ECSWC

site was permitted in 1992. The demolition debris landfill was operated until 2004, when ECSWC transferred the existing C&D waste in-place to the MSW footprint as part of the 2003 SW-17 permit reissuance. C&D waste was disposed of in the MSW landfill until 2008. In 2007, the MPCA approved a new C&D material landfill to the north of the existing MSW landfill, beneath the subgrade of the proposed MSW expansion area. The new C&D landfill is incorporated into the facility’s current MSW permit, SW-17 and has been utilized exclusively for C&D material disposal since September 2008.

16. The current MPCA permit divides the landfill into five MSW phases, identified as Phase 1 through 5,

and four C&D phases identified as Phase 1 through 4. The current permitted capacity of the MSW Landfill is 1,784,700 CY. The current permitted capacity of the C&D landfill is 126,500 CY.

17. An EAW was prepared on the landfill facility in 1991. The process ended with a negative declaration, meaning no Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was required.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

18. The current solid waste permit renewal application seeks MPCA approval for the construction of

additional MSW landfill cells Phase 6A and 6B, north of MSW Landfill Phase 5, and construction of additional C&D landfill Phases 5 and 6, west of C&D Landfill Phase 4. The proposed expansion would provide an additional MSW disposal capacity of 968,022 CY and additional C&D disposal capacity of 116,121 CY.

19. In addition to the proposal by ECSWC to expand its landfill disposal capacity, the Southern

Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (SMMPA) is seeking an air emission permit to install and

3


operate an engine and generator set on the landfill site to burn the landfill gas and generate power for the local grid. The flare will remain and continue to be used as needed if the active gas collection system produces more gas than the engine can use, and when the engine-generator set is down for maintenance. The flare will require an air emission permit as well, meaning that the proposed projects will require a total of one solid waste permit and two air emission permits.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

20. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 17B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed

projects. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on March 5, 2010.

21. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release

was provided to media in Kanabec, Pine, Isanti, Mille Lacs and Aitkin Counties, as well as other interested parties, on March 8, 2010. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on March 8, 2010, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

22. The public comment period for the EAW began on March 8, 2010, and ended on April 19, 2010.

During the comment period, the MPCA received one comment letter from The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and five letters from citizens. A list of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings.

23. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the public comment

period. The comment letters received and the responses to the comments are included as Appendix B to these findings.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 24. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for

significant environmental effects. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. cumulative potential effects;

C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other

available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA

ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects

4

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Conclusions of Law Expansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota And Order 25. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

26. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the Project include the

following:

• Air Quality Impacts • Water Quality Impacts • Groundwater Impacts • Habitat Impacts (wetlands) • Issues raised in comment letters, including general groundwater concerns, general air quality

concerns including effects on workers, soils, and crops, traffic, possible well contaminations, and noise.

27. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the

Project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Air Quality Impacts 28. The project would result in two air emission point sources (the flare and engine-generator set) as well

as landfill area emissions such as fugitive dust. These emission sources were evaluated by air emission dispersion modeling and preparation of an Air Emission Risk Assessment (AERA). A qualitative analysis of greenhouse gas impacts was also included.

29. The dispersion modeling showed that estimated air concentrations of the criteria pollutants (except

lead, which is not emitted from any of the facility sources) were below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards.

30. The AERA analysis was performed based on a worst case scenario, including the assumption that the

flare and engine-generator set would be operating continuously at full capacity. In reality, the landfill will not produce enough gas to power both sources at full capacity. The analysis found that screening level potential risk estimates for the post-modification landfill are at or below established health risk benchmarks, with the exception of the farmer cancer risk estimate.

31. Pursuant to AERA guidelines, the source of the human health impact (the engine-generator set) and

the area of highest impact (the fence line along the southeast facility boundary) were re-examined by means of a refined analysis. The worst case farmer-cancer scenario alluded to above assumed, in addition to inhalation and consumption of vegetables raised in the highest impact area, that the farmer raises and consumes beef, pork, chicken, milk, and eggs produced from forage grown within the location of highest impact. Further, the majority of the calculated farmer cancer risks come from dioxins/furans emitted by the engine and consumed via ingestion of milk produced in the highest risk area. Since farming does not occur at the highest risk area, and the risks dissipate rapidly with distance, the refined analysis shows that health risk estimates do not exceed benchmarks.

32. Carbon dioxide and methane are emitted from landfills and are two of the primary greenhouse gases,

which trap heat near the earth’s surface, causing the earth’s climate to warm. Volume for volume, methane is much more potent in this regard than is carbon dioxide. ECSWC employs the flare to

5


convert methane to carbon dioxide, thus reducing the facility’s level of greenhouse gas impact. The installation of the engine-generator set would have a similar effect.

33. The main source of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions is the combustion of fossil fuels to run

vehicles, heat buildings, and produce electricity. While landfills are a source of greenhouse gases, they do not represent a significant percentage of statewide greenhouse gas emissions. In Minnesota, landfills contribute approximately one to four percent towards total inventoried Minnesota greenhouse gas emission sources.

34. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air emissions. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

35. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Water Quality Impacts 36. The facility discharges stormwater from outfalls from stormwater treatment and storage basins. Site

stormwater will be collected off the landfill via benches and downdrains and transported in a series of ditches to constructed ponds in the southwestern, southeastern, and northern portions of the site. These ponds will be sized to control the 24-hour, 25-year storm event and achieve 80 percent sediment removal efficiency, and constructed so as to encourage infiltration. The sandy nature of the soil in the area will encourage infiltration as well. All precipitation that contacts solid waste is collected and treated as leachate. Runoff from the landfill facility ultimately flows to the Ann River, Fish Lake, the Snake River, and the St Croix River. Stormwater permitting requirements will mitigate potential adverse water quality effects, and no measurable impact on those waters is likely.

37. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to assess impacts related to water quality. The impacts on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

38. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Conclusions of Law Expansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota And Order Groundwater Impacts 39. The new MSW disposal cells proposed as part of this Project will be lined with state of the art

impermeable materials. Leachate generated within the landfill is collected on this liner by means of a series of pipes and risers that will transport the collected leachate to the leachate storage ponds or to storage tanks. Leachate is currently managed either by trucking it to the MCES facility in St Paul for treatment or by recirculation within the landfill, and this will continue with the project. The proposed new cells will also be capped upon closure with impermeable materials.

40. East Central also intends to implement land application of leachate on site during the frost free months with MPCA approval. If approved, this will take place on land within the landfill boundary and located west of the proposed disposal area. Monitoring wells will be utilized to assure that leachate is not being over applied. Leachate to be land applied would be taken from the leachate storage and treatment ponds. These ponds are designed to reduce Biochemical Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Volatile Organic Compounds, odors, and metals in the leachate by mechanical aeration.

41. The combination of lined and capped disposal cells and a variety of means for managing collected

leachate means that little if any leachate would be expected to reach groundwater in the vicinity of the existing and proposed landfill.


review record is adequate to address the concerns related to groundwater quality. The impacts on groundwater quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to groundwater quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Wildlife and Habitat Impacts 44. The East Central site has been a solid waste disposal facility for 40 years, and much of it is already

disturbed to a greater or lesser degree. No significant wildlife populations have been observed permanently residing within these areas.

45. There are 4.98 acres of wetlands located on the site west of the current active disposal area and lie

within an area that is intended to be used for land disposal of leachate, subject to mitigation and MPCA approval. The area is divided into two subareas for land application purposes, and the wetlands in the first subarea to be used have been filled and leveled in anticipation of siting of a demolition landfill cell that was subsequently developed elsewhere. Pursuant to a Wetland Conservation Act sequencing analysis performed by the Kanabec County Technical Evaluation Panel in 2006, and the subsequent adoption of a Wetland Replacement Plan and Wetland Mitigation Plan by the ECSWC, the anticipated loss of the wetlands in the two subareas was mitigated by purchase of 4.98 acres of wetland credits in 2009. These wetlands are in the path of the landfill’s ultimate life of facility development plan, although approval for actual development for disposal cells is several permit cycles away.

46. The MDNR Natural Heritage Program has identified six rare species near the Ann River in the

vicinity of the existing and proposed landfill. Of the rare species, the mucket and round pigtoe

7


mussels are both state listed as threatened. The DNR states that, provided the Project will not negatively impact the water quality of Ann River, the Project will not affect any known occurrences of rare features. As discussed further in Finding No. 36, surface water run-off will be collected in ditches/basins and diverted to sedimentation basins for settling of suspended solids; the Project is thus not expected to impact the water quality of the Ann River.


review record is adequate to address the concerns related to wildlife and habitat. The impacts on wildlife and habitat that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to wildlife and habitat that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Issues raised in comment letters, including general groundwater concerns, general air quality concerns including effects on workers, soils, and crops, traffic, possible well contaminations and noise. 49. Several commenters expressed concern about a perceived higher incidence of diseases such as cancer

in the vicinity of the landfill. According to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), which is the state agency charged with collecting cancer incidence data, there is no evidence that what appears to be a higher than normal incidence of cancer in the vicinity of the landfill is in fact out of the normal range statewide. According to MDH, small sample sizes in lightly populated areas are not reliable as a basis for such conclusions, and can actually be misleading. In this case, data from MDH shows an apparent slight elevation in the incidence of some kinds of cancers, but the numbers are well within the normal ranges for these cancers statewide.

50. One commenter expressed a general concern about groundwater pollution on his property and in the area. As noted above in findings 39 – 41, the proposed new MSW disposal cells will be lined and capped with impermeable materials, and leachate will be collected and managed so as not to enter groundwater. Monitoring well sampling near the old, unlined landfill has shown decreasing contamination levels in the more recent tests. The monitoring system has found no contaminants beyond the property boundary. Finally, this commenter’s land is south of the landfill, while groundwater movement in the area is generally east-southeasterly, meaning that it is not likely that contaminants would move toward his property.

51. The same commenter expressed concern about soil contamination from the methane burner and generator, as well as adverse effects on his crops and employees.

52. According to the AERA, the primary risk drivers in the highest impact areas come from the engine-generator set.

53. Regarding effects on soils and crops, a predevelopment background study at the Elk River landfill site showed only minute concentrations of dioxins and furans, which are the primary risk drivers for farmer cancer risks in the highest impacted area at East Central. Since the East Central landfill was not a dioxin source until the recent addition of the flare, the situations are similar, and there is no reason to suspect that material differences would be found were a similar study to be done at East Central. Moreover, the air emission modeling performed for the engine-generator set predicts much

8


lower concentrations than a study similar to the one done at Elk River would find at East Central, and also predicts even lower concentrations than what would be expected as background levels.

54. Regarding effects on employees, the AERA found that all project pollutant concentrations in the highest impact area will be below established guidelines, meaning that it is reasonable to expect that there will be no significant effects on people working in the area.

55. One commenter expressed concern about odors and recommended that soil should be used for cover rather than alternative cover materials. The MPCA has found alternative cover materials to be effective in minimizing odors, and has the authority to order use of soil for this purpose if this is found to be necessary. Recent odor events are traceable to equipment failures that have been corrected.

56. The same commenter expressed concerns about noise and recommends that the crusher not be allowed to operate 24 hours per day. The landfill’s air quality permit will require the facility to meet state noise standards at all times. The conditional use permit issued by Arthur Township limits crusher operations to 7a.m. – 7 p.m. Complaints should be directed to the Township.

57. This commenter also recommended more signs warning drivers of trucks entering and leaving the landfill. Since the proposed landfill expansion is for the purpose of continuing the current level of operations, the current level of truck traffic will not change significantly. No other evidence was found to indicate that the current level of signing is deficient.


review record is adequate to address the concerns related to increased cancer incidence in the area of the landfill; general groundwater concerns; general air quality concerns including odors, effects on workers, soils, and crops, traffic, and noise. Impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and mitigation for potential impacts has been developed where needed.


environmental effects based on the type, extent and reversibility of impacts related to increased cancer incidence in the area of the landfill; general groundwater concerns; general air quality concerns including odors, effects on workers, soils, crops, traffic, and noise that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Cumulative Potential Effects 60. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the "cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B. The MPCA’s findings, with respect to this criterion, are set forth below.

9

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Conclusions of Law Expansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota And Order 61. The EAW addressed the following cumulative potential effects for the proposed project:

• Surface Water Quality • Groundwater Quality • Criteria Air Emissions • Non-criteria Air Emissions (air toxics) • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Odor, Dust and Noise

Surface Water Quality 62. The Project is located within the watershed of the Ann River and Fish Lake. Water quality and

biological assessments have been conducted for these waters resulting in the identification of cumulative potential effects in the Ann River (impaired fish and aquatic invertebrate communities and contamination by E. coli bacteria) and in Fish Lake (eutrophication). Projects for the assessment of sources of relevant pollutants are underway and will establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and load allocation targets for all regulated and unregulated sources of pollutants related to the impairments.

63. Runoff from the landfill will be managed according to best management practices (BMP) described in

the landfill’s stormwater management plan. Runoff will be collected by means of contouring, benches, and down-drains that will direct it to the stormwater storage and treatment basins, which are constructed and sized to control 80 percent of incoming sediment and the 25-year, 24-hour rain event. The predominant soils are sandy, and much of the stored stormwater is expected to infiltrate. Any overflows will go to wetlands surrounding the landfill. Significant cumulative stormwater impacts are thus not expected.

64. Following the establishment of approved TMDLs for the Ann River and Fish Lake, TMDL

implementation plans will be prepared that define targeted load reductions for pollutant sources within the watershed. To the extent that future strategies or control measures are identified in the implementation plans, additional or modified stormwater control measures may be required to be incorporated in future permit re-issuance.

Groundwater Quality 65. The expansion project consists of two new lined disposal cells. The facility’s groundwater monitoring

system has not detected any releases from lined cells at the landfill. No cumulative effects on groundwater have been identified.

Criteria Air Emissions 66. Cumulative impacts were analyzed via computer modeling of the dispersion of criteria pollutant air

emissions, including background, to demonstrate compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS) for PM10, PM2.5, NOx, and SO2 and CO. Lead was not modeled as it is not emitted from any of the facility sources. The analysis showed that facility concentrations are below NAAQS and MAAQS for all pollutants. This remains true when background concentrations are added.

67. A modeling analysis was also conducted to predict compliance with the new one-hour NO2 federal ambient air quality standard. The facility’s modeled impact is 18 ug/m3. The MPCA estimated a conservative background concentration of 71 ug/m3, based on data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Monitor Values Report - Criteria Air Pollutants, and added this background

10


value to the facility concentration. The estimated total 1-hr NOx impact is 89 ug/m3, which is 72 percent of the standard.

68. These results indicate that no cumulative potential effects on air quality have been identified

attributable to emissions of regulated criteria air pollutants. Non-criteria Air Emissions (air toxics) 69. To evaluate the cumulative potential cumulative health risks from inhaling outside air in the vicinity

of the landfill, monitoring data from a rural monitoring station with similar population density was considered along with potential risks from the landfill (see table below). These rural monitoring-based risk estimates reflect emissions from industrial facilities, traffic, gas stations, wood-burning stoves, etc. or distant emissions sources that contribute to a regional level of pollutants that have been detected at similar levels across Minnesota. Calculated cumulative inhalation risks estimates were below facility risk guidelines except for cancer risks, which are above facility risk guidelines throughout the state. The percent contribution of the cumulative potential inhalation cancer risk estimates from the project modification is six percent.

Potential Cumulative Inhalation Health Risk Estimates

Max Acute Inhalation

Hazard Index

Max Chronic Non-Cancer Inhalation

Hazard Index

Max Cancer Inhalation

Risk Risk estimates from rural population monitoring data 0.2 0.6 2E-5 Total current landfill risk estimates 0.1 < 0.1 0.5E-5 Total landfill risk estimates after modifications at the site of maximum impact 0.2 < 0.1 0.6E-5 Total Cumulative Sum at the site of maximum impact 0.4 0.7 3E-5 % contribution from modifications 21% < 2% 6%

Greenhouse Gases 70. The expansion project will include an active gas collection system, which included fans, pipes and

risers that deliver the collected gas to the existing flare. The flare will convert the methane in the gas to carbon dioxide, which is 25 times less potent as a greenhouse gas than methane. The addition of the SMMPA generator set to burn LFG for electricity production will accomplish the same goal, with the added benefit of energy production. The only other known regulated projects in the vicinity of the landfill are feedlots. While animal agriculture as a whole is a significant contributor to the worldwide greenhouse effect, there is no evidence that individual feedlots in the area produce measurable contributions. Based on the above, no significant cumulative potential greenhouse gas effects are expected for the project.

Odor, Dust, and Noise 71. Odors at a landfill are a function of the disposal area that is open at any one time and the effectiveness

of the landfill gas control system. The project is a continuation of landfilling activities that have been ongoing for some time, so there is no reason to expect a significant increase in odorous emissions from the project. Also, odors will be minimized by the expanded gas collection system and combustion of gas in the flare and generator set, so that odor impacts are likely to be lower than historically. Feedlots create odorous emissions as well. However, there are few in the vicinity, and the

11


nearest one found in MPCA files is over one mile southwest of the proposed disposal area. Since the winds that carry odors also eventually dissipate them, it is not likely that there would be significant cumulative odorous effects associated with the project.

72. To date, dust emissions have not been a significant issue at the landfill, and this is not expected to change. No significant cumulative effects are expected.

73. To date, noise has not been a significant issue at the landfill, and this is not expected to change. No significant cumulative impacts are expected.

74. Based on information on the Project obtained from operational experience, air modeling, the permit development processes, and an Air Emission Risk Assessment, and other information presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative potential effects from this Project.

75. The MPCA finds that there are no significant cumulative potential environmental effects associated

with the proposed project. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 76. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings, with respect to this criterion, are set forth below.

77. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit MPCA Facility Industrial Stormwater Permit MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit MPCA Title V Air Permit—Methane Engine Facility MPCA Operating Air Permit--Landfill MPCA Landfill Expansion Certificate of Need (CON) MCES Industrial Discharge Permit Kanabec County Wetland Mitigation Approval Arthur Township Conditional Use Permit

78. Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Land Disposal Facility Permit Typical mixed municipal waste includes garbage collected in aggregate from residential routes. The project proposer is responsible for submitting engineering plans and for managing the facility in accordance to the final permit requirements which would regulate design parameters, construction, operation, leachate management, monitoring, closure, post-closure, and emergency/contingency action plans, among other things.

79. Facility Industrial Stormwater Permit and Spill Response Plan The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System Industrial Stormwater Permit requires that specific conditions be adhered to for construction and operation of the facility, and for overall compliance with water quality requirements. The facility will need to

12


prepare a Spill Response Plan and/or revise its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

80. NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit A General NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of BMP such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion control plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also require adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed.

81. Air Emission Permit The Air Emission Permit for the facility would contain operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.

82. Landfill Expansion Certificate of Need No new MSW disposal capacity is permitted without a certificate of need indicating the capacity is needed. Need is certified only if there are no feasible and prudent alternatives including reduction, recycling, and resource recovery.

83. The Wetland Conservation Act requires that, whenever proposed development would impact a

wetland, a sequencing analysis must be performed by the county in which the development would occur. This analysis follows the statute’s requirement that impacts to the wetland must be avoided where possible, minimized if avoidance is not feasible, and mitigated as a last resort. The County completed the sequencing analysis in 2006 when the landfill was proposing to site a demolition debris disposal cell in the wetland area in the northwest quarter of the landfill property, and concluded that avoidance and minimization were not feasible. The landfill accordingly purchased wetland credits to mitigate loss of the wetlands, and the wetlands were filled in preparation for cell construction. The demolition debris cell was ultimately sited elsewhere on the property, but the landfill will soon propose to use the area in question for land application of leachate. In response to a public comment that the sequencing analysis should be reconsidered since the basis for the 2006 analysis has changed, the landfill has re-referred the issue to the County for reconsideration. However, since the wetlands have already been filled and mitigated, and the area lies in the path of future MSW cell development, it is expected that the County’s conclusion (that avoidance and minimization are not feasible and therefore mitigation is indicated) will remain the same.

84. Conditional Use Permit The proposer is required to obtain all required building and conditional use permits required by local units of government to ensure compliance with local ordinances. The conditional use permit will address local zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that are needed to avoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.

85. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental effects of the Project. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

13

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Conclusions of Law Expansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota And Order The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 86. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

87. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact analysis

for the proposed Project.

88. Data presented in the EAW were obtained from permit applications, application review and permit development by staff, the air dispersion modeling report, other reports and analysis or other EAWs for similar projects. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

89. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that

cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans.

90. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise and

experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

91. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix B) as the

basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 92. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit

development process, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project.

93. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified

and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design and permits. The Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.

94. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the

criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp. 7, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.

95. An EIS is not required. 96. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be

termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

14

On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementEast Central Solid Waste Coinmission Sanitary LandfillExpansion Project, Arthur Township, Kanabec County Minnesota

Findings of FactConclusions of LawAnd Order

ORDER

97. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that the project consisting of the expansion ofthe East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill and the installation and operation on thelandfill site of an engine-generator set to burn landfill gas does not have the potential for significantenvironmental effects and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

?~ z:~Paul Eger, CommissioMinnesota Pollution Control Agency

Date

15

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion

Environmental Assessment Worksheet

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Ron Wieland, Minnesota DNR. Letter received April 7, 2010. 2. Janyce and Steve Nestrud, Mora. Letter received April 7, 2010.

3. Russ Mann, Bjorklund Companies. Letter received April 19, 2010.

4. David Halvorson, Ogilvie. Letter not dated.

5. Sharon Rittenour, Mora. Letter received April 14, 2010.

1

2

3

4

5

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Ron Wieland, Minnesota DNR - Letter received April 7, 2010. Comment 1-1: The sequencing analysis that supports the current Wetland Replacement Plan was performed to support the siting of a demolition debris cell in the wetland area. This plan was never carried out, and the plan now is to land apply leachate in that area. A new sequencing analysis may be needed because the plans for use of the wetland acreage have changed and the outcome of a new analysis could be different. The record of decision should address whether this issue can be referred back to Kanabec County for reconsideration. Response: Commenter correctly notes that a wetland replacement plan for this area was approved by the county in 2006. The land in question has already been cleared and the wetlands filled in anticipation of use of the acreage for disposal of demolition debris, and the East Central Solid Waste Commission (ECSWC) has purchased wetland credits as mitigation. ECSWC has agreed to re-refer the issue to the Kanabec County Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) for reconsideration, but predicts that, in light of the circumstances, the TEP is not likely to change its earlier findings that avoidance and reduction are not feasible. In the event that the TEP does find otherwise, the result would be a reduction in environmental impacts, so no additional environmental review would be required. 2. Comments by Janyce and Steve Nestrud - Letter received April 7, 2010. Comment 2-1: There seems to be a high incidence of cancer in the vicinity of the landfill. Commenters have been told by medical professionals that this phenomenon is related to contamination, and that “pollution control” should look into it. Commenters called but received no information except the proposal to expand the landfill. Response: Cancer is a common disease that may be caused by a variety of factors, and it is often not possible to determine specific causation. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), not the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), is the lead state agency for cancer surveillance, as well as for collection and dissemination of information related to disease incidence and types. The MDH routinely collects and reports statewide data on cancer incidence and mortality. These data include all confirmed cases reported by law to the Minnesota Cancer Surveillance System and deaths reported to the Minnesota Center for Health Statistics. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Minnesota, and approximately 50 percent of Minnesotans will be diagnosed with a potentially serious cancer over a lifetime. According to MDH staff, this high proportion is primarily attributed to the increasing average age of Minnesota’s population, since the average life expectancy in our state has nearly doubled since 1900, as well as medical advancements that have improved our ability to diagnose cancer, and other advancements that have made survival from heart disease much more likely. Overall, cancer rates in Minnesota are slightly below the national average, and death rates for many types of cancers have been decreasing over the years.

MDH has evaluated cancer surveillance data for the census tract encompassing much of the area round the East Central landfill from 1995 to 2008, which is the most recent time period for which summary data

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet are available. The evaluation showed that the overall cancer rate in the area is slightly higher than expected (compared to the state as a whole), but the cancer rate is well within the usual range of cancer rates seen around the state. Seeing some amount of excess or deficit in cancer numbers is common in rural areas of the state where the sample sizes are small for different types of cancers compared to the numbers in large population centers. The following table illustrates the expected and actual cancer incidence in the census tract that encompasses much of the area around the landfill.

Census Tract 9804 blockgroup 3Cancer Incidence 1995-2008

Cancer Type Actual ExpectedORAL CAVITY & PHARYNX 2 4COLO-RECTAL 14 9PANCREAS 3 2LUNG AND BRONCHUS 6 11MELANOMA OF SKIN 1 4BREAST 13 13PROSTATE 19 17BLADDER 5 4KIDNEY & RENAL PELVIS 5 3NON-HODGKINS LYMPHOMA 3 4LEUKEMIAS 2 7

All Sites Combined 99 95Expected based on State of MN rates, 2000 census

According to the MDH Cancer Surveillance Program, local cancer rates are not useful (in fact, often misleading) in determining whether a particular local operation or pollutant is causing or can cause cancer. Especially with small sample sizes, as in a lightly populated area such as this one, it is usually not possible to draw rigorous conclusions about causation. It should be clear that, taken as a whole, these data are ultimately inconclusive as to whether the cancer rate in this area significantly exceeds the statewide rate. For more information about cancer surveillance data, contact John Soler, MDH, 651-201-5481. Finally, the commenters say they “called,” but they do not say whom they called or what they were told about their concern. The MPCA staff group on this case has been unable to identify anyone at MPCA who may have taken this call. Comment 2-2: Although “they” say there is no contamination, there may be contamination that is not being tested for. Response: As is routine at landfills around the state, groundwater is being tested for a wide variety of potential contaminants that are known to be associated with landfill leachate. Vinyl chloride is the only one that has been found, and concentrations of this chemical have been decreasing in recent testing events. There is no evidence that any contaminants from the landfill have moved beyond the landfill boundary.

2

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 2-3: Commenters believe the cause of the cancer should be identified before more pollutants are allowed in the groundwater. Response: As noted above, determining the cause of a particular cancer is not usually possible. That said, the premise that the landfill expansion project will add more pollutants to the groundwater is not accurate. As noted in the EAW, the expansion cells are to be lined with impermeable materials and capped when full with similar materials. Leachate is to be collected and managed so as not to impact the environment. The project would not be expected to add significant amounts of pollutants to the groundwater. Comment 2-4: There was a leachate spill 15 years ago that was “kept quiet” and was not addressed in the EAW, and another time commenters’ water had a Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) in it and the regulatory response was to raise the VOC limit. Response: It is important to note up front that an event that occurred 15 years ago is not connected to the impact assessment of the proposed project. It was not addressed in the EAW because the proposed project has no relation to it. Since many of the current principals were not associated with the landfill 15 years ago, and commenters provide no specifics, we have been unable to verify that a leachate spill occurred in that time frame at the East Central Landfill. The operator does recall that when the composting building burned in 1994, water used to put out the fire was managed as leachate. This water was directed into a pond south of the building and was pumped out and hauled out by truck for proper disposal. If this is the event in question, it appears that any environmental effects would have been appropriately mitigated. In order for this water to affect groundwater, it would have to have been stored on site for a considerable time to allow time for the water to infiltrate 40 feet down to the water table. Since it was trucked away more or less immediately, this appears to have not been the case. This event was not “kept quiet”; it was documented in the landfill’s 1995 annual operating report, which is a public document. There have been other events over the years in which small amounts of leachate have escaped containment, usually involving isolated heavy rainfall events and/or equipment failures. As far as MPCA staff is able to determine, however, these events have been minor, cleaned up quickly, corrective actions taken to prevent recurrences, and reported to MPCA as the law requires. Regarding the VOC issue, commenters do not identify the VOC or when this incident occurred. MPCA has been unable to verify the specific event, but notes that MDH and not MPCA is the agency that evaluates and modifies groundwater standards based on how they will affect human health. As MDH collects more data and as more is learned about a particular contaminant, it is not unusual to find that the current standard for a particular contaminant is lower than it needs to be and that an increase in the standard is still protective of human health. We reiterate that monitoring for groundwater contamination has been showing decreasing levels in the more recent tests. Past and present contamination was addressed in the EAW, to the extent that the function of the EAW is to provide information assessing the impacts potentially caused by the proposed landfill capacity expansion and the genset installation. The cleanup of potentially contaminated water 15 years ago and past or existing presence of VOCs in groundwater relate to ongoing remediation and are not connected to the project being analyzed. Neither was caused by the proposed project, which is what the EAW is evaluating. The information above is supplied as background, but is not relevant to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) decision.

3

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet 3. Comments by Russ Mann - Letter received April 19, 2010 Comment 3-1: Commenter is concerned about groundwater pollution on his property and in the area. Response: The landfill has an Environmental Monitoring System (EMS) installed, which includes several groundwater monitoring wells positioned along the property boundary. The EMS is frequently monitored for the parameters that can be found in the landfill permit limits table. Currently there are no detections of constituents of concern beyond the landfill property boundary. Groundwater impacts are not expected from the proposed landfill expansion, since the new disposal cells will be lined with impermeable materials. It is also true that groundwater movement in the area is to the east and southeast. Since commenter’s property is immediately south of the landfill, it is not likely that contaminants would move toward it, even if there were to be a release. Comment 3-2: Commenter is concerned about soil contamination by fallout from the flare and gensets, the potential for adverse effects on his crops and employees, and his perception that his property will need to be tested to determine what pollutants from the landfill are actually doing to it. Response: In the article “Baseline Assessment of PCDDs/PCDFs in the vicinity of the Elk River, Minnesota Generating Station” by L.W Reed et al. published in Chemosphere Vol. 21 Nos. 1-2, pp 159-171 (1990), different congener classes of dioxins/furans were tested in air, soil, hay, corn, sediment and fish, in the rural areas of the city of Elk River Minnesota (approximately 50 miles south of Mora, MN) in order to collect baseline data prior to operating the refuse-derived fuel powered Elk River Electric Generating Station. No major industrial or commercial activity occurred in the area at the time of study. Below is a table with results from that study showing the highest measured background concentrations and the test detection limits. Based on what is known about the East Central Landfill (it was not a dioxin source until the flare was installed relatively recently), it is considered unlikely that similar testing in the East Central vicinity would find materially different concentrations in the tested media. For comparison, the table also includes concentrations that were modeled from the East Central landfill after modification, as well as national averages from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Draft Exposure and Human Health Reassessment of 2, 3, 7, 8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxin (TCDD) and Related Compounds.

4

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

Max Measured Background Concentrations in Elk River

Detection limits utilizing high-resolution gas chromatography coupled with high- resolution mass spectrometry

Modeled Concentrations in field just south of the landfill from the landfill after modification

EPA Rural Averages

Air samples (femtograms/cubic meter) Less toxic congener (OCDD) More toxic congener (TCDD)

~8000 19

5-65 2 0.003

17 (toxic equivalences)

Soil samples (parts per trillion) Less toxic congener (OCDD) More toxic congener (TCDD)

3300 All below detection limits

0.75-3.0 0.09 0.0001

3 (toxic equivalences)

Plant samples (parts per trillion) Less toxic congener (OCDD) More toxic congener (TCDD)

Hay 297 0.31

0.31-6.5

Produce 0.002 0.000001

The modeled concentrations from the East Central Landfill were found to be much lower than what would be detected were similar tests of soil and crops to be performed at East Central using similar methods, and orders of magnitude below what would be expected as background levels. Thus, soil contamination from fallout from the modified landfill under operational conditions is not expected to be at levels that would cause significant environmental effects on soils, crops or employees working in the area. We note that the Elk River study was not able to identify the origin of the contaminants it did detect. Like the testing summarized in the Elk River study, testing near the landfill would also likely be inconclusive about a specific source. In other words, finding something would not mean it came from the landfill, but more likely from the background. Comment 3-3: Commenter is concerned about a decline in his property value because of the above issues.

Response: Property value issues are beyond the scope of an EAW. We note, however, that a property value study was performed as part of the Xcel Energy Ash Disposal Facility EIS in 2007. This study found that actual sale prices of similar properties did not significantly vary with distance from various kinds of industrial sites, including landfills and hazardous waste disposal sites. There is no evidence that the finding would be different in this case. Comment 3-4: Commenter thinks the statement by MPCA staff at the public meeting that “burn barrels in the area are likely causing more pollution than the landfill” is difficult to accept. Response: The worst case estimate of the engine at the landfill is to produce ~8 milligrams per year of toxic equivalents of dioxins and furans, and the flare ~1 milligram per year of toxic equivalents of dioxins and furans. Assuming that 75 nanograms of toxic equivalents of dioxin and furans come from a kilogram

5

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet of waste burned in a burn barrel (citation: An Inventory of Sources and Environmental Releases of Dioxin-Like Compounds in the U.S. for the Years 1987, 1995, and 2000 (EPA/600/P-03/002f, Final Report, November 2006.)) and that a household burns 16 pounds of garbage a week for a year, the result would be ~28 milligrams of toxic equivalents of dioxin and furans per year from a burn barrel. The EPA also estimates that backyard barrel burning is the leading source of dioxins and furans in the environment. These are among the reasons that MPCA has an active program designed to eliminate burn barrels in Minnesota. 4. Comments by David Halvorson - Not dated Comment 4-1: Commenter is concerned about odors and believes soil should be used for cover rather than ConCover. Response: The landfill reports that it takes odor issues seriously and acts affirmatively when necessary. Most such odors are caused by escaping landfill gas. Over the past six months, several sources of significant odors have been resolved as follows. A defective relay was allowing gas to vent when the flare stopped burning. This relay has been fixed so that the gas system shuts off when the flare goes out. Uncovered leachate cleanout lines were also discovered that allowed landfill gas to vent freely. All of the cleanout lines are now covered. The facility personnel have begun monitoring odors in the evenings and will continue an odor monitoring plan that will include evening odor monitoring. The landfill is being covered by soil on Fridays and Saturdays but for many reasons, such as conservation of airspace, an alternative daily cover is used on the other days of the week. When used in accordance with the MPCA guidance, alternative cover material is effective at controlling odors, based on studies by the supplier. The MPCA compliance staff has noticed inadequate application in the past, so the Alternative Daily Cover Guidance was developed in January 2009 to provide for consistent use. As stated in the Guidance and the facility permit, the MPCA will rescind permission for alternative cover material use if it is not applied correctly, or excessive odors are evident from its use. Comment 4-2: Commenter is concerned about noise, and believes the crusher used to prepare disposal cells should not be allowed to run 24 hours a day. Response: Noise is addressed in the permits. Each permit contains the requirement that the facility must comply with the noise standards in Minn. R. 7030.0010-7030.0080 at all times during the operation of any emission unit. In turn, Minn. R. 7030.0010-7030.0080 sets forth both daytime and nighttime standards that apply to all facilities. It also addresses provisions specific to certain industries or land use, including construction activities. Most noise issues are of the “nuisance” variety (as opposed to non-compliance with noise standards) and can be dealt with through the local government, in this case Kanabec County or Arthur Township. This has been MPCA policy for some time, and is further addressed in a fact sheet entitled “Facts about Odors, Noise, and Dust for Local Governments”, found at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=109&Itemid=319#general. Local nuisance noise ordinances may be more restrictive than state standards, which do not prohibit nighttime activities or noise. Under Minn. R. 7007.0800, subp. 16.I., “the agency’s issuance of a permit does not obligate the agency to enforce local laws, rules, or plans beyond that authorized by Minnesota Statutes.” However, if the local government determines that the nuisance noise may also be in violation of state noise rules, then MPCA will work with the local government and the facility to bring about compliance.

6

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/CFM/recordisplay.cfm?deid=159286



http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=109&Itemid=319#general

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&layout=item&id=109&Itemid=319#general

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill Expansion Responses to Comments on the Mora, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

7

Specifically regarding the crusher, there are specific hours that the crusher is allowed to run, 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM, as detailed in the Township conditional use permit. Rock crushing operations may be occurring on neighboring parcels, with similar equipment, outside of the operating hours for crushing at the East Central Landfill. The Township should be contacted if this becomes an issue. Comment 4-3: Commenter is concerned about traffic and believes more signs are needed to warn the public about trucks entering and leaving the site. Response: There are “Trucks Entering” signs on Hwy 23 coming from both ways and also there are signs on County Road 60 that say “Trucks Hauling”. The MPCA is unaware of evidence that this signage is insufficient, and commenter provides none. Truck traffic at the landfill will not change significantly, since the expansion is for the continuation of operations at more or less the current level. The Minnesota Department of Transportation might evaluate the signage if so requested, but MPCA does not anticipate a significant impact in this regard. Comment 4-4: Commenter notes that all the trees along old highway 23 are dying and wants to know why. Response: It appears from field observations that the commenter is referring to trees dying on the east side of Highway 23, approximately 1/8 mile from the facility. The trees within and around the wetland are dead. The MPCA does not believe the landfill is contributing to the die-off, but road salt or variations in the water level of the wetland could have caused the trees to die. In any case, the proposed project is not causing this die-off, since it has not yet been built, so determining the cause is beyond the scope of the EAW. 5. Comments by Sharon Rittenour - Letter received April 14, 2010

Comment 5-1: Commenter appreciated the public meeting and supports the project. Response: No response required.

Documents

East Central Solid Waste Commission Sanitary Landfill (SW ...operations. The ECSWC and its serviced counties developed a Solid Waste Management Plan in 2006 that identifies the landfill