8.3. SR 05-16-2013 City of
Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION
River
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 8.3
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
General Business May 6, 2013 Rebecca Haug, Environmental
Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Elk River Landfill Compliance Boundary and MPCA Permit Cal Portner, City Administrator
REVIEWED BY
Peter Beck, City Attorney
Matt Ledvina, Environmental
Consultant
ACTION REQUESTED
1) Review and discuss the proposed Elk River Landfill (ERL) compliance boundary change.
2) Consider a Council-signed letter to the MPCA Commissioner expressing the city's concerns.
3) Consider providing city comments regarding the draft ERL permit during the public notice period
and the MPCA Citizen's Board hearing,if held.
4) Provide staff direction regarding the Metro Waste Disposal Restrictions Statute.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is in the process of issuing an updated permit for the
ERL. During the city's review of the draft permit, a number of items were identified. Staff sent a letter
to the MPCA on March 14, 2013,indicating the items and met with MPCA and county staff on April 22,
2013, to discuss the items. The letter is attached.
One of the most serious concerns identified pertains to the facility compliance boundary. The
compliance boundary represents a line where the ERL is required to meet water quality standards for
impacted groundwater which is flowing west of the site. The ERL-proposed compliance boundary
extends west of ERL property and incorporates the city trail property inside their boundary. The MPCA
rule requirements are outlined in Minnesota Rules 7035.2815, sub. 4. A synopsis provided by MPCA
guidance (in part),is as follows:
The compliance boundary must be on the facility property, must co*letey surround the landfall, and cannot
be more than 200 feet from the 90year fall footprint. To facilitate monitoring and any potential future
corrective actions unless othenvise approved by the commissioner, the permittee must maintain a minimum
200 foot setback from the fall and the property boundary.
The ERL has indicated that it has an agreement with the city,dated December 28, 1992,which addresses
this concern and enables the establishment of the compliance boundary in the proposed location. The
city entered into the agreement with the ERL to allow access onto the city property for the purposes of
installing monitoring wells and water quality monitoring, not to expand the compliance boundary.
NaA f RE]
Staff is concerned that the relocation of the compliance boundary could allow a wider area of ground-
water contamination to the west of the ERL and that groundwater contaminants are entering into the
Rice Lake wetland complex and Tibbet's Brook. At some point,the MPCA, county, and city may require
groundwater remediation work which could impact the accessibility of the trail. The MPCA suggested
the city amend the December 28, 1992, agreement to allow the incorporation of the trail property inside
the compliance boundary and allow for future corrective actions which may affect the trail property.
Staff does not recommend this option.
Lastly,unrelated to the comment letter,but concerning the draft permit, the Council approved a
resolution on August 20, 2012, supporting prompt enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, Section, 473.848,
Metro Wlaste Disposal Restrictions,restricting the disposal of unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste
generated in the metropolitan area by landfill. The draft permit does not reflect how the MPCA will
enforce the statute.
ATTACHMENTS
• March 14, 2013,letter to MPCA
• December 28, 1992, license agreement
• Minn. R. 7035.2815, sub. 4
• August 20, 2013, staff report on a resolution to support the prompt enforcement of Minnesota
Statutes, Section 473.848 by the MPCA
• Site map
N:\Public Bodies\Agenda Packets\05-06-2013\8.3 six£docx
City of
Elk
River
13065 Orono Parkway
Elk River,MN 55330
March 14, 2013
Paula Connell
MPCA
520 Lafayette Rd
St. Paul MN 55155-4194
RE: City of Elk River Comments - Elk River Landfill Solid Waste Management Facility Permit, SW-74
February, 2013 Draft Permit
Dear Mrs. Connell:
The City of Elk River (City) has received a copy of the undated draft Solid Waste Management Facility Permit, SW-
74 for Waste Management, Inc. (WMI), Elk River Landfill (ERL). The draft was included in email correspondence
to the City on February 26, 2013.
Item 1.1.28 Facility Description
The historic references for areas and volumes should be relocated to the Facility History (1.1.19) section. This
section should clearly state that the permitted design capacity is 19,487,900 cubic yards of MSW. The discussion of
Certificate of Need should be relocated to Section 1.1.31.
Item 1.2.9 March 2012 Permit Modification
The MSW Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) (April 2008) is outdated and needs to be revised to
reflect the industrial waste streams which are being accepted at the Site. The City requests that MPCA include a
condition which requires the preparation, submittal and approval of a new ISWMP within six months of the new
permit date.
Item 1.2.25 13) Compliance Boundary
The April 2009 compliance boundary is referenced. The ERL has identified alternative compliance boundaries in
subsequent submittals to the City and the MPCA. Most recently, the 2012 Annual Water Quality Report contains
Figure 2 which indicates the compliance boundary in a location approximately 300 feet west of the location shown
in the approved compliance boundary.
One of the concerns with the proposed compliance boundary is that ERL is incorporating the City trail property
inside the compliance boundary. The MPCA rule requirements are outlined in Minn. R. 7035.2815, subp. 4 and a
synopsis provided by MPCA guidance (in part),is as follows:
The compliance boundary must be on the facility property, must completely surround the landfill, and
cannot be more than 200 feet from the 10-year fill footprint. To facilitate monitoring and any potential
Phone: 763.635.1000
Fax: 763.635.1090 P 0 W E R E 0 O Y
www.ci.elk-river.mn.us INAT" URE1
future corrective actions unless otherwise approved by the commissioner, the permittee must maintain a
minimum 200-foot setback from the fill and the property boundary.
The ERL has indicated that it has an agreement with the City, dated December 28, 1992 which addresses this
concern and enables the compliance boundary in the proposed location. The City entered into the agreement with
ERL to allow access onto the City property for the purposes of installing monitoring wells and water quality
monitoring but the agreement does not provide for expanding the compliance boundary to include city property.
Item 1.6.1 Contingency Action
If the MPCA wishes to approve the proposed compliance boundary incorporating the City property, the City
requests that the permit include a specific provision which indicates that all land use rights of the City be preserved
and that potential contingency actions,which effect the City property,are subject to City approval.
Section 3.5.7 Leachate Recirculation Contingencies
Leachate recirculation will greatly increase the amount of landfill gas that will be generated from the landfill. The
primary concerns of the City relate to landfill gas collection and the prevention of fugitive gas emissions and odors.
The permit should be modified to require ERL to also provide notification of odor complaints to the City. This
will enable the City staff to be apprised of odor issues when they occur.
Item 4.5 Closure Criteria
The MPCA-approved March 2012 Closure Plan identifies that: "Per the Conditional Use Permit with the City of
Elk River, no MSW waste will be disposed in the MSW area after December 31, 2030," (page 2-2). ERL's
unconditional closure date for the MSW fill area should be included in the MPCA permit.
Limits Tables
The City could not find a requirement in the permit that related the "Limits Table" to the groundwater monitoring
wells. The MPCA should include a permit condition which indicates that ERL needs to comply with the
intervention limits (identified in the Limits Table) for groundwater monitoring wells.
The intervention limits have been established by MPCA utilizing groundwater compliance boundary standards for
some wells and surface water compliance boundary standards for other wells. The surface water interventions
presume that groundwater in the western portion of the Site discharges to the wetland of Rice Lake and Tibbits
Brook. The surface water compliance boundary extends more than 2,500 feet from monitoring wells P301 C to
P311 C.
Previous investigations for the area down gradient of the waste deposit show that the groundwater flow in the
deeper outwash deposits is confined. The major conclusion from current hydrogeologic reports is that the
groundwater is discharging to Rice Lake wetland and Tibbits Brook. A change in the lithology in the area of
concern has been theorized by ERL. The City previously asserted that future investigation needed to provide
supporting geologic evidence which demonstrates that the till unit is absent to the west of the landfill thereby
enabling a pathway for groundwater flow to the surface water.
In the City's opinion, ERL's attempt to demonstrate that surface water as the sole receptor for groundwater in this
portion of the Site is not conclusive. The City clearly communicated to ERL and MPCA what scope of additional
investigation would be necessary to enable a conclusive determination concerning the groundwater and surface
water connection.
The City remains opposed to the use of surface water standards at this facility because ERL has not sufficiently
demonstrated that surface water is the appropriate receptor for potentially contaminated groundwater from the
waste deposit. The groundwater performance standards presented in the Limits Table may not be adequately
protective of human health and the environment.
The Limits Table does not include recently constructed wells P323L and P324L, while it does include wells 315-
OWA, 316-OWA, 322-OWA, 323-OWA and 324-OWA, which no longer exist or are not proposed for sampling.
At a minimum, the Limits Table should be modified to reclassify wells such P304C, (which has a well screen near
the base of the confined outwash) to groundwater compliance boundary wells.
Intervention Limits
The 2012 Annual Water Quality Report identifies numerous instances where parameters have exceeded the
intervention limits for the wells located down gradient of the waste deposit.
VOC Parameters
The data for newly installed monitoring well, P323L, in conjunction with increasing parameter trends for P313C
and P314C indicate that this area is a major area of concern for impacted groundwater leaving the Site. The
investigation work that has been undertaken in recent years has located the major pathway for contaminated
groundwater migration from the Site. ERL needs to develop a proposal for further evaluating groundwater
conditions in support of a plan for mitigating contaminated groundwater.
Chloride Results
In recent annual water quality reports, ERL's interpretation of the results for chloride suggests that it is not a good
indicator of a leachate release due to the use of deicing agents along Highway 169. The levels of chloride for wells
adjacent to Highway 169 do indeed show significantly elevated levels of chloride. The concentration of chloride for
wells which are more than 2000 feet from Highway 169 would be expected to approach natural background
concentrations based on a simplified dispersion model. This is evidenced by the chloride results for unimpacted
wells P303C, P305C, P311C and 408-OWA located on the west side of the Site. These wells show average chloride
concentrations which average less than 5 mg/l over the last ten years of monitoring.
Another important consideration for background chloride levels is the change in concentration over time. Deicing
operations for Highway 169 has occurred for at least 50 years and it is expected that the potentially elevated
concentration of chloride would be at a roughly steady state condition and concentrations would not vary significant
from year to year. This is true for wells that are not impacted by the landfill, as evidenced by the plot of
concentration vs. time for P311C presented in Appendix D. In contrast, the plots for P302C, P304C, P313C and
P314C show increasing chloride trends with time. From this data, it is apparent that those wells are impacted by
landfill leachate. This is further supported by the occurrence of VOC detections which correlate with the high
levels of chloride for listed impacted wells. Exceedance of the chloride compliance boundary standard at down
gradient wells P302C, P304C and P314C needs to be addressed by ERL.
As an alternative, ERL should provide a technical analysis which proposes a modification to the current chloride
intervention limit which considers possible elevated background impacts associated with Highway 169 deicing.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft permit for Elk River Landfill. Please contact me
if you have any questions at (763) 635-1068.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Haug
Environmental Administrator
cc: Matt Ledvina, City Environmental Consultant
Peter Beck, City Attorney
Suzanne Fischer, Community Operations Development Director
Shannon Siefert,Waste Management,Inc.
Dave Lucas, Sherburne County
LICENSE AGREEMENT
I. PARTIES
52 This Agreement is made on this 2,;F day of
199P- by and between the following parties ("Parties") : The
City of Elk_ Raver, on their own behalf and on behalf of all
of their heirs, relatives, executors, insurers, sureties,
successors, assigns, employees, and agents ("Owners") , and
Elk River Landfill, Inc. , on its own behalf and on behalf of
all its insurers, sureties, successors, assigns,
shareholders, officers, directors, employees and agents.
("Licensee") .
II. RECITALS
WHEREAS, Licensee is conducting response actions,
including a remedial investigation of release and/or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants at and from the Elk River Sanitary Landfill
located in the City of Elk River, County of Sherburne, State
of Minnesota, and legally described as Section 3 , Township
33, Range 26 ("Landfill") ;
WHEREAS, Owners are the legal and equitable Owners of
certain real property, located in the City of Elk River,
County of Sherburne, State of Minnesota, adjacent to the
Landfill, and legally described as:
.(,See Attachment "A'!) ("Property")
WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement
to permit Licensee to enter the Property for reasonable and
necessary response actions, including a remedial
investigation, to address any release or threatened release
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants at or
from the Landfill, pursuant to the authority of the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ("MPCA") under Chapter
115B of the Minnesota Statutes.
III. PROVISIONS
WHEREFORE, for the consideration set forth herein, and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree as follows:
1. Lessee agrees to pay within ,�D days of receipt of
the fully executed original of this A eement, and Owners
agree to accept, the amount of = as full
compensation for the rights acquired under this Agreement.
2 . Owners hereby grant Licensee an irrevocable
license to enter the Property and to take certain actions
necessary to investigate, monitor, test, analyze, and
evaluate any release or threatened release of hazardous
substances, pollutants or contaminants at or from the
Landfill . The activities permitted under this Agreement
shall include, installation and operation of groundwater
and/or gas monitoring wells and soil testing be means of
soil borings . Licensee will initially install groundwater
and/or gas monitoring wells, in October and November 1991.
This Agreement shall not be construed to grant any ownership
interest or estate in the property.
3 . Licensee shall be solely responsible for the cost
of any alterations, improvements, maintenance, or repairs
needed on the property with respect to the said wells.
4 : Owners shall allow Licensee reasonable ingress and
egress over, under, or upon the Property at reasonable times
to carry out the activities allowed by this Agreement,
although Owners may request any persons seeking to enter or
carry out work at the Property pursuant to this Agreement to
provide appropriate identification. Licensee shall be
entitled to construct any access roads necessary for such
ingress or egress. At the termination of this Agreement,
any such access roads shall be the property of ' Owners or
property shall be restored to original condition.
5. Licensee shall provide owners with notice prior to
performing any work under this Agreement. Said notice shall
generally describe the work to be performed.
6. Licensee shall make .reasonable efforts to avoid
any unnecessary damage to the Property while performing work
authorized by this Agreement. Upon completion of such work.
Licensee shall restore the property to substantially the
same condition as when work was commenced, except that any
access roads may remain intact.
7. Owners shall not disturb or disrupt any work
conducted by Licensee under this Agreement. However, Owners
shall not be responsible for any damage or theft caused by
third parties.
8. Licensee shall fully comply with all applicable
federal, , state, and local laws, including the Minnesota
Department of Health Well code, when installing, maintaining
or abandoning any wells or otherwise performing work under
this Agreement, and Licensee shall be responsible for
obtaining any permits required by governing authorities.
9 . In the event Owners sell or otherwise convey
their interest in the property, the conveyance shall be
subject to this Agreement.
10. Licensee may assign its rights and obligations
under this Agreement only with owners' written consent; such
consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. However,
Licensee may, without consent by owners and upon written
notice to the Owners, assign all of its rights and
obligations under this Agreement to the County of Sherburne.
11. In the event Licensee, its attorneys, its
engineers, or the MPCA determines that any permanent
response action is necessary due to the release or
threatened release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants, the Parties shall enter into good faith
negotiations concerning the action required for response
action. The Parties recognize that such action may require
the Licensee to purchase an interest in the Property.
12 . This Agreement 'contains the entire understanding
between the Parties, and the Parties may amend this
Agreement in writing at any time.
13 . This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
r•
SIGYATORIES
ATTEST: THE CITY OF ELK RIVER:
7ax,i4l Z Gcr>�/1� By.. l�l�
/
PATRICK D. KLAERS
Its: y�/(
Date. Z fill �JG Zr
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY 'OF SHERBURNE
The foregoing 'nstrument wa cknaw d Ed bef re m thi
day of , 199 , b , e
�✓1 and Attested by of The
ity of Elk River, a Minnesota City, on behalf of the City.
otary Public
SANDRA A.THACKBRAY
NOTARY PUBUG-MINNESOTA &I J
—r 7 --577
SHERBURNE COUNTY
i M Y Commission Expires
ELK RIVER LANDF L, INC.
Dated: ` "� By;
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ss.
COUNTY OF SHERBURNE
The foregoing nstrument was ac nowle g Uef o m e this
da of , 199X�y the of Elk River Landfill, Inca , a �
—2 p `". , ,��,�.
Minnesota Corporation, on behalf of the Corporation.
SANDRA A.THAC M"W' Notary NOTARYPU9LIa.t�t TA y Public
SHERBURNE COUNTY
My Carom,Exp,June 17,1997
} My Commission Expires
J Revised for the City of Elk River 3-26-92
-41111ART ELK RIVER T.33N. - R•26W. i
n 1
CITY OF 1
.... - vnyK,+.e•yt!;•tYa^[r.. .. -- ..,.. ,:tR^ra7.:r<+�[ev... M.w.•.:.LlV0N to !'G Z7,•;s'm•-x;:;r^n::'+S;?!rr..•`.?:`: M�": "^` ,r..,.,M,•,,.; .v. ,k:>.w: -�•:?y;,.....•,w,;..
{ :, r� ` .ref ••O.nar. .�" [,.y,r f2rf r'r m• i�••+r+ sr
�
k�'#1 i v NW nnr ! ♦..+ Wrrrilr •�'' •! Yhfrlct !e S r
++ rtwsr+ °. 1 u� t" l � �r Jsrs d.70.7i / larmp n R.[Jvrtlf .srrL 414 JO , !
3c Y w•a,r rr.+ur1 •t,., r ki, r •'z n.rrr'• f Crnrnc. !,}�! .QCrrns f�S. !: I'
rrp '� 4ytn• •rrA./
At llUrrta 41,E I^eN } al h 6ru�1 / V' £cfcY.an �:=`
ir. \tar r� rr, a•n.r 1 Y ' Irt. JOSrT t iy.iI-n n r ^'1 tt IC[Mrd l n,ny yc, i'• r g1r#n — ISS JI � �Va.d t .b 1r hrsATrz!••- ��
tiv, .r nrlk- LO f icG,rh lU ' Je t/Mf Aleh7,1 1 R9 ±, r
! «y,+ re•11 b ! 'r•nNr T,.y.r„ Sre,Y.r 1er, / .Jr•Al14 4)1,14 ?W >a ,irrtld
,Ta+' 1urlYl,n rrJ.u.rinr .11055 r.cnw, a +f.1:� rr!! 11.3 � Jllrwn r
�, `�+• 1Sts1, 14D � =t � .. lJ.aatrtrkl v:rii n 5 i µf •�`.
ar nirl ' r
� rJd t � � � ` — .,r f ,r •� AtA •r1 !`re�Ifi+fJ : An t• ��r�[
r!`AYl A • M r,l 'lrryrl 1 r• b'� ',r f r
• (V•rhA I.. lb1ln,rltY ♦ iff { r.•,1
l+trr•rir 1?O �:, I sal •,CS GAr*rY1 4,•1c+M r+ 4444 •r0 Sr•Mt✓ •
5 F J17t j rtsY}rc .. s• r E! t
• C• rC .4rry •I[(41�N p r,
rndJ �kY7'rtf Jl+c /DtlT Srh,i J r •/ r ,a
$` r 1+ 11ltkrlu ,n whurr, t:[ P Jklrrn
111rlOnatll lF0 ""r 1 /!1•f7 e ^[rwn !N (f.lrif1[ Y l0 a.: irk A! :r. .rrr.,�.,+•n r
M r T i Ji
it if/.1 f CYrrt 1414,x.
m eft /S7r�M /`is,Jrit �•ltsai - L fnnyy1-111. a<
rtwi [ " 9tYa i�
Kr 1 14 i� fw•re.J N!/rrah [ /Ngr�f1 rAnn G CC Caksr J!1D s
>m 'rMtJ �� lJd t I ,,[,f 14il.rC 85
33 • 1 a ! 1.11 PL rr ryJ,lr1![ .[,„• ...Nri [t st 1 . A•IN
Jae Jd Nrrt4t i rs^^ n carer rneAl rh ;[
Arl.rrl r trsrru !3'd .: �{
r rf i( Bf0a7>3aAi
7 [�•� it 101-W A3 _Il• , is an r! [•
i. • , _r ... r r
s: rf a !Di 26 f Actor”1 ! ,E rl� la.re cca .i9 j ,e i t.nNS r r 13
i, -+ err b fwn+., �' .�• 61!'44 ! r •n!•y r r 5 � f M �i�' na`r' �'.,`
*17
' T •rut ,a[rh[r ••v" .1� rra c
,fp t nr•,df et+ th+ir•
tvcrtr �a �r` r 6r Mti1 [ H Jt• 4.rN1p • ?# c In ,,, a •. A
v i 1r • u :;� :� ! ,S�t1y 13701 +f.n1 �' w rr
f r Sf ftw7 R." rJnr s.r I
nvres 4aw i� a d t. fi+<n y e•. 3"'�I err ror a
.1n a !•Mfl4 1}14!1 Y S ♦ i 1t j s 1 YO IWI,IA'1 •t y x.
ii S�rr'Lvriin •tS N x ••+Y. '�•d I 4 •
0.tt! f l'VgrN�,pfn(r a liD ✓ V0 ia[ 1i s t ,] N 1 fa oed J50 1 / 0y 1 1 r,N l it
Lrb J S S CM Z"/)(
Tin t Cf
rpt 3 cm
}ri
f >-
JS tf
[ .a .�.,�a: 1'r,cone A �� • btr 4✓i •r1 S fit r(Sh U5, Ihr,ti Z
nc
e Nmc
`. I,trj.� n,m'y 4 - ilTl r .lY+r11<i �`. lvntYlt ts' ^I•�- 7`Kj1 iA •1, :afls era
r C°'rm Y $ 0.0n e �lv rnT [ r ct c z
m .wi.hv[k r 'J,i l.i� •'^ 779J , rNN 0s AV [r is . rre • ,
s•yt rvlp d3i 52 � y �'
:'• iltaiJ + I 1 4411 'HSh[A � f1r}VI J\ Mr
! +n ta:s s
s> •trrt,hum r ^ 32 !7x r�I r � ?r/Fc1C y. �{ art ae y •r rurN
Ia,te C. 7
r+uJ °f'f 1 f to �� Ri1Yr Jt brr / rruix��ry+�, f-<
. l
[ L1rrw r feud Itrk. L .. 1 17 Srrwgf } •J <:
f �►lr ,s fM rtrAhels Hilru m • A,ulf • .
3: f' M '� '0 s 31
! r '• rJ ff R rR w.c °• i Punk! r_ lA1 LI I./ i
Jr [m1JS ti £[YJL•!1 fr1 t-w+t ,e r /,•...
£14[!144 1 s S i !S s s,ts CKadpf J �a✓ , Hr 6+•✓y tte r, f__-_1
Laf s s s ! s t s.rtri Yw� ••r "p ss 10! f6 ;,� a! A..r'i>� ftY,rt • lv
f "bel A-
UWA K• c,r..n rk rn lYy r SJsdN. Chvi s
r 'g ,p .�+n r .5rrm i .btfe r 1!41!41 „ /ier T7 ,r ��a,7[[' Ndrr n
.,.- t7! A+6rr trt •11 Mr7• rJ .SrrrrA+ vn[ itli r..ws �f�'
.Yevd
f�- 4•r-�t J S 9 •t r5 f,i fM A r,
N• third O w. =
8i, i0 R H•!!JG : • Lrwr yyt,y� ,ctrl f.-
5�. rmri c !lf • rr! CrK RwV r n '
it r s.r, hr A 6M•.>Jr , 17itdrJlS • Lh1r1[3
> f• + r r .if_r lnrw vA+ ri sL N'n»w ro •
nn
^; rJr s �.T „ d +,r �i r,L, r+r rrerJ r[ „t , Jfri Saud✓r+•,� nn � [I�a,rseen�• e•N
rA. r,rvw.1 J. e, r Ck,JMUt vu TT iS J /01.17 IDiiT AM H.
� L,n 1
Irfy[c 1[t+�[tR f,6•Iy r s
r!S rt HI .� •• ! •. lrprrtl s ttvwyyrR TT.73 CdfJ GW U
ELK RI VER, r• �s rer�lr, [
. f
�..ru. •' irr• r lM • ;. tr .!Sill �� � dd_
��},f.t ,[ r yC .��„ ' �!�'. `ri • e - ,
34 n1 G Mu
1 rl a w r,r LAZY •• 35 6 410 to
f �'r rM r A•vrr' _� t is !3 ✓rt 4kb� thlw�t y,ck to
€t ajM.� � 7J.ffrpl 111 rs, f �� «~• !z � f.S[Irdc� _w •err �"
laD
:'AT.ti, rS Gw x I�.y rr, .� ♦12 Jf0 a .n
. t
�' lJf J1 !a •lAfrvirl S''h' „ -.,. /�•�t M , ..,. • 1 faun i2\.
[ FlitlE LPi�a r3t? 24kEtSt,' :¢ZtC tatLmci#8id3#£#Sik?v
.. ; �•::,)itte'�.,.;.S�t:. a � .AB�t�O°F3L3s?�'fi3?fF$013I EL V R
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE AGENCY
OF ELK RIVER
DAN GRrErENE, Agent
FULL SERVICE INSURANCE AGENCY
IF
Iroun',I AUTO - HOME - BUSINESS - LIFE - HEALTH - ACCIDENT YOUR
I�f l x
k-w" ^ozwr kstxrxr harNT
� LOCATED 1=lRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING- ELK RIVER-441-2500 '''"
21
�40 .A
40 B sa O.W.A. PROPERTY LINE
GP 2A �• GP 4A
(D Up SA ;
s, o.w A.
1
UP 30 GP SAD
i GP 3C
E�,..rr.r�w.w ww wr.w..�w r.,•w.+w+w+n.e,.+r..r.
GP 5A w.�www wry 0 74w.�
! i
POP
U 5D It
1 G' 50 1 lGP 7C
1 LANDFILL 1 ` GP 8A
P 300 j BOUNDARY [J
1 i !
1 1 s
UP 10A
GP 10C
1 1 GP 100
1 w {GGPr 1tm •
�P 2900
P 29D
I 1 !
1 i 42 O.W.A.
41 O.W.A 1 1 b j
P 4113 1 1 1
r 1
P 17C
! t t
I.�ww•.e•w•...,.ywwsr rrww w_w_s.,•.,sr.w.rw•.,•..r.i.w w...,sr..1
1 pl
1 S
!
fs �
43 O.W.A
P 43 0 D' 100' 204' 400'
z P 43C SG" T
1 `
LEGEND �
MONITORING t
WELL
MOMTORING
I WELL NESS' !
1
O GAS PROBE �
1 j
OFFICE
I y1J �
Y /
NOTEt ! y
MONTORING WELL 36 OWA
IS LOCATED 1529 FEET EAST
AND 171 SOUT11 OF WELL 37 OWA
400'
4/92 ELK RIVER LANDFILL C e OS C i G n C e
o�^��Nert JRC I NEW MONITORING POINTS �e ► �
f N K1 God Spec— 3 T 33) tL•zt.
217
P 300 i
q•1
O
.). P 28 C
237 LA i
�- - 241. ----- i ?
P 29 D
7
r
N .,} N
• N
.a•rw.�.•n.-..•+a-x.-r..+a.•�.•s.�r..x.-t.•+r_�.-�•s.�
P 41 B 342
rl
• n
P 17 C ri"s. Ln19 QW I/j- QLO VA-
We --
�oa.
LV- 6ZtvefZ LNmt>F t L-L, ��C , JOHN OLIVER I ASSOCIATES. INC.
ma%us sirom
M furw. IkW"Ma w�u
(Olt)441-bM
CASH RECEIPT RECEIPT N 2 1 5675
+ DATE G'`�'r r �! 19 �3
/�=
RECEIVED FROM (S
mm AMOUNT
Ill Z ��'',,� Q FOR
a: 0 LO Description 4 Code Amount
i`
W
> � '� [�
L
O .a > r
�- O � � .
rox
U c W
ti
CASH / INVOICE NO.
&ee By
RIVER LANDFILL, INC.
• � . • •
�.i�i ERC041 1.4D 0.00 1.0
PEOPLES BANK OF COMMERCE N Q.
i( PRINCETON.MN 55371
22460 HWY.169 N.W.
IVER ELK RIVER,MN$5330 75-522 919 1 . •
LANDFILL (612)441-2464 01107193 6636
CHECK AMOUNT
AND 04/100 DOLLARS*
_o
-R CITY OF EL[ RIVER
724 DODGE AVE N.Y.
ELY. RIVER, XN. 66330 0
D {�
'UT." i 2EDSIGNATUAE
a"0066361f' 409 L905 2 241: 111000 220 911'
Minnesota Administrative Rules
7035.2815 MIXED MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Subp. 4.
Ground water performance standards.
The owner or operator must design, construct, operate, and maintain the facility to achieve compliance
with items A to J.
A.
A compliance boundary must be established at each facility in accordance with items B and C. If the
conditions in item D or E apply, a lower compliance boundary and surface water compliance boundary
may also be established. Ground water quality must comply with items E, F, and H at the locations given
in item F. If an intervention limit established under items E, F, and H is exceeded in ground water at any
location,the owner or operator must take the actions specified in item G.
B.
The owner or operator must propose the locations of the compliance boundary. The owner or operator
shall submit the proposed locations to the commissioner for review and approval,together with the
rationale for the selected locations, supporting information, and any additional information the
commissioner may require to describe the locations of the boundaries in the facility permit.
C.
The compliance boundary must be established in accordance with subitems (1) and (2).
(1)
The compliance boundary must surround the waste fill area and leachate management system. It must
be located on the facility property, with a sufficient setback from the property boundary to enable the
installation of monitoring points and, if necessary,ground water control features. The following factors
shall also be considered in establishing the location of the compliance boundary:
(a)
hydrogeologic factors, including attenuation and dilution characteristics; ground water quantity, quality,
flow rates, and flow directions; and anticipated rates and directions of pollutant movement;
(b)
the feasibility of ground water monitoring at the compliance boundary;
(c)
the feasibility of corrective actions to maintain compliance with ground water quality standards at the
compliance boundary;
(d)
the volume, composition, and physical and chemical characteristics of the leachate;
(e)
the proximity and withdrawal rates of ground water users, and the availability of alternative water
supplies; and
(f)
any other public health, safety, and welfare effects.
(2)
The distance between the compliance boundary and the permitted waste boundary must be no greater
than 200 feet.The commissioner may require a smaller separation distance if ground water flow rates
are very slow or where necessary to provide additional protection to ground water, including sites with
downward ground water flow. At existing facilities, including expansion areas,the commissioner may
allow a separation distance greater than 200 feet if the following conditions are met:
(a)
the commissioner determines that the owner or operator has provided sufficient monitoring to assure
reliable detection and tracking of pollutant migration within the area enclosed by the compliance
boundary, and that the larger separation presents no greater risk to water quality and water use than a
separation distance of 200 feet or less;
(b)
the hydrogeologic evaluation under subpart 3 is complete or will be completed according to a
compliance schedule; and
(c)
the owner or operator revises the cost estimate for contingency action under part 7035.2615 to reflect
any greater costs for additional monitoring;ground water containment, removal, and treatment; and
other contingency actions, and provides evidence of financial assurance to pay for the increased costs.
D.
In addition to the compliance boundary required of all facilities under item C,the commissioner shall
designate a lower compliance boundary at any facility where there is a potential for substantial
pollutant migration downward to a deeper aquifer used locally as a source of water supply. The lower
compliance boundary shall be designated at a contact between soil or hydrogeologic units, or other
definable surface within the saturated zone, and shall be located to prevent adverse effects on water
supplies.
E.
The commissioner may designate a surface water compliance boundary if it is determined, by the
analysis under subpart 3, item G, subitem (7) or otherwise,that pollutants entering the ground water
from the facility may migrate to surface water at concentrations that could adversely affect the quality
of surface water.
(1)
The surface water compliance boundary must be designated as a vertical plane extending downward
from the land surface or as some other readily definable plane located between the land disposal facility
and the surface water.
(Z)
The surface water compliance boundary may either replace a portion of the compliance boundary or be
designated in addition to the compliance boundary. The surface water compliance boundary may be
substituted entirely for a portion of the compliance boundary only if the facility is within 500 feet of the
surface water and the commissioner determines that all pollutants entering the ground water from the
facility will discharge into that surface water.
(3)
The commissioner shall establish standards and intervention limits for the surface water compliance
boundary in the facility permit based on the applicable provisions of chapter 7050. If the surface water
in turn recharges an aquifer used as a water supply,the commissioner shall establish standards and
intervention limits protective of both surface water and drinking water.
(4)
The commissioner shall require submission of any facility and site information needed to establish
standards and intervention limits for the surface water compliance boundary, including low-flow stream
discharge rates, mixing characteristics and rates, biological communities, and chemical composition of
the surface water and leachate.
F.
Except as provided in items E and H and this item, pollutant concentrations in ground water must not
exceed the standards listed in this item at or beyond the compliance boundary and at or below the
lower compliance boundary. The standards and intervention limits for these two boundaries are as
follows:
Substance Standard or intervention limit(in micrograms per
liter unless otherwise noted)
(1) Acrylamide 0.025
(2) Acrylonitrile 0.17
(3) Alachlor 2.5
(4) Aldicarb 2.3
(5) Aldrin 0.0075
(6) Allyl chloride 7.35
(7) Arsenic 12.5
(8) Asbestos 1800000
medium and long (greater than 10 microns)fibers
per liter
(9) Barium 375
(10) Benzene 3
(11) Bis(2-chIoroethy1)ether 0.078
(12) Cadmium 1.25
(13) Carbofuran 9
(14) Carbon tetrachloride 0.67
(15) Chlordane 0.055
(16) Chlorobenzene (monochlorobenzene) 15
(17) Chloroform 1.3
(18) Chromium 30
(19) Copper 325
(20) DDT 0.25
(21) Dibromochloropropane (DBCP) 0.063
(22) 1,2-Dibromoethane (Ethylene dibromide, 0.002
EDB)
(23) 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (orth-) 155
(24) 1,3-Dichlorobenzene (meta-) 155
(25) 1,4-Dichlorobenzene (para-) 18.8
(26) 3,3'-Dichlorobenzidine 0.052
(27) 1,2-Dichloroethane 0.95
(28) 1,1-Dichloroethylene 1.8
(29) 1,2-Dichloroethylene (cis-) 17
(30) 1,2-Dichloroethylene (trans-) 17
(31) Dichloromethane (methylene chloride) 12
(32) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) 17
(33) 1,2-Dichloropropane 1.5
(34) Dieldrin 0.0025
(35) 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 0.27
(36) 1,2-Diphenylhydrazine 0.11
(37) Epichlorohydrin 8.9
(38) Ethylbenzene 170
(39) Heptachlor 0.025
(40) Heptachlor epoxide 0.0015
(41) Hexachlorobenzene 0.053
(42) Hexachlorobutadiene 1.1
(43) Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-) 0.0075
(44) Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta-) 0.047
(45) Hexachlorocyclohexane (gamma-)(Lindane) 0.05
(46) Hexachlorodibenzodioxin 0.000015
(47) Hexachloroethane 6.2
(48) Lead 5.0
(49) Mercury 0.75
(50) Methyl ethyl ketone 43
(51) Methoxychlor 85
(52) Nickel 38
(53) Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 2500
(54) Nitrite (as Nitrogen) 250
(55) N-Nitrosodimethylamine 0.0035
(56) N-Nitrosodiphenylamine 17.8
(57) Total carcinogenic polynuclear aromatic 0.007
hydrocarbons (PAH)
(58) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) 0.02
(59) Pentachlorophenol 55
(60) Selenium 11
(61) Styrene 35
(62) 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (-TCDD) 0.0000005
(63) 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 0.44
(64) Tetrachloroethylene 1.7
(65) Toluene 500
(66) Toxaphene 0.075
(67) 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 50
(68) 1,1,2-Trichloroethane 1.5
(69) Trichloroethylene 7.8
(70) 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 4.4
(71) 2,4,5-TP (Silvex) 13
(72) Vinyl chloride 0.037
(73) Xylene 110
G.
If an intervention limit established under items E, F, and H is exceeded in ground water at any location
where the facility's impacts are monitored,the owner or operator must take the following actions:
(1)
immediately notify the commissioner in writing;
(2)
immediately resample if previous samples at the facility did not exceed the intervention limits;
(3)
evaluate the need to resample if previous samples exceeded the intervention limits;
(4)
evaluate the significance of the exceedance and the source or cause of the constituents exceeding the
intervention limits;
(5)
evaluate the need for immediate corrective action to prevent pollutant concentrations from
approaching or exceeding standards at the compliance boundary, surface water compliance boundary,
or lower compliance boundary;
(6)
evaluate the need for changes in water monitoring, including sampling frequencies, constituents
analyzed, and installation of additional monitoring points;
(7)
within 30 days after obtaining the sample results in which an intervention limit was exceeded, submit a
written report to the commissioner describing the evaluations and conclusions under subitems (2)to (6)
and the actions taken or planned under subitem (8); and
(8)
take other actions described in the facility's contingency action plan and as required in subpart 15 and
part 7035.2615.
H.
In lieu of the intervention limits and standards under items E and F, the commissioner may establish
alternative standards and intervention limits in the facility permit as follows:
(1)
If the concentration of any constituent in the background ground water at a facility is greater than a
standard or intervention limit established in this subpart,the background concentration of the
constituent must be used as the standard or intervention limit. For purposes of this subitem,
background refers to the condition of ground water that has experienced no change in quality due to
migration of constituents from the facility. If the background water quality is inadequately defined,the
commissioner may require additional evaluation including sampling, statistical analysis of sampling data,
and installation of additional monitoring points.The commissioner may alter the alternative standards
or intervention limits if background water quality is changing due to actions or events occurring outside
the facility property and beyond the owner's or operator's control.
(2)
Upon request by the owner or operator,the commissioner may establish alternative limits for some or
all substances for portions of a facility filled before November 15, 1988. Unless approved by the agency,
or by the commissioner as provided in subitem (1),the alternative limits must not exceed four times the
concentrations given in item F.The owner or operator must have completed a remedial investigation
study evaluating the extent and severity of ground water pollution at the facility and a feasibility study
evaluating the feasibility and the environmental and economic costs, risks, and benefits of the possible
alternative corrective actions.The alternative approaches must include corrective actions intended to
achieve compliance with the standards under items E and F and at least one additional approach
intended to maintain ground water concentrations lower than four times the concentrations under item
F.The feasibility study also must evaluate the pollutant concentrations that would remain in ground
water after corrective action and the extent to which the use of these alternative limits may adversely
affect the immediate and future use of ground water downgradient from the facility.
(3)
If the quality of a public water supply is potentially affected by migration of leachate from a facility, and
if the maximum contaminant level for a substance as defined and established under either chapter 4720
or under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations,title 40, part
141, is a lower concentration than the standard under items E and F, the commissioner may use the
maximum contaminant level as the alternative standard and alternative intervention limit for that
substance.
(4)
If a substance is present in ground water at a facility, and if that substance is known to impart
undesirable taste or odor to drinking water,the commissioner may upon the recommendation of the
Minnesota commissioner of health establish alternative limits to avoid these taste and odor effects.
(5)
If a substance not listed in item F is present in ground water at a facility and is determined by the
Minnesota commissioner of health to be potentially harmful to health,the commissioner may establish
alternative limits for that substance. Except as provided elsewhere in this subpart,the alternative limits
shall be 25 percent of the concentration given in unit(a) or(b):
(a)
For a substance not classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as Group A(human
carcinogen) or Group B (probable human carcinogen), the recommended allowable limit, as determined
by the Minnesota commissioner of health; or
(b)
For a substance classified by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as a Group A or Group
B carcinogen, either the concentration corresponding to a risk of one additional case of cancer per
100,000 adults consuming the water over a lifetime, as estimated by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency and the Minnesota commissioner of health, or the recommended allowable limit
under unit(a),whichever is lower.
(6)
If a substance which has a standard or an alternative standard under subitems (2)to (5) is present in
ground water at a facility, and if the recommended allowable limit or the concentration corresponding
to the one-in-100,000 cancer risk under subitem (5) is changed,the commissioner may establish
alternative limits for that substance. The alternative limits shall be 25 percent of the concentration given
in subitem (5), unit(a) or(b),whichever is applicable.
1.
If a substance is not detected in a sample and the limit of detection is higher than the intervention limit
or standard for that substance, the intervention limit or standard will not be assumed to have been
attained or exceeded.
J.
The commissioner, after investigation and evaluation, may require the owner or operator to implement
the facility contingency action plan and to take corrective action under the following circumstances,
even if a standard or intervention limit established under this subpart is not being exceeded:
(1)
in the event of a substantial release of leachate that the commissioner may reasonably expect to result
in a violation of water quality standards; or
(2)
based on the additive carcinogenicity or toxicity of a combination of pollutants in the ground water, in
lieu of the limits for individual substances under items E, F, and H.The additive carcinogenicity or
toxicity must be computed using the approach given in "Guidelines for the Health Risk Assessment of
Chemical Mixtures," Federal Register,Volume 51, pages 34014-34025, September 24, 1986. Where
quantification using this approach is feasible,the commissioner may require response actions if the sum
total risk of consuming the water over a lifetime would exceed either 2.5 additional cases of cancer in a
population of 1,000,000 persons or for noncarcinogens, 25 percent of the acceptable concentration for
long-term consumption.
Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION
Raver
TO ITEM NUMBER
Mayor and City Council 8.5
AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY
General Business August 20, 2012 Rebecca Haug, Environmental
Administrator
ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By
Resolution Supporting State Enforcement of MS 473.848 Cal Partner, City Administrator
(Restrictions on Disposal of Metro Mixed Municipal Solid REVIEWED BY
Waste) I Peter Beck, City Attorney
ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt the resolution to support prompt enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848 by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA),restricting disposal of unprocessed mixed municipal solid
waste (MMSW) generated in the metropolitan area from being landfilled.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
In 1980, the Minnesota Legislature recognized the importance of waste management with the passage of
the Waste Management Act (WMA) (Minn. Stat. §115A). The purpose is to improve integrated solid
waste management (ISWM) to protect the state's natural resources and public health. It establishes the
following hierarchy of preferred solid waste management practices:
1. waste reduction and reuse
2. waste recycling
3. composting ofyard waste and food waste
4. resource recovery through mixed municipal solid waste composting or incineration
5. land disposal which produces no measurable methane gas or which involves the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel for
the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale
6. land disposal which produces measurable methane and which does not involve the retrieval of methane gas as a fuel
for the production of energy to be used on-site or for sale
In 1985, the Minnesota Legislature enacted Minn. Stat., Sect. 473.848,placing restrictions on the disposal
of unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste generated in the metropolitan areas, for the purposes of
implementing section 115A.02 and metro goals related to landfill abatement activities. A copy of Minn.
Stat.,Sect. 473.848,is attached.
The MPCA worked with metro communities to prepare a Metropolitan Waste Disposal Restrictions
Report. The report determined that MMSW processing via waste-to-energy is superior to landfilling and
is needed even after reuse, organic recovery, and recycling.. Enforcement of Minn. Stat., Sect. 473.848
will ensure processing of MMSW to restore capacity to resource recovery facilities,increasing energy
production,and extending the life of landfills by saving space.
The MPCA will accept written comments through August 31, 2012. The report will be given to the
legislature by October 1, 2012. Staff has prepared a resolution to the MPCA indicating the city's support
P 0 W E R E 0 B i
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\08-20-2012\MPCA Resolution.docx
INAYUREJ
for enforcement of Minn. Stat., Sect. 473.848. This resolution,if adopted,will be submitted to the
MPCA by August 31, 2012,to be included in the comments section of the report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
ATTACHMENTS
• Resolution
• Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848
Action Motion by Second by Vote
Follow Up
N:\Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\08-20-2012\MPCA Resolutiomdocx
RESOLUTION 12-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ELK RIVER
A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT PROMPT ENFORCEMENT BY THE
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY OF MINNESOTA
STATUTES, SECTION 473.848
WHEREAS, the goals of the City of Elk River are in agreement with the goals of the State
of Minnesota, delineated in Minnesota Statutes, Section 115A.02, which
states: "It is the goal of this chapter to protect the state's land, air, seater and other
natural resources and the public health by improving waste management in the state to serve
the following purposes. (1) reduction in the amount and toxicity of waste generated; (2)
separation and recovery of materials and energy from waste; (3) reduction in indiscriminate
dependence on disposal of waste; (4) coordination of the solid waste management among
political subdivisions; and(5) orderly and deliberate development and financial security of
waste facilities, including disposal facilities.';and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848,placing restrictions on the disposal of
unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste generated in the metropolitan area,
was adopted in 1985 for the purposes of implementing the policies
established in Section 115A.02; and
WHEREAS, the City of Elk River has a long standing policy of supporting those
initiatives that reduce the need for indiscriminate land disposal of solid waste
through various waste reduction,recycling, and resource recovery efforts;
and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848 has been in law for 27 years and,
pursuant to this law, significant investments have been made in processing
facilities to reduce dependence on indiscriminate land disposal of mixed
municipal solid waste; and
WHEREAS, the City of Elk River has licensed and supports Great River Energy's Elk
River Resource Recovery Project,which is currently processing mixed
municipal solid waste into Renewable Energy so that it need not be
landfilled; and
WHEREAS, in 2005, the MPCA became responsible for enforcing Minnesota Statutes,
Section 473.848 and;beginning in late 2010, the MPCA began studying how
to enforce the provisions of this statute;and
WHEREAS, enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848 will provide direct
benefits to the public by reducing the indiscriminant landfilling of mixed
municipal solid waste; and
NAPublic Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\08-20-2012\Resolu6on of MPCA.doc
WHEREAS, enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848 will ensure that
processing facilities receive their operational capacity of mixed municipal
solid waste, thereby greatly reducing the need for public subsidies;and
WHEREAS, enforcement of Minnesota Statute 473.848 will not adversely impact existing
or potential expansions to methane/landfill gas to energy facilities;and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848 is good public policy that encourages the
recovery of resources,including renewable energy and recyclables, from
mixed municipal solid waste;and
WHEREAS, the City of Elk River is not concerned about potential reductions in host
community/expansion fees and/or surcharge fees due to the enforcement of
Minnesota Statutes, Section 473.848.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Elk River
to continue to support the processing of mixed municipal solid waste as a preferred
management option to land disposal and further supports the MPCA's prompt enforcement
of Minnesota Statute Section 473.848 in such a way that the existing capacity of facilities
that manage mixed municipal solid waste through the separation and recovery of materials
and energy is maximized and opposes any further delays to such enforcement that additional
studies or other actions may cause.
Passed and adopted this 20'' day of August,2012.
John J. Dietz,Mayor
ATTEST:
Tina Allard, City Clerk
NAPublic Bodies\City Council\Council RCA\Agenda Packet\08-20-2012\Resolution of MPCA.doc
473.848, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 2
201i Minnesota Statutes
473.848 RESTRICTION ON DISPOSAL.
Subdivision 1. Restriction. (a) For the purposes of implementing the waste management
policies in section 115A.02 and metropolitan area goals related to landfill abatement established
under this chapter, a person may not dispose of unprocessed mixed municipal solid waste
generated in the metropolitan area at a waste disposal facility unless the waste disposal facility
meets the standards in section 473.849 and:
(1) the waste has been certified as unprocessible by a county under subdivision 2; or
(2)(i) the waste has been transferred to the disposal facility from a resource recovery facility;
(ii) no other resource recovery facility serving the metropolitan area is capable of processing
the waste; and
(iii) the waste has been certified as unprocessible by the operator of the resource recovery
facility under subdivision 3.
(b) For purposes of this section, mixed municipal solid waste does not include street
sweepings, construction debris, mining waste, foundry sand, and other materials, if they are not
capable of being processed by resource recovery as determined by the council.
Subd. 2. County certification; office approval. (a) By April 1 of each year, each county shall
submit an annual certification report to the office detailing:
(1) the quantity of waste generated in the county that was not processed prior to transfer to a
disposal facility during the year preceding the report;
(2) the reasons the waste was not processed;
(3) a strategy for development of techniques to ensure processing of waste including a
specific timeline for implementation of those techniques; and
(4) any progress made by the county in reducing the amount of unprocessed waste.
The report shall be included in the county report required by section 473.803, subdivision 3.
(b) The Pollution Control Agency shall approve a county's certification report if it determines
that the county is reducing and will continue to reduce the amount of unprocessed waste, based on
the report and the county's progress in development and implementation of techniques to reduce
the amount of unprocessed waste transferred to disposal facilities. If the Pollution Control Agency
does not approve a county's report, it shall negotiate with the county to develop and implement
specific techniques to reduce unprocessed waste. If the Pollution Control Agency does not
approve two or more consecutive reports from any one county, the Pollution Control Agency shall
develop specific reduction techniques that are designed for the particular needs of the county. The
county shall implement those techniques by specific dates to be determined by the Pollution
Control Agency.
Subd. 3. Facility certification. The operator of each resource recovery facility that receives
waste from counties in the metropolitan area shall certify as unprocessible each load of mixed
municipal solid waste it does not process. Certification must be made to each county that sends its
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=473.848 08/16/2012
473.848, 2011 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 2
waste to the facility at intervals specified by the county. Certification must include at least the
number and size of loads certified as unprocessible and the reasons the waste is unprocessible.
Loads certified as unprocessible must include the loads that would otherwise have been processed
but were not processed because the facility was not in operation, but nothing in this section
relieves the operator of its contractual obligations to process mixed municipal solid waste.
Subd. 4. Pollution Control Agency report. The Pollution Control Agency shall include, as part
of its report to the Environment and Natural Resources Committees of the senate and house of
representatives, the Finance Division of the senate Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources, and the house of representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources
Finance required under section 473.149, an accounting of the quantity of unprocessed waste
transferred to disposal facilities, the reasons the waste was not processed, a strategy for reducing
the amount of unprocessed waste, and progress made by counties to reduce the amount of
unprocessed waste. The Pollution Control Agency may adopt standards for determining when
waste is unprocessible and procedures for expediting certification and reporting of unprocessed
waste.
Subd. 5. Definition. For the purpose of this section, waste is "unprocessed" if it has not, after
collection and before disposal, undergone separation of materials for resource recovery through
recycling, incineration for energy production, production and use of refuse-derived fuel,
composting, or any combination of these processes so that the weight of the waste remaining that
must be disposed of in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility is not more than 35 percent
of the weight before processing, on an annual average.
History: 1985 c 274 s 35; 1989 c 325 s 66; 1991 c 337 s 81,82; 1993 c 249 s 43,44; 1994 c
585 s 49,50; 1995 c 247 art 2 s 51,52; 1996 c 470 s 27; 1 Sp2005 c 1 art 2 s 161
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=473.848 08/16/2012
I Ir E
"19 ?�' 0-0 A •W
! r
•' + ��% �`
1
Ow
n .... I 1 1
I n0 OW?.
0
P- 1
P 20 � A1
P 320 P 3 2 II Irk,
p 2 1 ( �6f�`A x K
0 22=0WA r t
� `� P 31 wP•i �� ■
v ------- Le..W.T-kkR
1 ( l
E I �YLJ
L II
.e-1
------
0 N
a
`IGP_*0.
c
I Z
i�
I
____------r-- 31— -PP-2%;
5 '`—
------——————— --
1 t I
1—
P311D Gp25,
a 311c
^J i
'�3t60WAKlkt 1' O
?1 'f I
223rtl Ave NW' � yy � w
Monitoring Well -- Cell Boundary
Gas Monitoring Probe P320C Blue ID indicates well has surface
L] Surface Water Monitoring Point water-based intervention limits Figure 2
Red ID indicates well has N
0 Groundwater groundwater-based intervention SITE MAP
P320L g Elk River Landfill
Groundwater Compliance limits Feel Elk River,Minnesota
Boundary
P 3028 Black ID indicates well is not
0 500 1.DOD
Site Boundary used for compliance monitoring
eackgrou iG Source:Esri,.GIs U Ur —niw(M Geoeve,Getmepping, BARR
arogntl.IGN.IGP,antl me GIS Uver Gommuniry(Marco 2D12)
Data Source'Bart,Wenck,MN DOT