shamrock environmental, llc - signature document (fof ... · shamrock environmental, llc industrial...

mosborn1

Typewritten Text

p-ear2-15b

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET FOR THE PROPOSED SHAMROCK ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC INDUSTRIAL WASTE LANDFILL CLOQUET, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Criteria 1. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) received a petition from the Minnesota

Environmental Quality Board (EQB) on November 18, 2010, requesting that an EAW be prepared for the proposal by Shamrock Environmental, LLC (Shamrock Environmental) for the re-permitting of an existing demolition debris landfill located in the city of Cloquet, Carlton County. The proposed project (Project) would provide a disposal facility for demolition debris and construction and industrial wastes managed by the Project proposer, Shamrock Environmental. The proposed facility would be an industrial waste landfill.

2. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 5, the EQB determined that the petition complied with the requirements for a valid petition and that the MPCA was the appropriate responsible governmental unit to decide whether an EAW should be prepared. The substantive portion of the petition is included as Attachment 1. The entire petition and attachments were reviewed by the MPCA and are incorporated by reference.

3. The petition contends that the proposed Project has the potential for significant environmental effects, including surface and groundwater pollution, cumulative environmental impacts, and landfill gas impacts.

4. The Project does not meet the mandatory requirements for an EAW for any category in Minn. R. 4410.4300 or the mandatory requirements for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for any category in Minn. R. 4410.4400.

5. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 6, the MPCA must order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioner, proposer, and other persons or information otherwise known to the MPCA demonstrates that because of the nature or location of the proposed Project, the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The MPCA must deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

6. In a letter dated November 19, 2010, the MPCA notified the petitioners’ representative and Shamrock Environmental of the MPCA’s process for determining the need for an EAW. The letter also stated that the decision to grant or deny the petition can be made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board), provided that a Board member, or the Commissioner, who chairs the Board, agrees to bring the matter before the Board. The letter stated that if at least one Board member agrees to have the Board hear the matter, the Board member should contact the Board Administrator within ten (10)

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

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

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order

working days of the date of the letter. The letter also explained that if no Board member agrees to hear the matter, the decision to grant or deny the petition would lie with the MPCA Commissioner, who is the Board chair.

7. December 7, 2010, marked the tenth working day from November 19, 2010. No MPCA Board member contacted the Board Administrator to bring this matter before the Board. Therefore, the decision to grant or deny the petition is made by the Commissioner of the MPCA.

Proposed Project and Mitigation of Impacts

8. Shamrock Environmental has a purchase agreement to purchase 59 acres of the 160-acre parcel owned by Ulland Brothers, Inc. (Ulland Brothers). This includes the existing landfill operations. The proposed facility will be a Merchant Industrial Landfill, accepting demolition debris and industrial waste according to an approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan. A Merchant Industrial Landfill may take waste from anyone willing to pay to dispose of waste that is acceptable at the facility.

9. The facility is currently permitted by the MPCA to accept up to 332,000 cubic yards of

construction/demolition debris and some industrial waste types. Approximately 228,000 cubic yards of waste has been landfilled at the site. Shamrock is purposing to expand the ultimate capacity to 3,544,000 cubic yards and expand the waste acceptance plan to accept additional industrial waste types (Attachment 2) and unacceptable waste types (Attachment 3)

10. The proposed 41.5-acre landfill footprint will be located within the 59-acre parcel of land to be

purchased from Ulland Brothers. The property is located in Section 25, Township 49, Range 17, Carlton County, Minnesota. To the north, the property is bordered by Interstate 35 right-of-way and land owned by Sappi Paper which is used for timber storage and wood chipping operations. The south property line is bordered by gravel operations owned by the Minnesota Department of Transportation, KGM Gravel, and Ulland Brothers. The landfill property is also bordered by Ulland Brothers gravel operations to the west. To the east the property is bordered by land owned by Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.

11. The proposed landfill footprint is approximately 100 feet from the right-of-way of Interstate 35.

Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. E will not allow an industrial landfill “within 1,000 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any state, federal, or interstate highway….” However, this rule (Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. E) does allow commissioner discretion. After review of application materials, a site visit and discussions with solid waste staff engineers, and after taking into consideration other similar facilities in Minnesota, the MPCA staff made a preliminary determination to approve the application and issue the permit. The variance notice was written in the permit that has gone through a 30-day public notice period which began on September 2, 2010 and ended on October 2, 2010.

12. The proposed landfill will be required to have an engineered high density polyethylene

(geomembrane) liner and leachate collection system to contain and collect leachate produced during the operation of the facility. Leachate is any liquid that comes into contact with the waste. The liner system is intended to prevent leachate migration into the groundwater. The leachate collected from and within the lined area will be transported off site for treatment to the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District (WLSSD) wastewater treatment facility as stated in the MPCA Solid Waste Permit.

2

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 13. A groundwater monitoring system is being required to be installed to monitor groundwater at the

facility and verify effectiveness of the liner and leachate collection system. Monitoring will take place several times a year throughout the operating life of the facility and for years after the facility closes to examine groundwater quality around the facility. This monitoring network will consist of static groundwater wells.

14. The facility will not be actively pumping water from the underlying aquifer; therefore, the volume of

water available from this source will not be affected and potential impacts to residential wells in the area will be avoided.

15. To be in compliance with the MPCA Solid Waste Permit, operations at the facility must not cause

nuisance conditions beyond the property boundary. The facility is required to control dust, litter, and other possible nuisance-causing operations at the landfill.

16. All traffic to and from the facility must be on County Road 45, avoiding traffic-related impacts on

14th Street and the neighborhood to the south. Heavy equipment to be used for landfill operations will generate noise; however, based on the historical use of the land and the current operations surrounding the landfill, it is expected that contribution of additional noise from the landfill will be minimal. The approved hours of operation in the permit are proposed to be modified to further minimize the impact on neighbors during the evening and weekends by requiring the facility to close at 5 p.m. Monday through Friday and close at 1 p.m. on Saturday. The facility will not be open on Sunday.

17. The production of gases may occur at the facility. The volume of landfill gases produced will be

dependent on several operational aspects, primarily the waste types accepted and the quantity of those waste types being landfilled. Based on the facility’s Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan, which was reviewed and approved by MPCA staff, significant impacts related to landfill gas generation are not expected to occur from this facility. In response to the concerns which have been raised, the MPCA has added a permit condition to require monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide at the leachate sumps and clean outs, locations which would be most likely to act as a conduit for landfill gases.

18. The facility’s Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan addresses the acceptance, required testing,

and management of industrial wastes delivered to the facility. The facility will not be allowed to accept hazardous wastes. Prior to accepting a specific waste type, the waste must be evaluated to determine if it is acceptable. Upon arrival at the facility, loads are visually inspected by the scale operator. Further evaluation is done by the operator as the load is dumped. If there is unacceptable waste in the load, it is removed from the landfill and managed properly.

19. The proposer has submitted a closure plan to the MPCA, which fulfills the requirements of Minn. R.

7035.2635. Shamrock Environmental has also submitted a postclosure plan that fulfills the requirements of Minn. R. 7035.2645. A contingency action plan has also been submitted and approved as part of this permit application.

20. The proposer will be required, as part of its permit, to establish financial assurance for closure,

postclosure care, and corrective action at the facility. Shamrock Environmental will set up a dedicated trust fund according to Minnesota rules. The trust fund account will be funded monthly based on the tonnage of new waste accepted at the facility. Monies can only be released from this fund upon approval from the MPCA.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 21. A hydrogeological investigation was done to characterize subsurface conditions at the proposed

landfill site, as well as to determine potential downgradient receptors. Soil borings were done to determine the physical properties and characteristics of the upper most aquifer. Groundwater monitoring wells were installed to determine the depth and direction of groundwater flow at the landfill property. In addition to the collection of new hydrogeological data, existing published information of the regional area was also submitted. This included the location of all residential wells installed within a one-mile radius from the facility and all municipal supply wells installed within a three-mile radius. At this time, this facility meets the current rules for completing a hydrogeologic investigation.

22. The St. Louis River flows along the east side of the landfill and is approximately 1,200 feet at its

closest point. As a permit requirement, the landfill must control stormwater running onto the site and running off the site to the river. All surface-water drainage must be diverted around and away from the site operating area. Stormwater that comes into contact with waste must be managed as leachate. In addition to the Solid Waste Permit, the facility must obtain an MPCA Industrial Stormwater Permit. The Industrial Stormwater Permit requires the use of best management practices to reduce the amount of pollutants entering surface waters and monitoring to verify effectiveness of the stormwater management system.

Permit Status

23. Construction and operation of the proposed landfill will require a Solid Waste Permit from the MPCA. On June 14, 2010, the MPCA received a Solid Waste Permit Application from Shamrock Environmental. The Shamrock Environmental permit was drafted and placed on the required 30-day public notice on September 2, 2010. The MPCA Solid Waste Permit is on hold pending the completion of the environmental review process.

24. Neighbors have had access to decision makers regarding this process through a series of public meetings: May 25, 2010, Planning Commission June 15, 2010, City Council Meeting July 13, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting August 4, 2010, Public Informational Meeting September 14, 2010, Planning Commission Meeting September 21, 2010, City Council Meeting October 5, 2010, City Council Meeting October 21, 2010, MPCA Public Informational Meeting November 3, 2010, City Council Meeting

25. Construction of the proposed landfill requires a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities. The MPCA has not received an application for coverage under the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for the landfill construction activities, but anticipates receiving it after Shamrock Environmental has obtained other necessary approvals for the Project.

26. The proposed landfill also requires a Conditional Use Permit from the city of Cloquet.

27. Shamrock Environmental has applied to the MPCA for a variance to allow an industrial landfill

“within 1,000 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any state, federal, or interstate highway.”

4


After review of application materials, MPCA staff has made a preliminary determination to approve the application. The variance was a part of the MPCA Solid Waste Permit that was public noticed.

Concerns Raised in the Petition Regarding the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects

Environmental Review Requirements 28. The petitioners contend that the preparation of an EAW on the proposed Project should be considered

mandatory because the landfill design would allow it to accept mixed municipal solid waste (MSW). In addition, the petitioners state that the proposed Project will accept ash from incinerators that burn refuse derived fuel (RDF) from resource recovery plants and power plants and therefore should be subject to Minn. R 4410.4300, subp. 17G. dealing with disposal of ash from facilities that burn RDF.

29. The mandatory EAW threshold in Minn. R. 4410.4300 subp. 17G states as follows. For construction or expansion of a mixed municipal solid waste energy recovery project ash landfill receiving ash from an incinerator that burns refuse-derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste, the PCA is the RGU.

30. Section 2.3 of the Project’s Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) provides a list of

mandatory waste types that must be evaluated in the plan as listed in Minn. R. 7035.2535, subp. 5, item B. The table specifically states that only coal ash will be accepted by the Project. In addition, Section 2.2 of the ISWMP, “Unacceptable Wastes,” specifically lists “MSW incinerator ash” as an unacceptable waste (see Attachments 1 and 2).

31. The approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan addresses the acceptance, required testing, and management of industrial wastes delivered to the Project. The Project will not accept hazardous wastes or mixed municipal solid waste.

32. The MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, is not a mixed municipal solid waste energy recovery project ash landfill receiving ash from an incinerator that burns refuse-derived fuel or mixed municipal solid waste and does not meet the mandatory threshold for environmental review pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300 subp. 17G.

33. The petitioners contend that the proposed Project is a phased and connected action operated in association with Ulland Brothers ongoing mining operations. This contention is based on the assertion that the reclamation of the Ulland Brothers mining area is completed via landfilling. Under the Minnesota natural expansion doctrine, the Project must be expected to expand on the 160-acre site. The resulting 160-acre industrial landfill is expected to exceed 9.5M cubic yards of capacity. The full scope of the Project should be evaluated in the EAW process to identify environmental impacts from what would be one of the largest landfills in Minnesota.

5

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 34. A phased action is defined in Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 60:

“Phased action” means two or more projects to be undertaken by the same proposer that a RGU determines: A. will have environmental effects on the same geographic area; and B. are substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time.

35. Connected actions are defined in Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 9c:

Two projects are “connected actions” if a responsible governmental unit determines they are related in any of the following ways: A. one project would directly induce the other; B. one project is a prerequisite for the other and the prerequisite project is not justified by itself;

or C. neither project is justified by itself.

36. The Project permit application is for 59 acres and 3,544,000 cubic yards of waste. Ulland Brothers is the current landowner who is selling 59 acres of land outright to Shamrock Environmental. Ulland Brothers is not connected or associated in any way with Shamrock Environmental and will have no involvement in the landfill if the proposed Project is approved. The proposed Shamrock Environmental Project and the operation and eventual disposition of the Ulland mining area are not projects to be undertaken by the same project proposer. In addition, future development of the landfill beyond the 3,544,000 cubic yards that would be authorized in the proposed permit is not substantially certain to be undertaken sequentially over a limited period of time.

37. The reclamation plan for the Ulland Brothers gravel mining areas is not a part of this Project or associated with Shamrock Environmental.

38. The MPCA finds that the proposed Project and the Ulland Brothers mining operation are not phased and connected actions for purposes of determining the applicability of the thresholds for mandatory environmental review.

Groundwater

39. The petitioners contend that the proposed Project is located in a highly porous geologic environment

as the site is currently used for sand and gravel mining. Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. G currently prohibits the siting of an industrial landfill in any "area which is unsuitable because of topography, geology, hydrology, or soils." Likewise, Minn. R. 7035.2815, subp. 2.A. requires that "a Project be located only in an area where: (1) the topography, geology, and groundwater conditions allow the Project to be designed, operated, constructed, and maintained in a manner that minimizes environmental impacts; (2) groundwater flow paths and variations in soil or bedrock conditions are known in sufficient detail to enable reliable tracking of pollutant movement in the event of a release from the Project; (3) it is feasible to construct a monitoring system with sufficient monitoring points to assure that pollutants can be detected and tracked in the event of a release from the Project; and (4) in the event of a release from a Project, pollutants can be contained and corrective actions taken to prevent adverse impacts on water supplies and to return the Project to compliance with groundwater and surface water quality standards."

6

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 40. In addition, the petitioners contend that in 2008, the Minnesota Legislature amended Minn. Stat. §

116.07, subd. 4 to expressly prohibit solid waste disposal based on an area's sensitivity to groundwater contamination and further mandated site-specific testing. The MPCA has not completed the rulemaking process to adopt rules detailing the criteria and testing protocols mandated by the legislative amendment. See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=41. Until such time as those rules are adopted, all proposed landfill projects should at the very least be subject to the EAW review process to ensure consistency with Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4.

41. The MPCA has performed a site-specific environmental evaluation as part of the permit application

review to ensure that the Project is protective of the environment. Based on this evaluation, the MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, will be in compliance with existing Minnesota law and has concluded that the Project meets all state permitting requirements.

42. The MPCA finds that the Project and the proposed expansion are exempt from the requirements of

the proposed rules being developed in response to Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4 (c). Specifically, subdivision 4 (c)(1) states that the rule does not apply to “solid waste facilities initially permitted before January 1, 2011, including future contiguous expansions and noncontiguous expansions within 600 yards of a permitted boundary.” The proposal is for the expansion and modification of waste type of an existing landfill that is currently permitted by the MPCA as SW-399. Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4 (d) (2) specifically allows the agency to issue “a permit to expand a land disposal Project operating as of March 1, 2008, beyond its permitted boundaries…” without being subject to the 2008 Legislatures directive. Furthermore, Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4 (d) (3) allows for “a permit to modify the type of waste accepted at a land disposal Project operating as of March 1, 2008” without being subject to the 2008 Legislatures directive.

43. The MPCA finds that the Minnesota State Legislature 2008 legislative directive referenced in the

petition only applies to “new solid waste disposal facilities” and does not apply to the permitting of the proposed site. Shamrock Environmental LLC proposes to purchase an existing landfill and plans to change the type of waste that will be accepted for disposal.

44. The petitioners contend that the proposed hydrogeologic investigation at the site is not sufficient to characterize the site and to determine if the standard for groundwater sensitivity is met. It was further stated that the MPCA is currently drafting new rules for landfills that would require a 59-acre project to have an investigation that would include a minimum of 40 soil borings.

45. The proposed Project will have an engineered composite liner and leachate collection system to contain and collect leachate that may be produced during the operation of the Project. Leachate is any liquid that comes into contact with the waste. The liner system will consist of two feet of compacted clay and a 60-mil high-density polyethylene (HDPE) liner. The liner system will prevent leachate migration into the groundwater. This will prevent any groundwater-related impacts to human health, wildlife, or other environmental effects. The leachate collected from and within the lined area will be transported off site for treatment at WLSSD.

46. A groundwater monitoring system has been installed to monitor groundwater at the site. Monitoring

will take place several times a year throughout the life of the Project and for years after the Project closes to ensure that groundwater releases are not taking place at the site. This monitoring network consists of static groundwater wells.

47. The Hydrogeological Investigation Work Plan submitted for the Project and approved by the MPCA

proposes to install two additional soil borings and two additional groundwater monitoring wells. The

7

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=41.


work proposed by this work plan will be used to supplement the existing geologic work carried out in 2005 by Ulland Brothers for a then-proposed 39-acre landfill expansion. The geologic data collected indicates that the underlying unconsolidated subsurface material consists primarily of coarse grained sand and gravel. Due to the homogenous nature of the unconsolidated geologic material, only two additional soil borings were required to determine that this Project has a complete and adequate hydrogeological investigation. At this time, this Project meets the current rules for completing a Hydrogeologic Investigation.

48. The petitioners stated concerns that no evaluation has been made to characterize local aquifers to

evaluate potential contamination impacts to municipal drinking water supplies. 49. The MPCA finds that all current residential wells are located up-gradient of the proposed Project. The

Hydrogeological Investigation of the site determined that this Project will not impact residential water supply wells.

50. The petitioners stated concerns that no evaluation has been made concerning groundwater usage

during the operational phase of the landfill operations. 51. The Project has not proposed to extract groundwater from the local aquifers; therefore, the MPCA

finds that the Project will not affect groundwater availability for people using the local aquifers.

Setback Requirements

52. The proposer has applied to MPCA for a waiver of the requirements of Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. E, which prohibits the siting of an industrial landfill "within 1,000 feet of the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any state, federal, or interstate highway.” The petitioners contend that the applicants have offered no justification for the unprecedented waiver of an MPCA regulation intended to protect the safety of the traveling public. Petitioners further contend that the potential impacts to highway safety from the landfilling operations, including increased truck traffic, site access, lighting, dust and litter control, and signage must be evaluated. Further environmental review is also required to determine whether applicants can establish stormwater retention ponds within the limited setback area to control stormwater runoff toward Interstate 35. In addition, it is stated that further review is required to determine whether applicants can establish sufficient monitoring well and compliance points within the limited setback area, which will be competing for space with stormwater retention features, perimeter roads, berms, and fencing.

53. Minnesota rules and statutes contain specific criteria for the siting of industrial waste landfills. These

include setbacks from rivers, streams, and interstate highways. The Project does not meet the required 1,000-foot setback from the nearest edge of the right-of-way of any state, federal, or interstate highway. However, Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. E does allow the Commissioner discretion for the granting of a variance for setback distances less than 1,000 feet after taking into consideration factors such as noise, dust, litter, and other aesthetic and environmental issues. The separation between the landfill boundary and Interstate 35 is roughly 100 feet. A 20-foot wide earthen berm with 15-foot high mature evergreen trees is located within those 100 feet. MPCA staff believes the berm and trees will serve as an adequate physical and visual barrier and has recommended approval of the Project with less than the 1,000-foot setback. There is adequate room for monitoring wells as they are already installed.

54. At the time the EAW petition was submitted, the proposed Project was proceeding through the city of

Cloquet’s conditional use permitting process. This included an evaluation of truck traffic, site access,

8


lighting, and dust and litter control. To the extent that the city believes appropriate, specific conditions of operation can be developed and incorporated into the permit. These conditions will ensure that these adverse impacts to neighboring land uses will be properly mitigated.

55. The MPCA has also evaluated the proposed stormwater features for the proposed Project, including the stormwater retention ponds and found that these features meet or exceed MPCA requirements and can be constructed in a manner which considers all appropriate setbacks and site limitations.

56. The MPCA finds that the Project, as proposed, will provide adequate setbacks necessary to mitigate adverse impacts on neighboring land uses from an industrial landfill at this location.

Operations

57. The petitioners contend that the applicants intend to excavate and relocate the existing waste without having prepared a work plan, waste evaluation, or contingency action plan to address potential releases or discharges associated with this work. The existing waste and fill area should be evaluated in the EAW process to address any potential for release or discharge prior to approving this work.

58. The MPCA finds that the permit application, operations plan, and contingency action plan do address

the re-location of waste. The waste will be visually screened (and tested, if needed) just like any other waste coming into the Project. If unacceptable waste is encountered (such as MSW), it will be removed and disposed of at the proper permitted facilities. An enforceable provision of the MPCA permit requires Shamrock Environmental to submit a detailed work plan for approval, prior to excavating any waste. The plan must specifically address the mitigation of potential dust and odor impacts associated with the handling of the existing waste.

59. The petitioners contend that no evaluation of the permissible waste types or quantities has been done

for the proposed operations. The applicants should be required to fully characterize the potential waste stream and resulting leachate characteristics utilizing the EPA's Industrial Waste Evaluation Model for purposes of determining whether the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects.

60. The MPCA finds that the proposer’s MPCA approved Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan

addresses the acceptance, required testing, and management of industrial wastes delivered to the Project. The Project is not allowed to accept hazardous wastes. Prior to accepting a specific waste type, the waste must be evaluated to determine if it is acceptable. Upon arrival at the Project, loads are visually inspected by the scale operator. Further evaluation is done by the operator as the load is dumped. If there is unacceptable waste in the load, it is removed from the landfill and disposed of at an appropriately permitted facility.

61. The petitioners contend that no evaluation has been made of the applicant’s operational plans concerning pumping and discharge of water collected in landfill cells and that the applicants failed to adequately address how they will store and dispose of landfill leachate.

9

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 62. The MPCA finds that any precipitation that may come into contact with any of the waste will be

treated as leachate. The proposed liner system will prevent leachate migration into the groundwater, which in turn prevents any impacts to human health, wildlife, or other environmental receptors. The leachate collected from and within the lined area will be transported off the site for treatment at the WLSSD facility.

63. The petitioners stated concern that additional environmental review is required to determine what

mitigative controls can be imposed on the applicants to ensure that contaminated runoff and landfill leachate are not allowed to enter the mined areas.

64. The MPCA finds that suitable permit requirements will control stormwater run-on and run-off from

the landfill. All surface water drainage must be diverted around and away from the site operating area. Stormwater that comes into contact with waste must be managed as leachate. In addition to the solid waste permit, the proposer is required to obtain an Industrial Stormwater Permit from the MPCA. The industrial stormwater permit requires the use of best management practices to reduce the amount of pollution that enters surface waters. Monitoring is also required.

Visual Effects

65. The petitioners contend that the visual impacts of the proposed Project have not been sufficiently

analyzed. 66. The MPCA finds that the visual impacts of the proposed Project can be appropriately mitigated

through the city of Cloquet permitting process. View-shed analysis has been presented to the city during planning commission and city council meetings. Based on this analysis and in response to concerns expressed by residents at these meetings, Shamrock Environmental has agreed to construct a visual screening berm between Hilltop Park and the existing/proposed landfill. The proposer submitted a consultant’s view-shed analysis of the screening berm and anticipated tree growth and concluded that “…landfilling operations will be occurring down in a hole and they will be completely screened by the existing landform until the final stages.” Additionally, the analysis included renderings of the berm and associated tree growth which determined that “10 years after planting the Subject Property will be 100% screened and the trees will only grow taller and more dense from that point on.”

Traffic and Other Impacts on Surrounding Properties

67. The petitioners contend that the proposed Project represents a significant change in the use of the

property that will result in a change in truck traffic. They further contend that environmental review is required to evaluate vehicle-related air emissions from the increased truck traffic and truck idling during operational hours.

68. The MPCA finds that the traffic impacts have been reviewed by the city of Cloquet as part of the

city’s conditional use permit process. After reviewing the information presented, and performing traffic studies of the existing traffic, the planning commission and city staff recommended approval of the Project by the city council. The traffic levels at the facility, both peak volumes and average volumes, are projected to be consistent with historical volumes. This is due to the fact that, although the landfill-related traffic will increase, traffic related to the gravel and mining at the Ulland Brothers

10


pit will have an equal or greater decrease. This decrease in traffic into the Ulland Brothers pit will result from operation of the pit as a private pit as opposed to a merchant pit due to limited remaining resources.

69. The petitioners contend that the environmental and safety impacts caused by the landfill operations

and additional truck traffic should be fully evaluated in the EAW process. In addition, visual and odor impacts to these recreational resources have not been adequately evaluated. The Project site is bordered to the west by residential development, a recreation area, and athletic fields (Hilltop Park) and to the south by additional residential development and a second recreation area (Braun Park). The site is also bordered by the Wood City Riders Trail and the St. Louis River Trail recreational trail.

70. The Project is bordered to the south and west by the current gravel mines operated by Ulland Brothers, KGM Contractors, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation (see also Finding #10). Braun Park is over 3,500 feet away from the site to the southwest (see Figure 1, aerial photograph). The MPCA finds that the visual impacts to Hilltop Park are being addressed during the city review process. Shamrock Environmental has agreed to install an earthen berm with coniferous trees on top to mitigate any future visual impacts, as well as the visual impacts of the existing landfill.

71. The MPCA finds that the site access road is a road used for access by existing land owners and tenants of the properties. The existing users of the access road include Sappi Paper, Ulland Brothers, KGM Contractors, the Minnesota Department of Transportation and Carlson Timber. Shamrock Environmental has indicated that it will provide additional safety signage and improve lines of sight on both the trail and the access road.

72. The MPCA finds that the potential visual and odor impacts to the surrounding properties and recreational resources were analyzed and are addressed as part of the ongoing city and MPCA review process, respectively. The city planning commission and city staff recommended approval of the Project with the addition of a visual screening berm adjacent to Hilltop Park. The MPCA concluded that odor and gas would not affect the air quality of the surrounding properties. As an additional proactive measure, the owner/operator of the site will monitor for landfill gas on a quarterly basis with the results being submitted to the MPCA, along with the groundwater monitoring results. A gas monitoring plan was submitted as part of the MPCA Solid Waste Permit which requires monitoring to be done quarterly at all leachate sumps and clean out locations. Monitoring results will be submitted to the MPCA at the same time as the ground water monitoring results.

Air Quality Impacts

73. Construction and demolition debris in industrial landfills can generate odors due to gas generation from these biodegradable materials and other bacterial-supporting media. Among the gases that can be generated from this decomposition are hydrogen sulfide (toxic and explosive) and methane (explosive). Gas may migrate through soils surrounding the landfill and through pipes or other conduits. The leachate handling system can also conduct gas.

11

On the Need for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet Findings of Fact Shamrock Environmental, LLC Industrial Landfill Conclusions of Law Cloquet, Minnesota And Order 74. The petitioners contend that additional environmental review is required to identify potential effects

of landfill gas and potential mitigative measures to control it. Much of the acceptable waste types allowed at the landfill are biodegradable, including the wood wastes, sheetrock, dewatered sewage sludge, sludges, paper and packaging material, and grit and bar screenings. The petitioners also contend that that there are a number of private wells in the area surrounding the Project site that are susceptible to landfill gas migration.

75. The MPCA finds that landfill gas generation would be the primary cause of any odors and air emissions from the Project. The production of gases at a landfill is dependent on several operational aspects, primarily waste types accepted and the quantity of those waste types being landfilled. Based on the Project’s Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan and past experience at similar landfills, the MPCA does not anticipate landfill gas generation will result in significant adverse impacts from this Project; however, in response to the concerns raised, the MPCA has added a proposed permit condition to require monitoring for methane and hydrogen sulfide. As a precautionary measure, Shamrock Environmental will be required to monitor for landfill gas generation in the riser and leachate cleanout pipes on a quarterly basis as part of the MPCA permit. If landfill gas is generated, the composite liner proposed for the Project will prohibit any off-site horizontal migration of gas.

76. The MPCA and the city of Cloquet staff have reviewed the potential landfill gas and odor issues as part of the permit approval process. The MPCA has determined that significant impacts from gas and odor generation from the project are not expected to occur given the waste types proposed to be accepted and the operational requirements of the Project. Operational controls that effectively control gas generation and are part of the proposed Project operations include appropriate cover practices to minimize infiltration and attenuate gas production, managing organic waste acceptance (the proposed Conditional Use Permit for this Project will limit the amount of paper sludge accepted at the Project), controlling organic waste disposal practices (the proposed Conditional Use Permit for this Project requires thin spreading and/or mixing of the paper sludge and sewage sludge wastes), stormwater and leachate best management practices, and environmental monitoring.

77. If landfill gas is detected by smell or from gas meter readouts, then the MPCA will require a formal

gas management plan. The management plan may include a proposal for collecting landfill gas and treatment options such as passive venting, flaring or a bio-filter.

Cumulative Impacts

78. The petitioners contend that cumulative impacts between the proposed Project and the Sappi Paper heavy industrial operations on the St. Louis River, as well as the air contamination from hydrogen sulfide and other gases and particulates, have not been adequately evaluated as required under Minn. R. 4410.1700.

79. The petitioners contend that cumulative adverse effects on water quality may occur based on

preliminary hydrological evaluation which shows that groundwater flow patterns are directed toward the St. Louis River from the Project site. The St. Louis River is a high-sensitivity environmental resource. The St. Louis River is the largest U.S. tributary to Lake Superior and flows through the Cloquet, Minnesota area to Wisconsin and the Duluth/Superior metropolitan area. The St. Louis River basin has been designated as a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "area of concern" (AOC) (http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/stlouis.html). The St. Louis River System AOC is subject to the St. Louis River System Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The RAP focuses primarily on the 39 miles of the St. Louis River below Cloquet, Minnesota, but upstream degradation and contamination remains a critical concern. The RAP process determined that 9 of 14 identified beneficial uses were

12

http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/stlouis.html).


impaired. Some impairments were associated with the physical loss and degradation of habitat, with the estuary having lost an estimated 7,700 acres of wetland and open water habitat having been altered or destroyed since settlement. For years, the river smelled bad from industrial discharges. According to the EPA, pollution continues to come from sources such as contaminated sediments, abandoned hazardous waste sites, poorly designed or leaky landfills, airborne deposition, industrial discharges, chemical spills, improperly sewered wastes, and surface runoff.

80. The MPCA finds that the evidence submitted and materials available to the MPCA do not support the

petitioners’ concern that the Project-specific effects may contribute significantly to cumulative adverse environmental effect on the either groundwater quality or the water quality of the St. Louis River.

81. The MPCA finds that the evidence submitted and materials available to the MPCA do not support the petitioners’ concern that the Project may have the potential for cumulative impacts associated with the Sappi Paper Cloquet paper mill on air quality.

82. The MPCA finds that for the Proposer to be in compliance with the MPCA solid waste permit, operations at the Project must not cause nuisance conditions beyond the property boundary. The Project is required to control dust, litter, and other possible nuisance causing operations at the landfill. Approved management methods include, but are not limited to, watering of dry roads, and temporary fencing to catch windblown debris.

83. The MPCA finds that all traffic to and from the Project must be on County Road 45, eliminating any

impact on 14th Street and the neighborhood to the south. Heavy equipment used for landfill operations will generate noise; however, based on the historical use of the land and the current operations surrounding the landfill, it is expected that noise contributions from the landfill will not contribute significantly to noise in the project area or cause a violation of MPCA noise standards. The approved hours of operation in the permit have been modified to minimize the impact on neighbors during the evening and weekends. The hours listed in the permit include the facility closing at 5 pm Monday through Friday and at 1 pm on Saturday. The facility is not open on Sunday.

84. The MPCA finds that several environmental safeguards have been proposed for the Project to

specifically prevent contributions to cumulative potential effects. These environmental safeguards include items such as the Subtitle D composite liner system, leachate collection, leak location testing, groundwater monitoring wells, gas monitoring, dust-odor-noise management plan, waste acceptance plan, restricted operational hours, traffic analysis, and operational procedures implemented at the Project, among others.

85. The petitioners contend that significant Environmental Justice concerns must be evaluated before any governmental approvals can be granted. The Fond du Lac Indian Reservation borders the city of Cloquet, adjacent to the local Community College and the Fond du Lac reservation.

86. The proposed facility is at least 1.5 miles away from the Fond du Lac Indian Reservation. The Community College is located on the west side of 14th street and is over 1,800 feet away from the closest corner of the landfill site. Within that 1,800 foot buffer is 14th street, Hilltop Park, and the Ulland Brothers gravel pit with the gravel pit being the property adjacent to the landfill.

13


87. The land use at the site will essentially be staying the same as it has been for many years. The

proposed industrial landfill has design features that have not been previously used on the site.

88. The MPCA finds that an evaluation of socio-economic impacts, including environmental justice, is beyond the scope of an EAW process.

89. In evaluating a citizens’ petition and deciding whether a project may have the potential for significant

environmental effects, the MPCA is guided by the four criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These include: 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.

90. With consideration to these criteria, the MPCA finds that the impacts of the proposed Project will not

cause significant environmental effects. The MPCA arrived at this finding by reviewing the citizens’ petition, the Solid Waste Permit Application (with attachments and supplemental information), and other readily available information.

91. The MPCA finds that any potential impacts that can be reasonably expected to occur from this Project would be reversible. As discussed above, the proposed Project is not expected to have a significant effect on surface and groundwater quality. The proposed landfill meets the location standard for a landfill site with its reviewed and accepted variance request and, given its design features. The liner system should prevent the leachate from coming in contact with groundwater. In the unlikely event that the liner fails to contain a release, it will be detected through the required ground-water monitoring program. The groundwater monitoring network (including wells added as a contingency action required under the Solid Waste Permit) will allow the permittee and MPCA to determine the extent and magnitude of the release and to design an appropriate correction action to protect any groundwater uses put at risk.

92. The MPCA finds that the impacts of the Project will not result in significant cumulative

environmental effects either due to the Project specifically or when combined with other projects or activities in the area with similar impacts. In evaluating the citizens’ petition and Shamrock Environmental’s application for an MPCA Solid Waste Permit, the MPCA did not discover any related or anticipated future projects that would interact with the proposed Project or any resources potentially affected by the proposed Project. The MPCA is not aware of any other landfills that would be located in the vicinity of the proposed Project. The proposed landfill is not part of a phased action or connected action, as defined in Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 60 and subp. 9b, respectively.

14


93. The MPCA finds that project-specific impacts will be addressed by ongoing public regulatory

authority. In addition to the MPCA Solid Waste Permit and NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activities, Shamrock Environmental would also be required to obtain the city of Cloquet’s Conditional Use Permit. Shamrock Environmental will be required in the MPCA Solid Waste Permit to obtain financial assurance for the facility, including amounts for contingency actions, closure, and post-closure care.

94. Based on previous environmental studies and staff experience on similar projects and related environmental issues, the MPCA finds that any potential environmental effects of the proposed Project would not be significant. Significant environmental impacts have been avoided by Project design and specifications and permit conditions that will be established in the MPCA Solid Waste Permit based on the application and MPCA rules. The Industrial Solid Waste Management Plan proposed for this Project is consistent with those of other industrial waste facilities approved by the MPCA.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 95. The MPCA has authority to consider this matter under Minn. R. 4410.4500.

96. The MPCA has followed all necessary procedures with regard to the petition. 97. The Commissioner has the authority to consider this matter because, after written notice, no MPCA

Board member requested that the matter be brought before the MPCA Board for decision under Minn. Stat. § 116.02, subd. 6(1) and (8).

98. The evidence presented by the petitioners, proposer, and other persons, or otherwise known to the

MPCA, does not demonstrate that the Project may have the potential for significant environmental effects because of the nature and location of the proposed Project. Therefore, the criteria for ordering the preparation of an EAW pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1100, subp. 6 are not met.

99. Based on the above findings, the MPCA concludes that the preparation of an EAW will not be ordered

on the proposal to construct the Shamrock Environmental Industrial Landfill in the city of Cloquet, Carlton County, Minnesota.

100. Any finding more properly deemed a conclusion and any conclusion more properly deemed a finding

is hereby adopted as such.

15

shamrock environmental, llc - signature document (fof ... · shamrock environmental, llc industrial...

Documents