Friday, June 03, 2011

State plans upgrades at closed landfill, By LAUREL BEAGER, Editor - International Falls Daily Journal

County considers transferring ownership of site to state


As the state of Minnesota prepares to spend $5.5 million to improve a closed landfill in International Falls, the question of whether Koochiching County or the state should own the property has been raised.


The landfill located in International Falls is owned by Koochiching County, but is subject to a landfill cleanup agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which holds an easement to the property and response action equipment on the property, according to Tom Newman, land manager with the Closed Landfill and Superfund programs of the Remediation Division of the MPCA.


Newman met with the county board this week to propose that the county turn total ownership of the property over to the state.


Newman told the board that the MPCA used proceeds from the sale of state general obligation bonds for capital costs of environmental response actions that the MPCA took at the landfill beginning in 2003. As a result, certain requirements on sale or other disposition of the property are imposed. To ensure that requirements of state law and the commissioner’s order are carried out, a declaration must be signed by the state and county and recorded.


Newman explained that the state is responsible for the long-term care of the landfill, but Koochiching County also has liability as the owners of the property.Newman said the transfer of ownership to the state would make his duties easier.




>
>


(Video has no connection with the article.)


Meanwhile, Newman said the MPCA is seeking bonding money this session to make improvements at the landfill site. Should the Legislature not grant the money, the MPCA would seek it the next year.


He said the $5.5 million would be used to place an impervious cover over the landfill; upgrade the system that collects water leaching from the landfill, thereby improving drainage; and increase the amount of leachate removed from the site from 6,000 gallons per day to 24,000 gallons per day. Should the leachate amount increase as expected, the state would consider installing a forced main line from thel leachate pond to the North Koochiching Sanitary Sewer District.


Commissioners asked if the county could dovetail on the state’s project should it move forward with installing a line to the sewer treatment plant by connecting nearby residences to sewer at the same time.


Newman said the county project would need to meet the time line of the state.


Commissioners asked questions about liability should the leachate “plume” move off the site toward residences.


Newman said the state accepts no liability, just responsibility.


“My job is to make sure the plume does not move off site,” he said, adding that he would guide development and the county could implement development plans to avoid installing wells nearby.


Should the plume move toward existing residences in a natural way, the state would take action to keep people safe, including installing filtration systems on wells in the area of concern.


However, he said, questions could arise should a high capacity well be installed nearby that draws the plume toward residences and contaminates wells.


A closed landfill in Northome was also discussed, and Newman said the state could provide easements for access to logging areas, but the landfill itself could not be used as a staging area for logs.


“All our concerns are about houses and development — people putting wells in,” he said.


Newman said at some point in the future, all properly closed and handled landfills can be used. However, he said it may take generations before the properties stop producing methane gas and leachate allowing for development.


He said a bill at the Legislature now would allow the state to “delist” all or portions of closed landfills that staff feel are safe for development. Now, he said, the closed landfills can not be used.


Newman was asked to research whether the state would consider a reverter clause that would provide state ownership to the property, but would revert back to county ownership at some point.
View the original article here

No comments: