"Where Fillmore County News Comes First"
Online Edition
Tuesday, May 21st, 2013
Volume ∞ Issue ∞
- 11:44:26, May 21st 2013 - airmaxs52274 - Have you ever thought about adding a little bit more than just your a ... [Read More]
- 5:56:33, May 18th 2013 - modgudur - I guess the child is anti-gun control since Obama went to all that trouble ... [Read More]
- 9:27:41, May 16th 2013 - caal girl - Nice outfit on you. I loved some of the dresses but am holding my breath ... [Read More]
- 2:03:34, May 14th 2013 - - Thanks for sharing the trip with us! ... [Read More]
- 4:12:01, May 9th 2013 - Amanda Ziebell - Wow! Thanks to the Fillmore County Journal for this kind story. For a ... [Read More]
- 11:47:30, May 7th 2013 - EW - ramble.....ramble.....ramble..... ... [Read More]
- 10:25:25, May 7th 2013 - Thunder6 - Great article! I love to see the Youth of Fillmore County receiveing acco ... [Read More]
- 6:52:10, May 6th 2013 - Jason Sethre, Publisher of Fillmore County Journal & Olmsted County Journal - Maryh, ... [Read More]
- 7:29:56, May 5th 2013 - maryh - Where are OCJ's available for pickup...other than at the new office? ... [Read More]
- 2:41:47, May 3rd 2013 - Remark1976 - Mrs. Buckbee, I just looked up Senate File 796 and in it there are said p ... [Read More]
MPCA expected to rule EIS not needed on Heartland
Fri, Feb 21st, 2003
Posted in Features
Posted in Features
Comments
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board is expected to rule on Tuesday, February 25, that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not needed for the proposed Heartland Energy and Recycling plant in Preston. The Citizens’ Board is expected to base their decision on an MPCA staff report that has concluded that Heartland “does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.”
Heartland is proposing to build a 20-21 megawatt power generating facility in Preston’s Industrial Park that would use tire derived fuel to generate steam which would in turn produce electricity. Heartland intends to sell recoverable steel and ash residue as byproducts from this process.
As part of their report, MPCA staff reviewed the 86 comments received in response to an Environmental Assessment Workshop on the proposed energy facility.
Of the 86 comment letters received by the MPCA, seven came from government entities and 79 from interested parties. Most of the comments asked that the MPCA order an EIS and raised issues regarding air emissions, particulate matter, noise, dust, odors, water quality and the cumulative impacts with the adjacent Pro-Corn Ethanol plant.
In their report to the Citizens’ Board, the MPCA responded to each of the issues raised by the comment letters and concluded by stating that “there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project.”
Once the Citizens’ Board makes their decision not to require an EIS, the MPCA will proceed with gathering public comment regarding the Air Emissions Draft Permit.
Jenny Reinertsen, an Air Quality Engineer with the MPCA who will write the Air Emissions Draft Permit told the Journal that she hopes to get the public notice out sometime during the week of February 24. A public meeting would be held in Preston sometime in late March to take public comment.
