HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. U.S.P.C.I. Interim Use Permit Reissuance i . . . . . . . . . � � � . � .
CtTY OF ROSE�YIOU�iT
EYECUTIVE SUi1�INtARY FOR ,�►CTiON '
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January ?1, 1997 ',
.�GENDA ITEIVi: USPCI Interim Use Permit Reissuance �GENDA SECTION:
New
PREP�RED$Y: Dan Rogness, Community Development Director AGEND����.11/1 � �
9
ATTACAMENTS; Revised IUP; Back�round Information APPROVED BY:
Applicant: USPCI, Inc., a subsidiary of Laidlaw
Location: 13425 Courthouse Boulevard (Hwy. 55)
Property Owner: USPCI, Inc.
Guide Plan: Waste Management
Current Zoning: WM-Waste Mana�ement
Zoning Request: Reissuance of the existing Interim Use Permit
Zoning Text: Section 11.3, Nonhazardous Industrial Waste Containment Facility, Ordinance No. B
P.C. Hearing Date: -0pened on November 12, 1996; closed an January 14, 1997
P.C. Vote: Approval recommendation 4-1
SUMMARY
USPCI has applied for a reissuance of its existing Interim Use Permit(ILJP), which expires after five years on
March 18, 1997. Section 2 of this permit states, "The reissuance of the I(JP may, at the option of the City, be
a roved without modificati n t hi
,,
pp o o t s Agreement, or the City may require USPCI to modify this Agreement.
USPCI also applied for a zoning text amendment that will allow it to operate under its existing or reissued
permiit while other agencies are reviewing the same application.
Barr Engineering is a consultant to the City, and it has been reviewing the new application that identifies
modifications to the existing containment facility. The engineering firm for USPCI has responded to all of
Barr's comments, and Barr has now completed a second response(see attached). It appears that Barr has not
found any major environmental or engineering problems with the pernut application, but rather, some follow-up
information is needed prior to finalization with the city counciL
---(continued on the next page)---
RECOMMENDED ACTION: MOTION to Approve the Reissued Interirn Use Pernvt (IUP) for USPCI,
Inc., Subject to Final Approval of Dakota County and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
COUNCIL ACTION:
,
USPCI Interim Use Permit
Page 2
USPCI has also now cancluded that an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is needed for the
disposal of Mixed Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) combustor ash, which will require a 60-90 day review period.
Therefore, the proposed reissuance of the IUP will not include any approval for this type of ash disposal. Onee
the EAW process is complete, then the City Council can review those conclusions as a final approval to allow
MSW ash disposal (in Ce114). Dakota County's permit allows MSW ash subject ot MPCA's approved permit
modification and environmental review (see attached Co.Bd. Res. #95-822).
In addition, a Iandscaping plan has been completed for the containment facility around the propased new cells.
This information has been reviewed as part of a new computer enhanced picture taken from CSAH 42 south of
the site.
All conditions of approval are intended to be incorporated into the modified I[JP Agreement as attached
(additions are double-underlined and deletions are stricken). In summary, the major changes to the existing
permit include:
• A proposed 4-ce11 design in place of the existing 10-cell design.
• A capacity increase from the existing 2.5 million to the proposed 6.l million cubic yards:
• An increase in the final grade berm height from 20 feet to the proposed 60 feet.
� A change in final fill area with the removal of an interior site for future building activity.
BARR ENGINEERING IS NOW COMPLETING ITS FINAL EVALUATIQN OF ALL TECH1�iICAL
DESIGN AND PERMITTING ISSLTES WITH USPCI's ENGINEER. T`HEREFORE, SOME ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION WII.,L BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE COUNCIL MEETING.
---- -- - - --
INTERINI LTSE PERNIIT .AGREEI�IENT
REISSUANCE to USPCI, INC.
MINNESOTA I�IDUSTRIAL CONTAINMENT F�CILITY
THIS AGREEMENT, dated March 19 , 199�7, made by and between
USPCI, Inc., a ubsidiarv of Laidlaw Environmenta( Services. Inc.
(hereinafter"USPCI") and the City of Rosernount, a Minnesota municipal corporation
(hereinafter the"City"). The parties hereto agree as follows;
1. Interim Use Permit. USPCI receive tTas�recnrestee�an Interim Use Permit
(I[IP}from the City on March 19_ 1992 for the construetion, operation, and mazntenance of the
Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility(MICF). The execution of this Agreement by the
parties shall constitute approval and reissuance of the ICTP by the City subject to the provision of
this Agreement. This Agreement canstitutes the reissued IIJP as amended. Compliance with
Minnesota Pollution Contral Agency Permit No. SW-383, dated January 8, 1992 (NII'CA Perrnit),
and Dakota County Solid Waste License, approved December 17, 1991 (DC License), which are
incorporated herein by reference, are conditions of the NP. This IUP is issued by the City in
accordance with Ordinance B, City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance, adopted September 19,
1996, as amended, including Section 11,3
2. Term. The MICF Permit Renewal Application for Permit No: 383 Minnesota
Industrial Containment Facilitv_ Rosemount. Minnesota(Volumes I. III. IV and Vl. dated Au�ust
2. 1996, details the revi e design, construction, operation, closure, corrective�ar►tingenep
actions and revisions thereto. and financial assurances for a four 4 tetr���j cell non-hazardous
industrial waste containment facility, with an anticipated operating life of inet _, 90 thirtq�-�3�8j
years. Construction, operation, and ctosure of the individual cells will be phased throughout the
operating life of the facility. Consistent with the term of:lrtPC:� Permit and the provisions of
Ordinance B, this IIIP is valid for five years from the date issued, or until terminated, ar amended
by the City. Prior to expiration of the IUP; or to apply for an amended IIIP, USPCI shal( request
thatthe City review and reissue the IUP: To avoid possible termination of the IUP at the tirne-the
IUP expires, an application for reissuance of the permit must be submitted no later than 180 ,
ca(endar days before the expiration date of the permit. The reissuance of the IUP may; at the
option of the City, be approved withaut modification to this Agreement, or the City may require
USPCI to modify this Agreement.
3. MICF Description. MICF is located on property legally described on attached
Exhibit A. The 236-acre site is located between TH55 and CR38, lying easterly of the Chicago
and Northwestern Railroad. The location of MICF is illustrated on attached Exhibit B
MICF consists of f ur 4 t�err�8�j-rc��angai�.r containment eeils, each occupying a
surface area , ' n�^d volume capacity as follows: (a Cell l
contains 5.7 acres and 338.442 cubic vard : (bl Cell 2 contains 18:0 acres and 1.357.470 cubi
vards: (cl Cell 3 contains 36.9 acres and 3.541:635 cubic vards: and (dl Ce114 contains 11.9 acres
nd 878:955 cubic vards. , . The anticipated operating life of MICF
is nin t 90 thirry-(�@j years based on a total cabacitv of 6.116.502 cubic vards: The facility
also cansists of an office/laboratory building, a container management building, rail and truck
unloading facilities, leachate storage tanks and on-site stormwater xetention areas. The general
site plan is illustrated on attaehed E�ibif C.
This Agreement allows for the construction and maintenance of all the roadways,
railways, buildings, leachate storage tanks, stormwater retention structures, sanitary sewer,
, .. ��x
berming, landscaping, and other ancillary components of MICF. Subiect to the �rovisions of `
Seciion i?. t�his Agreement also allows for the construction, operation, closure and postclosure
care of cells 1, 2, �4 and all related earth work and excavation, subject to the provisions of this
Agreement, compliance with City ordinances and issuance of necessary permits.
4. Design Plans and Specifieations. USPCI shall construct NIICF in accordance
with plans, specifications and procedures approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control r�gency
(MPCA), Dakota County(DC) and the City. Landscaoin� shall be comoleted in accordance with
the a�oroved landscave alan as identified in Exhibit E of this A�reement: alantin� shall be
comoleted for Ce11 2 after its initial construction: blantin� shall be comnleted alon�T.H. SS in
1997: Any exceptior►s to the approved plans and specifi-cations made during construction shali be
listed in the Construction Certification provided pursuant to�t�m Sec ion 9. USPCI shall not
make any alteration or addition to NIICF thcfaei�ity that would materially alter'the method or
ef�ect of disposal without first obtaining the written approval of the City Administrator.
5. Quality Assurance/QualitX Control. USPCI shali construct, operate, and
monitor MICF in accordance with the quality assurance/quality control plan(s) approved by
MPCA. Any modifications to the quality assurance/quality control plan(s)require the written
approval of the City Administrator.
6. Additional Construction Permits. USPCI shall obtain all required
construction pernuts, such as grading, excavation, building, plumbing, heating, electrical, and
occupancy pernuts, in accordance with the adopted standards,procedures, and requirements of
the City. All construction perrnits for improvements identified in Section 3 and authorized by
Issuance of the ILIP are administratively issued and administered.
7. Construction Ins ection. USPCI shall instruct its contractors and
subcontractors to contact the City at least two (2)working days in advance:af routine inspections ��
(buiiding, lumbin�, electrical, ete)required by the City. USPCI shall contact the City at least '
p
ten (10) workin� days in advance of the cornmencement of construction of liner installations,
leachate collection systems, and final ceil cover. During hours of construction, USPCI shall �rant '
the City and its agent, upon presentation of proper credentials, access to MICF for the purpose of
inspections and enforcement related to construction.
8. SanitarXSewer Connection. MICF shall rernain
connected to the Metropolitan Interceptor and the Rosemount Wastewater Treatment Plant.
,
, ,
. USPCI will be responsible for all costs resulting from the sewer
connection including,buf not limited to, the City's engineering, constructian, perrnitting,
easement, and legal costs.
9. Construction Certification. Within thirty(30) days of construction
completion, USPCI shall submit to the City a copy of the construction certification as required by
NIPCA.
10. Soi1 Protective Cover. The City acknowledges the ongoing nature of soil
cover placernent and will not require natice for inspections. The City and its agents may make
random inspections throughout the life of MICF.
l l: Operations and Maintenance. USPCI shall operate and maintain MICF in
accordance with the"Operational Plans" (volume IV of U, MICF Permit Application), MPCA
Permit, and DC License. No amendments may be rnade to the"Operational Plans" without the
written approval of the Gity Administrator.
12. Waste accept:►nce. USPCI shall accept reject, and manage wastes according ,
to the approved ``Waste Acceptance Plan' (Volume N of V, MICF permit Application). USPCI
shall not dispose of any wastes identified as unacceptable wastes in the"Waste flcceptance Plari', '
City Zoning Ordinance, DC License or NIPCA Permit. No amendments may be made to the
"Waste Acceptance Plan" without the written approval of the City Administrator.
A. Disnosal of�sh/Conditions. Despite the provision of Section 12 above, USPCI may
dispose of ash at MICF t�n-�itq, but`only pursuant to the fo(lowing conditions:
1) USPCI shail not use ash as cover ouer waste when fill heights exceed the height
of the perimeter berm at the NLICF.
2) During transport ofall ash to the MICF, trucks carrying the ash must be
covered with tarpaulins adequate to limit dusting.
3) USPCI shall take adequate steps to prevent dust mi�ratian n�iti�xti�r-from ash
disposal at the MICF. USPCI may utilize, but is not limited to, one or more of the
following methods for dust control; a) conditioning the ash by addition of
moisture; b) handling ash when wind conditions are calm; c) immediately covering
ash with cover materials. All methods utilized must be in conformance will all
other provisions of the permit.
4) Ash dispasal at�F tln�itY must not result in leachate discharges to the
Rosemount Waste Water Treatment plant which fail to compiy with Industrial
Discharge Permit requirements of the MWCC.
5) USPCI shall submit with its annual report a summary of the quantity{in tons
and cubic yards), type and source of ash deposited into the facility and shall
provide an evaluation of the effects of ash on the chemical composition of leachate
discharged from the I�IICF to the Rosemount WWTP.
6 Anv ash disnosal that reauires an Environmental Assessessment Worksheet
(EAWI and/or an Environtrtental Imbact Statement(EISI shall not be nermitted
under this nermit without first securin�annroval bv the Citv Council followin�;
c mnletion of the environmental review arocess.
13: Personal Training. Al1 USPCI personnel involved in the operations and
I maintenance of MICF shall be trained, qualified, and cerCified as identified in the"Operational
,
I
„
P(ans .
}4. Incident Re orting. " - " � � For 3ny incident during
e x io i n or fir ;
w in' rel e
o e r a t i o n s a t M I C F r s i i n i n e m e r n c v h u t n e r n a 1
, p e u t � �e s do . o so iurv. eas . o s o e.
'
,
' . . w
�
�c�r�r�icntion3 USPCI shall notify the City s Police Department by telephone within two (_) hours
of the detection of the incident emeraencies shall reauire immediate notification. USPCI shall
promptly furnish the City with written reports of the incident, as specified in the plans.
15. Generai Inspections. Records. Renor�ting. Enforcement. USPCI shall,
during normal operating hours, grant the City and its agents, upon presentation of proper
credentials, access to MICF for the purpose of inspections and enforcement of this agreement.
Except for information deemed privileged in accordance with state law, USPCI shall allow the
City to inspect written documentation pertaining to compliance by USPCI with the terms of this
IUP. Records pertaining to compliance at MICF shail include but are not limited to, operating
records as described in the"Operational Plans", the" Corrective Action
Plan", and MPCA Permit; inspections records; monitoring,investigation and modeling data;
personnel training records; reports and plans required by regulatory agencies; correspondence
I
with regulatory agencies; and records and correspondence regarding waste characterizatifln,
evaluation, management, inspection and acceptance/rejection. All information obtained during the
course of inspections shall be used solely by the City or its agents for matters pertaining to this �
I[.JP. ,
I
USPCI shall furnish the City with a copy of the"Annual Report" according to the ,
timetable and requirements of MPCA, as identified in MPCA Permit, I��,
�I
16. Contingency Actions. USPCI shall implement contingency and/or 'j
�
I
i
corrective actions as specified in the permit appiication and YiPCA Permit and DC License.
USPCI shaii furnish the City with a copy of the remedial measures report or remedial measures
plan, according to the timetable specified in 1�1PCA Permit. No amendments may be made to the
" Corrective Action P1an" or the"Postclosure Contingency r�ction P(an"
without the written approval of the City Administrator.
17. Monitoring/Reparting: USPCI shall monitor MICF in accordance with
MPCA Permit. Nothin� shall be construed ta prevent USPGI from exceeding i1+IPC�Permit
requirements.
18. los re. USPCI shall close MICF in accordance with the Requirements of
MPCA Pernvt. USPCI.shall notify the City at least ten (10) working days prior to the date
closure activities far each cell are scheduled to begin. USPCI shall notify the City at least ninety ,
(90) days prior to the date final closure activities for MICF are scheduled to begin. Upon 'I
completion of closure of a cell or MICF, USPCI shall notify the City to provide the opportunity I�i
i
for a final inspection. A copy of the closure certification and supporting documentation that is
required by MPCA Permit shall be submitted to the City upon submittal to the NIPCA. No
amendment may be made to the"Closure Plan" (Volume V of V, MICF Pernvt t�pplication)
without the written approval of the City Administrator.
19. Postclosure. USPCI shall provide postclosure care ofMICF in accordance
with the requirements of MP'CA Permit. No amendments may be made to the"Postclosure Plan"
(Volume V of V, MICF Permit Application) without the written approval of the City
Administrator.
Z0. Financial"Assurances. USPCI shall cornply with the financial assurance
requirements of the MPCA and D �'erimt. No reduction in the financial assurance requirements
may be made without the written approval of the City Administrator:
21': Develo{�ment Commitment, The provisions of the Devetopment
Commitment, approved by the City Council an Octaber �, T989, and dated October 17, 1989, are
incorporated by reference as conditions of the ILtP and attached as Exhibit D_
Pro�ided that, with respect to the disposal of ash as authorized in Section
12.A. of this Agreement, USPCI shall pay the sum of$�.25 per ton,based upon a waste
generator charge of$75>00 per ton for the Gity base service charge, as identified in Section l Ob of
Exhibit D. Frovided further that the ash disposat charges set forth in this Section are subject to
II the generator charge adjustments set foRh in Section l0c of E�ibit D.
�
�' The provisions of this Section and Sections 9, 10, 1 l of E�ibit D shall
survive the ternunation of this Agreement and shall rernain in effect for one year.following closure ;
of the MICF.
22. Res�onsibili for Costs. USPCI and the City aaree to fund the out-af
pocket expenses incurred by the City in the review and issuance of the reissued IUP, according to
the provisions of the Development Commitment. Costs incurred by the City for ongoing ,
monitoring o£the operation of NIICF and administration of the IIJP shall be paid by the City.
23. Hours of Operation. MICF operations are restricted to the hours of 6:00
a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The hours of aperation may be amended by the
City Council for reasonable cause.
24. Indemnif cation. USPCI shall defend, indemnify and save the City, its
officers, and employees harmless from and against any and all claims, suits, dernands, actions,
fines, damages and liabilities, and all casts and expenses related thereto (including,without
limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees) arising out of or in any wayxelated MICF.
The provisions of this Section shall survive the termination of this
Agreement and shall remain in effect until final resotution of any and a(1 of`the various claims and
actions made as defined in this Section.
25. Other Laws and reg�lations USPCI a�rees to comply with all other laws,
regulation, permits, or licenses which apply to MICF.
26. Severabitit� If any provision of this Agreement is found to be invalid, such
finding shall have no affect on the validity of the remainder of this Agreement.
27. Notice of Violation. Notice of a violation of any provision of the IUP shall
be given to USPCI by the City in writing. Such written notice shall specify the violation and' ,
request that the violation be corrected. Such written notice shall specify the violation and request
that the violation be corrected. USP�I shall have ten (10) days after receipt of notice to correct ',
the violation. Upon evidence that the health, safety, and welfare of the public is not in jeopardy ,
and upon evidence of diligent cooperation by USPCI to correct the violation, the City ,
Administrator may agree in writing to extend the ten-day period.
28. Termination. This IUP shall terminate on the ha enin of an of the �
PP g Y �
following events, whichever first occurs: I
(1) Five{5) years from the date of this Agreement;
(2)Upon change in the City's zoning regulation which renders the use non-
conforming;
(3)By the City Council (Council) for vioiation of any provisions of the ItTP,
in accordance with the following procedures;
Termination shall not occur earlier than ten(10) working days from the time
that written notice of termination is served on USPCI or, if a hearing is requested, until written
�
notice of the Council action.has been served on USPCI or, if a hearing is requested; until written
notice of the Councit accion has been served on USPCI: Notiee to USPCT shall be served
personaily or by registered or certified mail at the address desi�nated in the IUP. Such written
notice of termination, the nature of the violation or vioiations constituting the basis for the
termination, the facts which support the conclusion that a violation or violations has occurred and
a statement that if USPCI desires to appeal, it must within terr(10) working days, exclusive of the
day of service, file a request for a hearin�. The hearin�request shail be in writin�statin� the
grounds for appeal and be served personally or by re�istered ar certified mail on the City by
midnight of the tenth (l Oth) working day following service. Following receipt of a request for a
hearing, the City shall set a time and a place for the hearing.
HEARINGS:
A If USPCI properly requests a hearing on termination of the I�IP, such hearing
shall be held before the Gouncil, or a hearing examiner as provided below, and
shall be open to the public.
B. Unless an extension of time is requested by USPCI in writing directed to the
City and is granted, the hearing will be held no later than forty-five(45) calendar
days after the date of service of request for a hearing, exclusive of the date of such
service. In any event, such'hearing shall be held no later than sixty (60) calendar
days after the date of service of request for a hearing, exclusive of the date of such
service.
C. The city shall mail notice of the hearing to USPCI at least fifteen(15)working
days prior to the hearing. Such notice shall include a statement of time, place, and
nature of the hearing.
D. Hearing Examiner: The Council may by resolution appoint an individual, to be
kniown as the hearing examiner, to conduct the hearing and to make findings of !,
fact, conctusions, and recommendations to the council. The hearing examiner shall '
submit the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations to the Council in ',
written report, and the Cauncil may adopt, modify, or reject the report:
E. C nduct of t e H arin : P I ma be re resented b counsel. The Cit
US C ,
o h e � y p Y Y II
USPCI, and additional parties, as determined by the Council or hearing examiner,
in that order, shall present evidence. Ali testimony shall be sworn under oath. All '
parties shall have full opportunity to respond to and present evidence, cross ;
examine witnesses, and present ar�ument. The Council or hearin�examiner mav �i
also examine witnesses. ,
F. The City shall have the burden of provin�its position by a preponderance of I
v' ubstantive law and all
the evidence unless a dit�erent burden is ro tded b s
, y . i
P
findings offact, conclusions, and decisions by the Council shall be based on
evidence present and matters officially notified.
G. All evidence which possesses probative value, including hearsay, may be
admitted if it is the type accustomed to rely in the conduct of their serious af�airs:
Evidence which is incompetent, irrelevant, imrnaterial, or unduly repetitious may
be excluded. The hearin� sha(1 be confined to matters raised in the Cities written I
notice of termination or in USPCI's written request for a hearing_ II
H. At the request of the City, USPCI, or the hearing exatniner, a pre-hearing
conference shall be conducted by the hearing examiner, if the Council has chosen
to use one, or by a designated representative of the CounciL The pre-hearing
conference shall be held no later than five (5) working days before the hearing.
The purpose of the pre-hearing conference is to:
(1) Clarify the issuers to be determines at the hearing. :
(2) Pro�ide an opportunity for discovery of all reievant documentary,
photographic, or other demonstrative evidence in the possession of each
art . The hearin examiner or Cit s re resentative ma re uire each
P Y g Y P Y q
party to supply a reasonable number of copies of relevant evidence capable
of reproduction.
{3) Provide an opportunity for discovery of the full name and address of all
witnesses who will be called at the hearing and a brief description of the
facts and opinions to which each is expected to testify. If the names and
addresses are not known, the party shall describe them thoroughly by job
duties and involwernent with the facts at issue.
I. If a pre-hearing conference is held, evidence not divulged as provided above
'may be excluded at the hearing
J. If USPCI fails to appear at the hearing, it shall forfeit any right to a hearing
before the Council or hearing exarniner.
29: Amendments, Any changes in the provisions of this Agreement, reQuested by
tTSPCI; require the express written cansent of the City, The City may at its option impose
additional requirements for the IUP, when changes or amendments in waste management rules,
laws, or technology are in the best interest of publie health, safety, and we(fare, or if there are
chan�es in the MPCA Permit or DC License. The procedure to amend the II1P shall be the same
procedure required to issue the IiJP.
30. Enforcement. USPCI shall reimburse the City for its reasonable costs
(including without limitation engineerin�and lega( fees) incurred in the enforcement of the IUP,
which result in a City Council decision to terminate the IIJP'. Payment of these costs will be in
addition to the City Service Charge, provided for in the Development Commitrnent.
3 l. Interpretation. In any challenge of the provisians of this Agreement, the
interpretation of the provisions shall be liberaliy construed to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
32. Assignment. The IUP is not assignable or trartsferable without the express
written consent of the Cit . In the event an assi nment of the IUP is ro osed the Cit ma at its
Y g P P , Y Y
option impose a d ditiona l requirements to t h is Agreement or may require a new agreement.
liv r
33. Notice. Notices iven ursuant to this A reement shall be personally de e ed
g P g
or sent by certified mail to the City of Rosernount, P.O. Box 510, Rosemount, Minnesota �5068-
0510 and to USPCI, Inc., 13425 Courthouse Boulevard, Rosemount, Minnesota 55068: All
notices shall be effective upon receipt.
34. �cor in . This Agreement shall run with the sub}ect land and may be recorded
in the Dakota County Recorder's Office.
I�i IN WITNESS WHEREOF the arties hereto have executed this Agreement as of
� P
the date first written above.
I
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT:
Cathy Busho, Mayor
Thomas D. Burt, City Administrator
Date
U.S.P.C.I., Inc.
President
Date
LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Inc.
President
Date
1
J � `�'' ` � � V � - .. N
_�_y� �
� _ � - / �``� _J- J �
� �:� --.� _ � -- �
- - _ - - �'
� nr�. _ `/ _ - ,,....,.�'
� �'`�. � : '�fii [. � ACF� _ � -
G'� - �
� - ru
� • � EAG � -� � tn
�1..� � � . __ . � N
� �' _ - � o �Y . - - `�
�
. - H REFiNtNG C0 -- D ELOP O KIRS HB M Of �
� K REFIN! _ / '�
� : �y .. _..._ _ : PINE ENtS DEV LOFT �
_ -- K N REFININ C �
- KIIQS t1N1 �N
-, f �
� PINE ENQ D SEVERSC3N D
= KOCH RE IM�VG ��, ' �
_ - PCi INC � .
o � - SU' 1 M t I BRENOA
w � �
I� USPCIINC - .
�' �� USPCIINC
� "' -- t.,__r..,._.--) '
� ' ' TROP041TAN 1NAS CbNTR01�COM ��-�' PINE BEND DEVEI.OP CO
m ^_�
tn -
.. .. ^ �n
m - PiN DEV LOP GO - `T
� NE BENO DEVEI trCO �
RAH FA D P7NSH P E BEND DEVE�OQ O
, �n
n�i PINE B�ND DEV . m
5 �' �= — ----. INE 6END DEVELO CO N
``' .i z
, .. .. �
� .
.. +
��I�t� �
�
�
; �j��� 0 i k'
�
__ ��3� �� �J�1�1 � '�
� � � � ��
e � y�
. . -1_ . . . . . . �is' :� . :� �� _ � . � ��..
y ^8a�a � a�
� �a" ` � '
�
e$�'a � •• U
�ad=� g � �
�
� � � ,v ' '� �� , r ��� `. '� - �� � �- i , �. � � , „i�;�, �
� � •� �-! r � �,��� � ���I ��� -��� `� '>i. _ �. ���---� ;� � � � �; � i �1� w w,',��, �
�� � � � (� '��� ,��� �,, � �� ' I�(!.�`;�, � �i
; 1 �� ���.���' � 1 �1 r(It� y' �.�� � � �l � ` j ���� � . � � a(( ��� � , ��}11,. � � �
�1 � �. ��, ( , ��� �� �� i ,� ��
,, ��� ��(lo� � � � �,��, ,,, (�� ,, �:,� � . � � � , ,
,, �� � � � ,� � .� ,�"���� � �\ � �l` _, , - - _ -j�— ' �i 1 �r� �,� �
.• � ����1 t '�_ � � �f �(,.�1���� J �� ;-�� 1 �� �
� �f ,�, l; ,���� �� ; 1--� � — - (� `)!r 'll J� ,� � � �
��1� , 1�������11��! ' /l\1 ��� � � � , � - � � ��/ ��� � � ; ' �
�,� � � �,1 ( , 1�,1:�� ��;�: _— � , �� ���'�I�1�}r/� � � '
�� � � � _ �
,,
�
��: %
� �; / '1 � �'�
�� �� — _- � � 1 �� �
����_' �° u.��� ���' � � ,�y ����\1� _ _ _� '� 1 � , 1t��f %,;; ��'. �
��� � �rr����t��' ( " " 1=V��( _ ° "� _ '� �1 �, 1 �
, > . ��,� f,�I��, , l ;�::- �,t �; ., �, ,,,, „ ; ;� � �
- .
� ���" � � � ' � _ - "'��, %ii��( � �' ` ' �'
����.,,r� �� i tt� �� .�. 1//, ,.;'�//%
�/'� `� ;jj _ - � '� �
� i !� , ' /'B" �. ��i, t � . .
� �'`� ,�Fl��}l�'� �`�,�� „ �:��� _ ;�=� �'�,�i � �
��j�i����� ,���� ;, � -,, - __ �,� _ -�-- � _
� ,
� � � � �, ��� ��� �� � $ _ " - � � - �
�� �'i i' i � _ f �- - `�� ����� ��
� ��il��i� �., � �;. %/�. � � �. ' � ��
� � �� i 1
,y���� �� ,,, �"'( ��� �� �l �l� �: , ,_ �;>�( � � � �
�' .. ' �, 1;,�� /< � � �� , t �'� ,� ���� ��// ��:� � . �i I� ,� �
!'�-, `'` � �` - %; '� i �' --1 �-
� '•.I �., ��(<< ��� �-��� \� _ 'i�/,i �� � � 1 ,,� ��
C,
! \ `'� \ . A� �(r � '_� � ��__)�� ������� .�:,1�� �� ��� '��- � . ��� . �I
� � 1 � °s ' ,� i--c n..� a.� .�� � .� � �
_ . , << _, � � � �
� � � � - ` ���� ��� �� � � �� � . 1 �ii. ���� '� a �- � �,
, ,
, . ,
.
, � _
°+�� ��)� , �'� �_ '� �,
.r�
�t � �� � � � �.
� � i� 1,. ���1� �"� `������ �� �� .
�� � � �A ��
% � I
� ���� 1) ��� �\� >) ������ ��A��1�� �� � ✓�/� � � � 7��� '
��� r� J� �� ' — � - „ � ���- .�'� �1` �,', __ ,� � '�
` '- � f ` �' - % J�� �� �`�((� )''� %� �" �`,1`( �'� I
�, �� ; , ;����� ��� �i�" C ��'="� �" ��° ' f�:;'`
� �
; � o ,,e; . ,
�) : - _ �� <� �, �--- ��� `��� i� �
,;�, � 1�' �\ � `'� � � ,,�� �'' -�� ; "^�:� �, ti '
� . �( �' + )������� (� �'✓ e � '/ � �' �--��� �� �� � I
' ! . .
�
�
/ �\
I � �� � '� , _
I , , � �.
� �
� �
, � _
, , � .
,
� ��, .. �
, ��..
. � � , ,
J
�
)� 'l � � '�o� ��� � �
. �- � . �, . , ,
, ( � }� �i ��• � �$ , � �� ( ,� ! ��� �� ��< < �� � � I
� j" 1I�(I�� �A� � /�� �� _ �@�' �r �'/' � �L� ^ � ���� � �,. )���
�
.;�� `t/� � '��� � , ! , ti-.�(_ 0 .� � I t
--��
� .� � � ���`��,�;' � ��%�A � � � ��� ��t� �" � � j _,'� �
� l�� '��: L� / �; ��/`�, � �i'� �,�� i, �
�� � �.\�� ;��` �� � � ��'� �:1� ��-� � ;- �
r i; _ .�����_ � „� � ��� ` ' �
;lqf ���= _ :. (� �� ,, ;� � ; �/ ���
, \,_ ,�� `` � — � I � �_ l
� � ��_�� � �� � -�� �� Vl�_. � ��,,� �� � x �i�)�� �� '�� � �
�/'� � � �
� � , � � ; � _�.����\,-�,�`� l��� � �--, �"� � �-` �� �
�1 � �,� � '��`�l r �;�(� � �e�i <�
� � � � ��,
'' ( ' � --
� �.1 �� � r�� � �� � (�� �--�. (4� � �•l �� �
�_ ,'�� �� _� A� �_�%�� �i � \ ,, :/i =_ '/
�
a1�
l ��...�� �) � �`�J/�j.�\\� . � � / .��/ � /
� �) � . �`') \ ' �-� �� �� �� %��� f � ��. -
i. ° ` �`� ,,-�_ ,."
, , � , ��� ; �,�>>l� ,��,�� ,�,� �, ����I, -.;
� ,. ( 1 , �.� /:��� �� �� �, ) �� ''�
� � � �� ����� �� (''�'"'� '� �� (� ���
.�•�,�. � � -- � �! �\V�\��.� ��� { � , -- �
�� �
� � �������� ��-� �1���� � �� �> li-� � � ��� ' � �
� � (f�
� � � t � (��l� �,'�.,/,� ,� _`��� ����� ���� �� ..,�� . ���1� �� �>`� � �� �
���'�� �K .
CF��-- �- CELL 4 -
./ /-' . � � .. � � wad 6•tRick�ovsr sMytree root sone. � eio--�"-�— �. � � � .. . ��-- ._ -- I: /. ��� .
� ---�T����„ ������____----- _� ��� - - -- �
. . � � _______ ___�All di�iuzbed�ar�as to.b���eded. _ —__ _._._._________-- � . T � / .. . � .
\ __________________ -- . ��i
!��
\ // ,",�—�
\ ���
�/ J � �� f/i �
------� / —� i i �
1 �� �\\ \ �--- ---•� �— �`�� � l � i-���-✓i�
� � �� �� ����� \ ����—�—�'� 1 — ——— � � \ I i � � ,.. �
1 � �"�—.\ � ������\���\\�,� � �� �. �i �l j /-`��--- —'-�\� \� � � � � / i%% "°�
' 1 1 / �--���� ��\\ ��\1 1 1 � � � , � / � ^ � � � � � / / //���/ oK'v."`L ,�
� I ! ! / i � > � � \ �\\�1\ ` \ � � � � i--' �� � � 1 � � � � � � �/�i�� nurrxuc aw�rID
/ � ��� \\ \ 1 \ � \ � � � / / � 1 1 � — � J 1 i. +rui auc
q I 1 1 1 / /� ��� �..��\.;.��.�L�pl\10 \���,?,�• �L � s \ � 1 �, — _ _6�Pd �i/i �w.nu, wi�.�s.�
�'°�'�vt� � � �1 � g �.! � `` `\V��Wzi�I�edN�i�..cs,� 9ot � / / � / �/ 1 � I � I �,,�--"" -� ` ' ����, � iaNsnnasr� .s�..sc��
e ( I � I �/ � �/l f(((��( �1 I � 1 , � � \\ �� � � j / / % 1 � %'�-- —�.w'- '' �' %1/i .p� tvinmo� cu,a►sru
. ___
..� ��� � � I �� ��/`' 'I� � ��� t 1 , \\� \°; � � / /�{%�, �� � . � � %i..•�,,••" �..-�- -.- �^!`^�"� � ... + i... \\�+=„� � I�ulw.s tuE GDiwaer') � . . . ..
� � :� .' � � / � ,� l�.�.� ti � � � � � j✓ �j-`�� ..� �.�,_,� i�i�..i .i!iiFi �j . � � ►��=D �. }U�c�rNq uu��U� � . .
� � /hy I � � 1s�s � ` ///,��,\��,�� _�•-"�'�%'ii� I ,-� =t0 ? �cow�*wo�9"�'�'a
� � / ��I � ��� � `�1� 1 I � %:�:,�� —,:'_._.,-' ..' ' ��J o— ��Jn _.�
,��
_
—�. ,� ��
� � > , � ,��I �-� __ - �
� l / �< g�FA \� �.. _� .r � �.��Y��%i— _� _-- � . �. � � � �. .
� /� .� ��\�� � .. � i�..� �..- ..� �....�...�- '•-"••�- .. I =_•' —% . . � .
1 �� \*�� i .�+ � ....�--. s"'�•-s�'r�t �T i.-.ii. „-'� � i �. . . . . .
��� ��'_ ���`ah�l � ��� .,��;a�s"`: i��..,"%-- -�� �\
�/j/� i ��� -4 � _ --� � _�� ==' �� // �
� .-k ��,e- ' /
/ � _� �� � ..- == ''' i%- f � l �
, �� � ,�� ` ��J �,� 6 �_��G�',,, ^ �.- _ _ -.� _ _�� l � _��
/// , L \ �• �� 11 � � -a�S,y�-^ Y 55 i��:�� `��- � I �
� . / � �/'� i \`� r ` \oI r--- IG��A_ I�'_`\ `\ _-_\ `\\ J /
� ,' � ry�_��;�' � < <._. -- - �, ,", - .; ,__ -. --. �9
-` J _ .—'r� ` `_� ,
_ �—���='----' `..� � i � —— . ' �
_ —�— ; �._=�'� �� � land`s�cape screening ` Rnn°�'
� k,. '� alonq highwoy no. 55 Iuu'
� � � � , � . � .. � . � � � . . � .. /^f'\n�Tn 1�1� /� . r ♦�� . � � . . . . . ..
. . . . . � � . � � . � C('1T�> I�Ir'1'..tCTpi�)� . � � . .. . � .. . � .. . . .
� .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. � . . � . . � � . . � � . . . � � . . � . .. . . . . .. . .. .'.r�..�� � . � � . . �
_ :�=
. �.X�-I�tT G ,
. �.
------_ ---- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- -- �; ;I j; , � . .
; I' , , � �
�--- - ,.o � �� �
�� � ' I � �_
I ��._,..
� t i � ��
• � � \�
� � ----------„° � � } \�
( ♦-
�. . � j � .. . . .� _..-----^-'„'� . . � �� ����� ` �`.����.
� . . i. � � . ,� . . . . . . . I i -I '�
� tondscape schedule �.. W I
� �. . . sa�eu: . .
.. �. � . � � � •ise raot MSqkt w7.dth . . •�- �i .
. .� . i . . ' 2.3" BB � .i0-60' / �0-50' . .. � . � . �
I Zt CM W�CICOERRY � .
. . i �1 - lCaltia oecid�nuliq 1.5-2.5'88 SO-60' / 35� . � . . . . . . . . � .
� . . . . .� � � .29 F�P7�TMORE GRE£Jt sslvanica 'P�tmese'� � � � . C E L L - 2 � . «o . . . ..+ ..
. 'i (Fiaxinus P�Y ��-6• BB IO-�0' / 20-00' . . . . . � � .
. . . . ��� � B'7 PB HLLCII HI7S BPROCE � . � .. . � . . I . ��. \
. .� � . . . . (eicna qlauea den�ataY�. . . � . . .. . . . w . . . .I� �� ..
. 7-0 00 BOR OAR � � 1.5-2.5'8H � �60-BO' / 60-?0' � ' ��_..
� . . � lpuslCus mactOe�s'PaI . . . . .. . . . . �1 . .
� �1 � . . � �. . . . n• p1,�yS�IG.LLLL2 .
ReD.CIDLR. �.macdine moved from td� site . _' .� .,.
( . ... �+: . . � . . . LCCL56�W�Y � .. �
� �(JuniPerua vir4inianal � �. . . . _�_ -- -- -- - - . 1
� � I .fipaze a afs of Pkant siz�is Sndiestad... . . . _�_ _ _.�.-- -- . .
. . .� � at iwat Aalf shall M of�Wa lar9at..sls�. . � � . _.______._ . . �.� . �_ ...-
. - _T �eire , �
. . . t__________._��tYsQ Co.-bC�nYehsd-ttCt��-shsedd�d----------�- � .
� �� i
. ` . . . � ._.�-�. . �-�_ . / .. .
� {��
. . . . . .. \1 ".�.Lt ��/� \ .
.. s.. . l� �_�i i�/ �// \
.. — t���f�l`\ —'',.i�i��/�i� \ <
i i /
� � �\F � ; —�.\`�___ /�,__,_,� //i� ��"j � ! ��--1,1`�`,\\��\ �',,%i��i/�iii� �` �\ �\ �`
. � ,.. \ / . � � l�l � .—e.o--7 �///%/�� i t / / r � �-!�_�\ , \\` f+ _..i / %i/��� � �-.. .\` .S
� �� / �J / r 11 I/ � o/ � � / n % ( � \`�\�� �// / / i � \ 1
i /� .� _��� ��1 i ( � l i1 ��%/%�/////,/��1�1 �l���/j��/ � � /� ��/ f �\\ \ llj ����;�%��ijj��i� % � �� l�i �'
,� _,� ,.-' , -- � _ . � i � � �/ i l i�i'�\.'.1��, l� /�/i � � ' 1 � �'�` '1: a� ,� � �
� � � \ - .i� � � � � �,,.-..�. _�i�� .� ,_.i� /lJ��f l � ���' � / � �///�� I I j -l. 1 . .1,` r �sSiar i �%ii �/ i �
\ � �„�,��.� � ,_ ___—-J,� i / I 1 �/ !!l l / /i � L � ! � � 1 � � .:.,j� � .-- f / /
\ � \ T�swri ���' ��;.—' -- / _ '/l I �l �i�_��<i/�l//� /�� ��f���c�r „�` � ���-��� ���`�_''�� �,����.. // �/ � � //�:
� � � � ��/:'i� " � , , i �
� -� '
'�
�
' ; .
't
1
j,
/ •
,
,
8300 Namsan Cerroer Dn�e 555 VNest Zlth SC�et 202 West S�enar Street I
arr ����.�� ����� �.��
�.
� • 1 262-3465 Pha� t 177-5218
Plxxie.(61?�837-2600 Phane.2 81 R�i ,
1 7-6450 '
t 262-3460
Faac 12
1 Faar R�
832-260 �1
�
EngineenRg Company �: r�� rz I
January 10, 1997 ' '
Mr.Dan Rogness
Communi Develo ment Director
tY P
City of Rosemount
2875 145th Street West
P.O. Box 510
Rosemount, MN 55068-0510
Re: USPCI Permit Application Follow-up fteview Comments
Dear Mr. Rogness:
Barr Engineering Company has completed review ofUSPCI's respo�nses to our November 5, 1996:'
comment letter to you. Most of the comments contained in our November 5, 19961etter have been
satisfactorily addressed. Furthermore, Barr has not found any,major engineering problems with
the information in the permit application. However there is some follow-up needed to resolve some
of our November 5, 1996 comments. This letter contains follow-up comments to USPCI's
responses.
Materials reviewed during this follow-up consisted of the following received at Barr on January 2,
1997:
• ftesponses to our November 5, 1996 comments
• Attachment A-Polyethylene Fipe Specifications'
• Attachment B—Revised Design Drawings consisting of Sheets: 5; 5 of 5; 15; and
Figure III-14A.
• Attachment C—E�sting Financial Mechanism with Dakota County
• Attachment D—Operational Berm Construction Quality Assurance Procedures
• Volume I of V of the permit apPlication
' APPendix N-G,Waste Acceptance Plan
• Volume V of V of the Pernait Application
• Appendig V-F, Cost Estimates for Closure, Postclosure, and Contingency Action
Our review consisted of evaluating the responses from USPCI and the associated modifications to
the permit application. We did not perform another overall review of the modified permit
application since this was done as part of our earlier work, which culminated in the
November 5, 1996 letter.
We have continued to use the same comment format and numbering system as contained in our
November 5, 1996 letter in order to provide sasy reference.
A�.Dan Rogness
Page 2
Jaauary 10. 1997
Significant Review Findings and Comments
CommeM #t The volume correction to page 5 of Volume N, indicated in the response, was
not found. Submittal of three-dimensional GADD files kave been verbally
requested from USPCI to perform a verification of the facility capacity.
Commertts#2 Responses aze adequate.
and 3
CommeM #4 The locations of the bubbler tube systems that will be used to measure teachate
depth should be shown on the plans. (Reference Sheet 15)
COmmerrt #5 Response is adequate.
Commerrt #6 The response to this comment is adequate assuming that the slope, dimensions '
and capacity of the runoff diversion berm, and the details of the diversion berm
runoff pipe and inlet are determined and included in future construetion plans.
Also, energy dissipation at the outlet of the diversion berm runoff pipe needs to
be addressed in construction plans.
Commettt#7 Questions remain regarding the financial assurance cost estimates in Volwme V.
• Postclosure care cost is shown as a blank and as $0 on Table V-5, page 131
and page 133, respectively. On page 134,Volume V and elsewhere the
postclosure care cqst is shown as$2,053,651.
• Table V-5 (page 131), page 133 and Table V-F-2 (page 5,Appendix V-F)
appear to have inconsistencies between them for closure eosts. For
example, closure costs far two ceils is shown as $3,388,4'15 on Table V-5
while closure of two subcells is shown as$2,841,471 and$3,149,793
($349,422 + $2,840,371) on page 133 and Tab1e V-F-2 respectively.
• Table V-F-3 (page il,Appendix V-F) and Table V-F-4 (page 20,
Appendix V-F) appear to use the contingency action cost estimate of
$2,756,789 from Attachment 1 of Appendix V-F instead of the postclosure
cost estimate.
• In order to be consistent with the MPCA drat�financial assurance rules, the
expected value of the contingency action cost estimate should be calculated
as 60 percent of the total contingency action cost($4,6`72,591). The current
value ($2,226,356) shown on Attachment 1 of Appendix V-F is only
approximately 48 percent of the total contingency action cost estimate. .
(Reference Table V-F-5,page 24, Appendix V-F; and AL•tachment l,
APPendix V-F).
�
_ _ : _ _
Mr.Dan Rogneas
Page 3
Jaauary 10. 199T
• It appears that the annual postclosure care cost ($68.925) shown on
Table V-F-4{page 20, Appendiz V-F)should be used in Attachment 1,
Appendix V-F to calculate the total 20-year postclosure care cos� This '
would result in a larger postclosure care cost than shawn on page 134,
Volume V.
• It appears that the real interest rate(r) on Table V-F-2 (page 5,
Appendix V-� has been calculated incorrectly. The correct value of r
appears to be 0.031L However,it also appears that the expected costs
listed in Table V-F 2 are already expressed in 1996 dollars and therefore
there is no need to convert them to present value as shown.
• It is not clear if the formula for face value on page 134, Volume V is the`
current formula in the draft financial assurance rules. Also as a point of
information, it is our understanding that the use of multiple financial
assurance mechanisms will not he allowed in the future under the draft
, rules.
Comment #8 A typo occurred in the reference in Barr's original comment. However, Volume N,
Appendix N-C, page 65 states that ash from resource recovery facilities,municipal
solid waste incinerators, or electrical power plants using municipal`solid waste as
fuel are prohibited from being accepted at the facility by city ordinance: This
statement should be revised to reflect the city's current ordinance. The response to
Barr's comment indicated that the application has been revised to reflect the intent
to convert ce11 4 to a 1ViSW incinerator ash celI However, in a subsequent
telephone conversation, USPCI indicated that the current application was not being
changed at this time to accept MSW ash, but would be modified at a later date.
This issue needs clarification. If the current application is being revised to reflect
acceptance of MSW ash, the location(s) of these revisions in the application should
be identified.
Commerrt #9 Response is adequate.
Technical Notes on Application Details
COmments#1 Responses are adequate.
2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7,
8, 9, and 10
Commerrt#11 Some further clarification an the statement of cap settlement needs to be made in
the application. On the areas of five percent cap slope,if the cap settles four feet
over a horizontal distance of 100 feet, then the resulting slope would be a one
percent slope not a three percent slope as indicated. Also, elsewhere in the
application, a figure of three percent is identified as the minimal acceptable slope.
(fteference Volume V, page 17}
COmmeM #12 Vo]ume V, page 121 still refers to a 95 year operating tife.
Mr. Dan Rogneas
Page 4
January I0, 1997
COmm6�tts�13 Responses are adequate.
and i4
Comment#15 It appears that the cost ofthe runoff diversian berm and piping, and at least a
portion of the berrn and piping near the perimeter of Cell 3 wilt need to be
constructed �s part of closure. If so, then these costs should be included in
Table V-F-2, page 5, Appendiz V-F. (Reference, Plan Sheet 5 of 5,Cap Drainage
Detail)
CAmment #16 Response is adequate.
CommeM #i7 Conservatively, it still appears that the capped area should be on the order of 68
acres. However, since the effect of this discrepancy would only be a change of
approximately $300 is the annual postclosure cost estimate, we have no further
request for modification to the application.
CommeM #18 Specifically, the apparent inconsistencies on the corrective action cast estimate in
ApPendix V-F are:
• Page 36--100 cubic yards of material is identified in assumption number 4;
however, only 50 cubic yards is included in the subsequent cost table.
• Page 38—A 1 acre repair that is 1-foot-deep is indicated in assumption
number 3;however, the soil quantity included in the cost table totals 1.5 acres.
• Page 38-0n1y 4,840 square feet is included for the area needing revegetation
in the cost table;however, the area needing repair is 1 aere (43,560 square feet}
per assumption number 3.
* Page 50—It appears the cost for additional site visits shauld equal $36,000,
instead of$28,800.
• Page 51—It appears that the laboratory analysis should be for four samples
(two wells for two years), as indicated in assumption number 4. This should be
changed on the cost table.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this assistance to the City. Please contact me`at
832-2647 with any questions you have regarding these comments.
$incerely,
�
Jeff S. Ubl
JSU/ymh
2319394\45686-1
I
MINNESOTA INDUSTRfAL CONTAINMENT fAClLITY
RENEWAL APPLlCAT10N FOR PERMiT No. 383 '
Response to Barr Engineering CoJCity of Rosemount
Comments Dated November 5, 1995 ,
-�i,q.nificant Review Findings and Comments '�
i
'�
Comment#1 ',
There are significant inconsistencies in the application regarding the ultimate air space
capacity with the proposed faciiity design changes. For example, page 5 of Volume IV I
states that the facility wilt eventualty have a capacity of approximately 6,274,000 cubic
yards, Table IV-1 indicates a site capacity of approxi�ately 6,116,502 cubic yards, and
tates that the combined overall ca aci of the facifity will be
Pa
9
e 28 of Volume 1 s P fY �
approximately 3,665,160 cubic yards. The ultimate design capacity of the faeility should I,
be clarified. Supporting computations for the deriva#ion of the design cap�city or
aci was determined shou
ld be included.
information oh how the ultimate cap ty
Response#1
The correct overall facility capacity is 6,116,502 cubic yards. Page 28 of Volume I and
page 5 of Volume IV have been revised to state this correct capacity.
Comment#2 -
The design ca11s #or use of cocrugated polyethylene pipe for conveyance of stormwater
from the landfill celts. We found no inforrnation documenting the ability of these features
in the design to support loads from above and prevent eollapse, such as could occur#rom
equipment passing overthe pipes during routine mowing operatians. Design specifica#ions
providing this information should be included. (Reference. VoL 1, Sheet No. 5)
Response#2
Attachment A now inc(udes specifications on the polyethyiene drainage pipe. This
attachment also includes a chart that shows the minimal burial depth to pcevent crushing.
Per this chart, the minimal bUrial depth is twelve inches, and Shee#5 (see Attachment 8)
now incfudes a note designating this depth. Also note that this minimal depth is-based on
an H-20 vehicle loading condition, and we anticipate only minimat vehicle loading such as
may be produced my mowers, maintenance vehicles or tractors. Sheet 5 for the
Containment Cell l drawings should be inserted into Volume I as a replacement for the
existing sheet.
._ Comment#3 _
The application indicates that the final cover system includes,in part, a layer of unclass�ed
f
compacted soii, 1-foot thick, overiain by a 60 mii HDPE liner. We believe this layer of soii
should be specified so as to prevent pvtential damage ta the overlying liner from matenals
that couid be contained in the unclassified soil, e.g., sharp rocks, debris. (Reference: Vol
�, Page 16)
Response #3
Page 16 of Volume ! has been revised to specify that the layer of soii will'be free from
sharp objects (rocks, debris) which could potentially damage the liner.
Cornment#d .
The application indicates that during extreme leachate generation conditions �
corresponding to low waste volumes in a subcelt and extrerne precipita#ion events, it may
be necessary to temporarily store Jeachate in the cell. The leachate would be stored in the ,
cell as iong as necessary, provided #hat atleast one foot of freeboard existed. While this
once t is acce table a few ctarifications are re uired. The operational cell berms dividing II,
c p p , q . ,
subcells from each other may not be constructed with the intent to retain free liquid at
signficant depth. Allowing for at least one foot of freeboard relative to the geomembrane ;
component of the berms, the maximum depth of leachate that can be stored in a subcell
should be identified. The mechanism to measure leacha#e depth and location of
measurement should be identified. Daily inspections of the operational cell berms should '
be conducted to ascertain that the berm is retaining the leachate in the lined area, and that
the berm integrity is not being cornpromised. Also, the impact of such leachate storage on
continuing waste placement in that subcell should be discussed. (Reference: Vol V, page
111; sheet 15).
Respanse#4
As noted on Sheet 15 of the design drawings, the operational berm is constructed on top
of a core berm that extends approximately 5 feet above the base of the landfill celL The
core berm contains alf of the components of the base liner system and wiH �ot allow
leachate to migrate from the subcell. Furthermore, the active waste face is placed so as
to slope away from the berm to min'rmize ponding at'the berm's base.
Leaehate depth wiU be measured by using a bubbler tube system.
Comment#5
The modified cetl layout and deveiopment ptans far#he facil'�ty necessitated a revised plan
for the ce!{ monitoring wells located down gradient of the leachate sumps in each celL
Review of tfie proposed groundwater monitoring system and program for the modified
facility found them to be acceptable. Review of tt�e groundwater modeling performed as
part of the original application to evaluate groundwater flow and presumptive future
corrective actions did identify a number of questions. !n general, insufficient information
.
2
was presented to aliow a thorough evaivation. Based on the available information, BaR ,
recommends that, if groundwater coRective action becomes a necessity in the future,
revised modeling be performed'as part of the detailed studies conducted at the #ime to-
evaluate and design the appropriate corrective actions.
Res onse #5
P
ssi in the future revised
event that roundwater coRec#ive action becomes a nece ,
ln the tY
9
' modeling wilf be performed as part of the detaifed studies conducted at that time.
i re III-14A of Volume lll has been revised to reflect the proper
i ' nlnteF u
As an add tio a o , g
v' d fi ure is included
'; location of the ro osed berm celt monitorin welt locations. This re ise g
P P 9
' in Attachment B and should be inserted into Volume lll as a replacement for the existing
figure.
Comment#6
. The lans show a final cover s!o e len th of about 500 feet at some locations in Cell 3.
P P 9
To minimize erosion potentiat,we recommend that a side slope berm be added to intercept`
runoff. We suggest that the berm be located immediately up the s(ope frorn the transition
from five percent to 25 percent slope, and tha#the collected runoff be piped down the 25
percent slope to the perimeter of the cell. (Reference: Vol. l, sheet 1 of 1) '
Response #6
Wording has been added to the end of Sectian IX.C.1 Slope Erosion Pro#ection which
states that a side slope berm is located immediate}y up the s(ope ftom the transition from
five percent to 25 percent slope {page 55 of Volume 1). In addition, it states that the
collected runoff wiN be piped down the 25 percent sfope to the perimeter of the celL Sheet
5 (see Attachment B) has been added which shows these details. This shee# should be
. inserted into Volurne I as a replacement for the existing sheet.
Comment#7
The presentation of financiaf assurance provisions appears to be incomplete. Currently
the application indicates zero financial assurance for postelosure care. Based on
com iete
resen tive we understand that USPCI was t in to p
discussions with USPCI rep ta , �Y 9
wever a#the
sed rule. Ho
ack e consisten with a
n MPCA ro o ,
the financial assurance p ag t p p
time of application development,the financial assurance requirements for postclosure care
; had not been finalized. Presentiy, tfiis issue is still unresotved. There appears to be
II closure. The o
ri in of the differin
inconsistencies in the total cost estimated for ce 9 9
closure cost estimate #otals is unctear. the financiaf assurance package should be
completed and inconsistencies corrected. Atso, the financial assurance package
• nai financial
sures/o
ratio
presented in the application does not address the pre-clo pe
�
assurance re uired b Dakota Coun ordinance. USPCI s rovisions for addressing this
q Y tY p
_; .
3
'I
-- - _
requirement should be inctuded in the appiication or in separate correspondence provided
to the city{Re#erences: Vol. V, pages 129, 131: Table V-F-Z)
Response #7
Page 127 of Volume V has been revised to add wording which addresses the financiat
assurance requirements under the existing MPCA and Dakota County financial assurance
requirements. This financiai assurance will be in existence until such time as wher� the
proposed MPCA rule is effective. Furthermore,should Dakota County continue to maintain
pre-closure/operationai financiaf assurance requirements, MICF wiH maintain adequate
financial assurance funding to meet these needs. In tMis respect, MICF presently
rnaintains an irrevocable standby letter of credit in the amount of$5fl,000.00 as Requested
by the Dakota County Board of Commissioaers in September 1992 (See Attachment C for
appropriate documentation). .
Table V-F-3 and page 132 have been revised to address the requirements of the MPCA
proposed rufe for financial assurance. Finally, the inconsistencies in the total cost
estimated for cell ciosure are not apparent, This comment needs further clarification, if
desired.
Comment#8
The application states that ash from resource recovery facili#ies, municipal sofid waste
incinerators, or electric power plants using municipal solid was#e as fue!are prohibited frorn
being accepted at the facility by City ordinance. However, BaR understands that the City
ordinance has been amended to allaw acceptance of such ash. The application should
clarify if such ash is intended to be accepted at the facility, provided that all state and
I county permits and licenses are obtained. !f such ash is to be accepted, the liner design
requirements in Minn. rule 7Q35-2885, Subpart 11, must be met. The specific (iner
requirements are dependent upon ash leachate characteristics. (Reference: Vol. V, page
65).
Response #8
MICF has obtained approvaf from the Ci#y of Rosemount for the acceptance of municipal
solid waste incinecator ash. The application revisions reflect the inten#to convert CeN 4
from an industrial waste landfill to a municipal soiid waste incinerator ash ce1L Appropriate
revisions have been made to the appiication reflect these changes.
Comment#9
The Waste Acceptance Plan describes the procedures and requirements fo�acceptance
and management of asbes#os at the facility. Federal regula#ions specify management and
record keeping requirements for faci(ities accepting asbestos. For consistency with the
federal regulations, the requirement in 40 CFR 61.154 (fl regarding the recording of
_ 4
location, depth and quantity of disposed asbestos should be added to the Waste
Acceptance Pian in the Management of Specfic Wastes and O�erating Records Sections.
(Reference: Vol IV, pages 53, 73)
Response #9 �
Page 63 of Appendix 1V-C (Waste Acceptance Plan), Volume IV,. was revised to include �,
the requirements of 40 CFR 61_154(f� regarding the location, depth and quantity of II
disposed asbestos.
Technicaf Notes on APPlication Detaiis I
Comment#1
The operationat berms that would separate subcelis are to be constructed with 2:1 siopes.
Maintenance o#these berms at such siopes could potentially require cons�derable attention
to ensure their integrity. (Reference: Vol. I, page 9) �
Response#1
This type of operational berm has been used at other Laidlaw/USPCI facilities and has not
presented major maintenance problems. Listed below are several items about the
I�I ' hat should'be noted:
operational berms t
- The operational berms are only temporary structures and once;the adjacer�t landfil!
is built and filled, they cease to have any structural vaiue.
- The operational berms are built progressively ahead of the was#e leve! in the active
cell. During this progressive building, as soil is placed on the top of the berm, some
of the soil will fa11 down the 2:1 face. This constant soif "fluff" dresses erosion
effects on the 2:1 face.
- The width of the operational berm is 15 feet wide and is compacted during its
construction. This compacted width and the "�uff" shell on the 2:1 face helps to
minimize erosion and should not effect the structural in#egrity ofi the slope.
Included in Attachment'E is a construction quality control plan that will b+e followed during
the construction of the opera#ional berm. This plan will heip insure the structural integcity
of the beITn during construction.
Comment#2
The description of the cetl liner design provides for HDPE linecs and a geosynthetic clay
liner(or equal) to be placed on the side slopes of the cells. Since geosynthetic ciay liner
is a generic term, it is unclear what is intended to be included in the design as an "or
� 5
,
equai". This should be ciarified. {Reference: Vol t,page 12)
Respo�se#2
The wording 'br equal" has been removed. In addition, page 12 of Volume { has been
revised to add a more detailed description of geosynthetic liner. This is a type of liner
which is availabie from different manufacturers.
Gomment#3
The plans do not appear to show how or specificaliy where the liner will be connected as
each successive subceN is constructed. We recommend that this detail depict how and
where newly placed clay will be joined to previvusly placed clay. Frost protection for the
previously placed ciay needs to be considered. (Reference: Vol I, sheet 1�)
Response #3
Section 1V.C.1 of Volume l, Overview of Cell Design, explains how the liner will be
connected as each successive subcell is constructed by using the"progressive trench
method"of construction (p.10 of Volume 1). Sheet 15 has been revised to depict the details
of this method {see Attachment B). This drawing should be added to Volume I as a
replacement of the existing drawing and is referenced in this section.
As for frost protection, additional cover soil )approximately 2 feet) will be placed over the
exposed end of the base liner system within the fu#ure cefl for protection (see Sheet 1�).
FurtheRnore, during the construction of the subsequent subcell, additiona( liner materia!
can be removed that may have deteriorated due #o weather conditions, since these
materials e�ctend approximately 30 fee# into the future subcelL
Cornment#4
An analysis of settlement of the subsoils below the landfill cells was performed. The
analysis perFormed applies to cohesive soils rather than to the granular soils that exist at
the site. Detailed inforrnation pertinent to settlement of granuiar soils was not provided,
so an analysis of settlement at the site couid not be conducted. However, indirect data
ftom tMe general area suggests that settlement of the granular soils beneath the landfii!
cells should not be a critical issue. (Reference: Appendix 1-H)
Response#4
No response required. ,
Comment#5
The plans show the leachate withdrawal pipes up to the point of their exi#€rom the cell. It
is unclear from that point how the leachate is then directed to the tanks for s#orage and
�
6
analysis. (Reference: Voi I, sheet 14)
Response#5
Section IV.C.3 of Volume i, Leachate Cotiection and Storage System, describes how the
leachate is transferred from the withdrawal pipe to the storage tanks via tank truck (p. 14):
Comment#6 - I
An average annuai precipitation value of 26.39 inches was used in the HELP modeling of
leachate generation. Average precipitation at the nearby Rosemount:Experiment Station I
is approximately 30.7 inches. This difference couid affect the amount of leachate predicted
to be generated. However, it appears that the designed leaehate storage capacity is ,
II A endix �
adequate,even considering the increased precipitation value. (Reference. Vo , pp
I-L) �
Response #6 '
The storage capacity as designed is wel!abie to account for an average precipitation which I
is 16%abovethe desi n's avera e annual precipitation. Minnesota regulations require the
9 9
he
b!e to
account fo
ra
ear when t
ted to be a Y
design leachate capacity to be calcula �
o ca ac'
e stora e
leachat
d b 20/o. The desi ned 9 p �Y
average annual precipitation is exceede y 9
I�' d reci itation rate.
appears more than adequate to handle the increase p p
Comment#7
. An inconsisfency exists in the Waste Acceptanee Plan with regard to the minimum
flashpoint that a waste may exhibit and be acceptable at the_facility. In the Waste
Acceptance Criteria section, a criterion of 440 degrees is identified as one for requiring
special waste handling procedures. tn o#her parks of the plan, the specified criteria are that
special handling procedures may be necessary for wastes with flashpants°less than 200
degrees, and wastes with flashpoints less than 14�0 degrees are to be rejected.
Considering that wastes with flashpoints below 140 degrees are hazardous wastes, the
latter criteria should be used'. (reference: Vol. IV, pages 28, 30, 38}
Respo�se#7
Page 28 of Appendix IV-C (Waste Acceptance Plan),Volume IV, has been revised to state
that wastes with a flashpoint below 140°wiN be rejected,and tha#wastes wi#h a flash point
between 140 and 200° may require special handling.
Comment#8
In the discussian of waste sampling incfuded in the Waste Acceptance Plan, fluorescent
light tubes are included as an example where waste sampling wouid not be done. The
MPCA considers fiuorescent light#ubes to generally be hazardous waste if'disposed, and
.� -
� .
so fluorescent lighf tubes shouid not be inciuded as an example of waste where analysis
is not necessary prior to accep#ance at the facility. (Reference: Vo11V, page 48}
Response #8 �
Page 48 of Appendix IV-C (iNaste Acceptance Plan), Volume IV, has been revised to
delete the reference to fluorescent light tubes as an exarnple of waste which do no#require
pre-acceptance analysis.
Comment#9
The Waste Accep#ance Ptan states that a scintiliation radiation counter will be instalied on
the scale piatform. Barr understands this was to have been done at facility sta�tup, Has
� Reference: Vo1 iV, a e 49)
taiied. 9
'n ilt tion radiation cou
n#e�been ins p
the sc� t a (
Res onse#9 _
P
lume I has been revised to remove
V . .a of the Waste Acce tance Plan o �
Section .0 3 p N
references to a scintiNation radiation counter on the scale platform (page 49). lnstead, a
handheld radiation counterJmonitor wilt be used to measure radiation on the scale platform
,
and around the waste trucks.
Comment#10 .
t s tha# an annuat re ort will be filed with MPCA and Dakota Gounty.
The a Iication sta e p
PP
A copy should also be provided to the City. (Reference: Vol IV, page 74)
Response#10
Page 74 of Appendix IV-C (Waste Acceptance Plan),Volume 1V, has been reuised#o state
that a copy of the annual report wiil also be filed with the City of Rosernount.
Comment#11
A discussion of waste settlement in the cells states that the cap could settle four feet over
a horizontal distance of 100 feet and still maintain a rninimum slope o# two percent,
implying' that a minimum siope of two percent is acceptable. the MPCA and Dakota
Caunty generally require a minimum slope of three percent. Elsewhere in ttre application
nce:
Vol V a e 17
a minimu
ms
lo e. Refere , p 9 )
a figure of three percent is identified as p (
Res onse#11
P .
rcent waA be
Page 17 of Volume V has been revised to state that a minimum slope of 3 pe
maintained.
�
s
---- ------ ---__ .
Comment#12
A couple of instances were found where the appiication text still refers to the center island
and potential buiiding area_ This appears to be a remnant of the originai application.
Similarly, a reference to 30 years of operation untit closure was noted; as,opposed to the
approximate 90 year operationai duration under the proposed faciiity modification and
expansion. (Reference: Vof 1, page 16;Vol V, Rage 27, 58)
Response#42
The references to 30 years of operation have been changed to 90 years (Uolume t, page
46; Volume V, page 58). in additior�, page 120 of Volume V was revised to correct#fie 95-
year operating i'�fe to 90 years. Page 27 of Volume V was revised to replace the reference
to the "middie bvilding pad area" witfi "'interior sloped areas.°'
Camment#13
In the discussion of incident reporting contained in the Corrective Action Plan, a written
report is to be submitted to the MPCA, Dakota County, and the city within two weeks of an
incident requiring implernentation of the corrective Action Plan. If the incident involved a
release, explosion, or fire,the MPCA Commissioner is to be notified within 48 hours. The
Ciiy may want to be notified in a shorter time frame than currently identified. (Reference:
Vol V, page 68) '
Response#13
Page 68 of Volume V has been revised to state that the City of Rosemount wil( also be
no#ified within 48 hours of an incident involving a release,explosion or fire.
Comment#14 -
The CoRective Action P1an ident�es pivine Redeemer Hosp'�tat>as an emergency services
provider. Barr understands that Divine Redeemer Hospital is cfosed. An alterna#e facil'�ty
should be identified. (Reference: Vol V, pages 69; 75, 81)
Response#14
Pages 70, 76 and 81 of Vofume V have been revised to identiffy Regina Medical Center as
an emergency secvices provider.
Comrnent#15
The cost estimates for closure of Subcells 3K and 3L do not appear to include costs for
su�Face water control structures. (Reference; Vot V, Table V-F-2)
Response#15
The cost for su�face water control structures is not part of the cos# for closure. These
_ 9
structures are constructed alang witfi the subcelis and are therefiore a part of the initial cost
of construction.
Comment#15
There appears to be an inconsistency between the postclosure care annuai cost estimate
table and text with regard to the numbet af irtspections per year for operation of the
leacha#e callection system. (Reference; Voi V, page 13, Table V-F-4)
Response#16
Table V-F-4 has been revised to caiculate the costs for nine inspections per year in
accordance with the text on page 13 of Volume V
Comment#17
The postc(osure care annuai cost estimate table uses a figure of 60 acres for determining
costs of maintaining vegetation on cell caps: it appears a figure of 78 acres should be
used based on the proposed modified facility. (Reference: Vo1 V, Table V-F-4)
Response#17
The reference to 78 acres within the text represents the area of the landfills including the
interioraccess roads, etc. The 60 acres as depicted in Table V-F-4 is specifically#he cap
area of the 4 landfill cells that wilf require vegetation rnaintenance.
Comment#18
There appear to be some inconsisteneies in the assumptions used to estimate corrective
action costs for a spili affecting the stormwater system, costs for repairing surface drainage
problems, costs for correcting severe erosion, and costs for addressing unusual quanfities
of leachate in the primary and secondary leachate coileetion sy;�tems. (Reference: Vol V,
apPendix V-S, pages 36, 37, 39, 51, 52)
Response#98 .
The only noted difference in unit costs under the iden#ified scenarios is for laboratory
analytica!services ($50�versus$450). The unit cost di#Ferenfiaal under these scenarios is
based on the parameters to be analyzed, in tl�at the $500 unit cost is a more
comprehensive test than the $450 unit cost for trace metals and indicator parameters.
._.i
10
�q �t�+sioti �.rt I a+
� � � . .. . �FlLL OYfR PIPE TO BE�Yli1.t2'TYP. . . � . � . . . . . . � � . �. . . .
ie'a+�eos Nuw oun
� ,,,^1 . . � �pE�p �OqplMiAIED POLYEtfOtFHE PIPE � � . . .. . . . . � . . . � . . . .. � � .
� � �. . . . :. � . � . . .
. . . �"3 i.:.. , ',:i,.,d � � � . �.. E[.p1.S0 � � � . � . . . . � . .
. . .....,.�.,.... . .. . . .
. . ,,. � .. . . . . . . .
.. w. � . . . . . � . .. . .
��. . ._� .. .. � � � .
� . . . ��-�,�,`� . ...:�'.,_ :...,.. �_. . .:..,; . � � � �EL 573.00 . . 71'OU.IDT XEAW Wtt �� . : � � . � .
,,,,
. ...: . . . . .. �. :. CORNUWIFO POl7EMMENE PIPC . . .. .
� CONTAWYENTCELLI� p�10'. � . .`� �p . �. . . . � . . � � � � � . . � . . .
. _ :..... • . . � .. . R-�G . . . ~ . �o} � : . . . . . . . . � . . � ..
� �.. � . � � ' � . . . . � . ��i°F �_�, ��—. � � . . . .. . . . . . �
, �a M�.ao
otiw�a[aro�
� aem�aarc-- ,�_
a-�a
�
� as $ �
�
�� � d � d
< a �
�
CAP DRAINAGE DETAIL �� '�
! �,2 0
SCALE: i'=7p' S
y�y� �r
�������n�' ::�.
USPCI/Q410�1J��
CONTAIN1iEtJT GELL—i
DETAIt.S
.� ��=
� �� �� a��a
�s --�---�—
� ��i� � �
'��� ��°� '� .. —
�� � � � ��
'-� �t' tl � a �� .� � � r �
,II�' I � "; �" 4 r�t�r.��l� ��/��af::�
t�i ! "" ,-�- - �� i- � � .
�.�� �
� �.
� � , ..
` � ., o�m�� `/
�
�------�---
I --- - --------------- ------
�I I �
! ` � — �
�
I I Q
I � h
� I fl
I I =�.
�
�
I
I �
!y �� , � — --- `—I'
��, ��1 � � ��
'�� � � �. � ..� �� �
�� �
�� .,�'
��►� • LAIOLAN
�,��_.t�.�ii
��r,�J'`wdu�
, w �nso� 1 art �r
. . . . � . . � � � � . . . . � � . . � � � .w..� •u.n.�•
. . � . . � . . � � �� .
TOPLINER SYSTEM
. ..
I� " ' ,•'
' :' '
: '
.
il
I�QgS:.
- •. `' L �LL CARNERS ON`ME FIN15ME0
� . � � � . . . � � � � � . . . . . . . ..� �� _�,- :� ... . � . . . . . � � CLAY SURFACE�SMALL�.BE SM401H � � �
7HIS PORTION OF 1NE OPERAiIONuI ANO ROUNOEO BEFORE PLACENENT
15' . . .'.'.. . BERM IS`TO BE CONSIRUCTED OF GEd+EMBR�HE. '
>.:. PROGRESSIVELY AS h1E WASiE IEVEL g. NNEN IYWG PRENOUS CELL HOPE
. . . .. ., . . � � IN 7}tE ACi1VE CEII INCREASES � � . .
BASELNERS WT0 NEW CELL HOPE
� • '; BASELu1ERS. EXCAVATE wTH B�GK�WE
. . ' . . � . � � �. .. ...•:. . -c.. .. . . .. . � . � . . . .UNTI�PLYWO00 iS E�OSEO. CONDNUE �
, . SANO CLAY ExC�V�DON 6T M�NO TO REuOvE
PLTW'OOO. CIf�N HOPE At+O NEtD �5
, PRIyARY QRAINAGE PER Y�NUF�CiURER'S WSiRUCitOnS
PLACE 4'z6�SMEET OF MATER�AL
� PLYWOOD ON TOP OF HDPE��� � Z � :.� � .... �
. . . � � LINER FOR�PROTECTION. ..� . . �.� . � t . �� NON-IMOVEN GEOIEX� . . . .
:, ' ^
SEE NOTE 2. . . 7.8' : :',' . FABPoC
1 . 1.5' PROIECTIVE SOIL COVER
... N ' . ' �� . . . . � . . . . � ..
.. � � .. �,.'� �.. .����. �. � . .. . .
� ��..�,�'
SECONDARY 80 mU ��tl'�"� �'T+...
�. ��. �.. w' . .. . . � .. . . HUPE�LJNER � . . . � . . ,.. . .. . ... :
SECONDARY DRAINAGE 2' CIAY UNER U�CI/�m�mL�m�
PLACE COvER SOII MATERIaL
AROUND EXPOSED ENO pRIMARY BO mil EXPANSION LAYWT
FOR FROST PR07ECT10N. HDPE LINER OPERAl1aNAl. 8ER11 DETA�
+
. �r�_
� , � �
r �
� � �a �
� �, � 3
� � � ��
4 �� .
g e 4 �
� � �
�� �
o •. ;�
' �
tlt' 8£—TT3J V£-T13�
B►� 3� �
0£-l'13� �£—T13�
� �4 3� '
� �£—T739 3£—TT3�
Qh � — -
H£—T13� J£-T13�
� ('£—� I£-Ti3�
i
v
l£-7i33 N£—TI3�
VS l'13J 9t 113� OZ Ti3� UZ TF3J 3Z T130
�
, JAN 8'97 i6�31 FR USPCI-MICF 612 a38 1Sa9 T0 9-a235203 P.02
BO��RD OF COL�FTY CO_ 1�II�SIO_�iERS I
DAKDT� COL'`i�I'Y. _1+1I;:'�:YESOT.3
,..,:. 8. c
DA... Oe���nb r 1ca5 R:.SGL�iOtV �G.- a�-A?� �I
�rlcran�y Cor�ssicaer Loedi rtc Secoaded 3y C��tai,ssianer,�--- Ba LaQ 1 t a
BE tT R�SO�VE�,Th�c tt�e Dafcata C.�urny BcarQ af Cammissianers`hereby aQproves a ficerue far l3SPCi (a taiCl,:w
J
CamP�Y? t0 o0erdte a sofid wasie faciity. the 1AinResota industrizi Cartiainmerrt �3ciIity (specyraf wa�e tandfiII tYp� �
A). fat ttte caiendac year i 996, subje� ta qmptiance with aU applir.ai�le State. tarai and CourtY tuies a�xt ,
ceGuiterrtents.artd the fofbwiriq cortttitions: I�,
1. The facitiry sr�aU operate irt ac��tanc�wittt ai! ptans and s��tc�ons approved as part of t2�e arigirtal
ticensa a "o� t�
pptic� u�e Courny 8oard and a►I subs�quern mauifica�ans a� adCitier� a� apprnvect �y
b. q
respeciive SLaie and Ioca1 agenaes arid�he �akata Caur►ty 3oarC of Coirtmissione�5.
2. The #acility stt�ll obiain. and kee� on file, reports of all waste analys2s that are per�ormed on any wast�
sSreams acr,��te� #4r dis{�os�l.
3. Tite fa�iity may not acr�#n for dis�osai any waste �reams with a cx3nc�sm�-mtion of 10�, ar gr�ater af•1�e i
os�anic com�unds iistecf irt Minnesota Hazar�ieus W�sie Rutes. Minnesata Cha�ter 7�45.��t 35, Subpart '
2,�_tftraugh E.
d. T17e facilify s#�aEJ monitor �it incaming waste ioads at•�.t�e gate or scafe a�a fcar radioadivity; the faaii�y
stta!{hotd. for inspe�ian and review t3y the Caunty`s E.�viranrn�sstai �rlanagerneni Dep�R�nent, �ay w�ste
that exllitlits mose thart 1,4QO caunts per minute.
5. The faci��ty st�aft ebiairt E.�tvironrriec�! 41an�gesn�nt Depa�tm�m appraval beiara US�CS c�s wa�e as
caver ma#eriaE ar foc surtac,�s of ramps antf roactways within 3 Ceii. Ap{�rov2�t ShaiI be bas�d an Pt's'Isica�
�d cf�ernica!charaCiesisfics�s weli as ge�ter3!suitabii"rty��f ttie w3sfe.
6. '1'he mar�i#tly operatin8 �epari sha!# inc:cx#e the foitdwirag adCitional infoc�nation: (1} a de5csip�tiort a#ttte
wastes acc�pted. 2r�d (2}the addresses of the g�nera#ors.
7. Th� leacrtate monito�ing repor� s:�a#1 also tnctude an annvaf assessmerrt af i�e ie�tate pn3duction
e�cpezte�t in the n�v,r cefts based an ttte acival data coU8Cet3 fram an aciive cei!_
YEs �ro
kssr;s X tiart=s -
hAalter X Ma6er
9ss ia ',�
1
t i
aq 8a a f a
9
Mwiierr %� Maeiler
Tur*+er X Tvmer
� � XT'iu3Y � � .." .. � � . ltrau5e� � . .. � . . . . . . . . .
Lo�ia9 X Loeding
State of l�innesaia
Coaa=y of Daicats
E.�ry S.Sefreide.C:uk ,o ch� Soarci�r tae�aunc�oi�ai:ors. 5�u�Sr:.tir.aasocs. su �se��ce :i..� cnac : �.a�r c�r..�aree .:e
:DcegOiIIg coov oi a flCgpiuuoa+nL^.;is@ OiZ�YnaI;Sltnti[25 Ot �ne?roCeE�e23ngS }f :,he Ho3rC ot r,unt.:CJmm:557one�g. �ayca(:.S,ou^e,;
ltiuncsoc.i, ac c�.r:r srssipn he3ci on _zr 5tn �.1,r �t ��C2!ITI?21" (:g5 now on �ie :r. G:e L.+u.1tp
� iQfll�ssL�con Da�ar:mene. snc aave :o�c�che�s3me ca � a c-:.a.nra �:or.-tct�.00t� ::te.-r�i. . . . . � . .. � � .. .� . � . � . . �
. . . . . � . . . � .�a...� � `t� � �.r .. .. �.�,� ... .
'� �-- 1 � � f'���
��tness �ay:f3tiC�xs¢oLFciai sesi ,t�aico�C�ecnt�• :.tts5 I ....• asc;,i <1 •'�'���-.�:�"
j - ' t
`"�7 �L.r�l�� � ' �.��
C.ari�ito uie �vard
\: .
�HN a•��•r ie��i rK U5rL1-M1Lr bl� ��a 1�4y iu y-���5��� r.��
8. The facility sha!! prrtply wii3� aU 02kota CourttY and atJ:er cau
nd rsty raquit+ements peRaittinq .o wase
Ce�siqnaUcn.as'ztaY be a�oiica6le to thrs facilify that�ra ncw i�eKeC or tttat heceattet are adBPie� by the
D�Jcata Cotutiy Boar�of C�mm�.ssiortess or ath+er raur�ur.s,
9: The fac�iity may acr.."'�rt an� dispase non-#taz�r�aus incneratar ast�. urdud'
waste combustor as� arus r+�fuse aerivved fue! asss ar refase a�rived fuei s�v���!� �'�
faCility. A+nvideQ tife failawing coctCifions are mei: � ai t3te
a- �il!cequi�emerr�t at Secion 6:07 af Crctirtanc�(Ya. 1�Q are s�tisf�ed,
b. _
A
iI icem�ents Qf
, � N!'itinesota Rtstes Part 7t135.28Er fot munict�a! soiid wa�� cflmbc�or �stt and
' dis�osai facilit�s al'e satistied. ��
fi�'�+" c. The MPC,� has ratnpfeted its enuironmemal �eview of �
the
tmii rnad'
. Pe z�a�on artd
ttas
a
� rrtodifica�an af f�e MPCA p�rrnst to a!l+ow USP GRrovec2 ttre I
i
�t CI ta aC�t ttort-#T&zatdous inettesator as.'z fo� I�
dis�osal.
d. US?CS meets ali �ederal. Siate and Caursty �cc,uic�mertts far ttte a�ptarttb of non-t�azar�ous
incinerator
astt, artct obi i
�ns dtl r uired Siat
ea
� Oprova).s.
�, e. US,�C1 �x�tes a� am�:zCmeni to ti�e agr2nmestt betHreerr E3S�G and the C,Qwtty. �ated Fe�n�ary
2fi.1�92. to provitfe #hat ttte agreement may ,�ot be amen�eQ e�cce�t by i!'te muttt�i cans�nt of the
paties a,xt thai ttre currer�t nost fee o# 53.33 pe� cubic �ard paid to the Coumty shali be escalste�
artnuaEty. based on a mu2ualty ac:�p�ble ecanomic indicator.
Y1]. The faciifij maY acc��t and dis�ase ndn-�azar�ous iR�ner�tor �stt, in�udittg Medic�t Wa�e As.'t an�
SeMrage Sf�dge.4si�, provided ttte fa!lowioq canditions are mei:
a. USPCt must satisfil 3rry MPCA r�quiremer�is regarding tl3e acce�tance vf ines2ic�t wa�e as#t �rxt
s�w2ge 5tudge ast: prioc to accepiing suctt non-�azarricws tncirteraiot astt.
b. When acc��tins� suc,� ttcrMt3zatrSous in�rter,;tar astti, USPCt must a� in a�orti�ncz wittt ttle
iMorrriatioc� aRCf pracet�w�euflirtecf in its apQlication forcnedsGal w2ste ast�d�tt�d,�prii i$. 1995, 8rtd
its Was�e A�tanc�Ptart.
c. USPCt rnusi anatyze e�c.ti shipmerit oi �sh or one camposiie sam te
p per rncuttti when ship�ect fat'
tctal and TCi.� RGr�A m�tafs, `until suct3 time as me Caurtty�s Ernrfronrnenta! Managemeni
Depat#me.nt determines th�t sut�t tesis ace no tonger nec�,53ry.
:�ttd
BE tT FURTI-�ER R�SaLVE:3. Th2t the Dakota C�unty Baa� of Commissian�cs treret�y ap�roves a co+�'Grtuing
v�cianC� thai stlalf carry over ta su�s,ive ticzsise renewais gramed, unless s�ecifc�tty r�incf�tf tsy the County
8oarCt, from Ute f4ltowirig Coe�nry Or�tina�c�No. 1�t 0 requir�meniS:
1- S�ciion 8.01(D) tttat states that a solid waste tantlfiti shati nat be locateci witliin 1,g00 feet Cf a resideniia!
dwe!lirtq.
2. Ser�ien 6_01(� that �ates triat a soiiC w�sie lanefijt sha)l not be (ocated w;#hin �,�Oo faet of a pub�ic
,
raadway.
** TOTAL Pf�GE.�03 ��
,�
IN�EPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 196
R�SEMO�NT HIVH SCHU�L ■ MiCHAEL �. MANNING,
ATHLE?IC DIRECTOR
3335 - 142nd Street West • Rosemount,MN 55068
, Phone{6f'2)�23-7507
� FAX 423-7511
January 14, 1997 � ,.:.
Mayor Cathy Busho
City of Rosemount
2875 - 145th Street W.
Rosemouut, Minnesota 55068
Deaz Mayor Busho:
It has been brought to my attention that the USPCI Corporation is asking for a
modif'ication of their cell design in front of the City Council this week. As the athletic
director at Rosemount High School,even though I have been here for a short period of
time, I have been greatly impressed by the commitment of the USPCI Corporation to the
ciry of Rosemount and educational projects at Rosemaunt High School. Having had'the
opportunity to interact with numerous companies in other jobs that I have held, I believe
strongly that this company has had a good track recard of protecting the environment,
listening to the needs of the communiry, and when possible meeting the neec�s of the
communiry.
I know that there are many other organizations,businesses and families that feel the same
way I do towards USPCI and their role in business and in community affairs. In
conclusion, I would like to encourage the City Council to approve and renew USPCI's
request for ihe modif ca�i��n of ch�ir celi design in the Laitilaw project.
Sincerely,
'chael J.Manning��
Athletic Director ..__�� J:.. : �, _� ��G�
��yF��( L:- %;V.:Ci'JIUI,iPa+�
Educat�ng our studenfs to reacfi their fuQ potential
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED fOR EXCELLENCE/N EDUCATION
January 14, 1997
Mayor Cathy Busho
City of Rosemount
2875- 145th Street West
Rosemount,Minnesota 55068
Dear Mayor Busho:
I am writing this letter as a concerned Rosemount resident regarding the USPCI Corporation. I
feel they are a civic-minded corporatian concerned about the environrnent. I recommend that the
City Council think strongiy about approving USPCI's request for their cell design in the Laidlaw
project. I feel USPCI has made a signifieant irnpact on the City of Rosemount.
Thank you for your time in this matter.
Sincerely,
�� �., ��J
/'^��.w`a"
BSI'�$CI1W3IkZ
4034- 141st Court West
Rosemoun�,MN 55068
s��' - --�
�...:- .
'��11 � ,y 1���
. . . � . � . .. . . . . � , S �s ifAv... •v�J1Y . � . � . �� � . .
. . . . . � . . � � .. .�� � . . � � �
15125 So. Robsrt Traii
P.O. Box 69
Rosemount, Mn 55068
�c-raR � Ea�u�p. co. s�2-�2�-�:� �
�-soo-saz-a�� ,.�..
FAX 612-423-4551
SALFS SERVICE RENTAL
January I3, 1997
The Honorable Mayor Busho ,
Cit� of Rosemount �
2875 - 145th Street West
P. O. Box 530
Rose�ount, MN 55058
Dear Mayor Busho: '
We suppart the application made by USPCI-Laidlaw for the ,
modification of the celi design at the Minnesota Industria2 �
Corttainment F'acilitg located in Rasemount. The design, as
proposed, wi21 be more efficient and uses current design '
technology.
We feel that tTSPCI has proved to be a responsib�e corporate I�i,
citizen and that the� provide a valuabl.e service to the business
community and, therefore, we support their efforts. ,,
Sinc rely, ,,
n C. n II
President . I
RCClm2b
��I
III
EC�UAI.OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
WHEREAS, USPCUI.AIDLr�W is a member of the Rosemount Chamber aF Commerce:
Wi�REAS, USPCULAIDLAW has built a containment facility for non-hazardous industrial
waste in Rosemount utilizing"state of the art"technolo�}!to protect ow environment:
WHEREAS, the containment facility has improved environmental quality in our cammunity by
improvin�handling and stora�e of certain classes of solid waste atready being disposed in our
area under less stringent em+ironmental standards;
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW is paying 9% of it's revenue to the Community of Rosemount '
which amounted to $741,000 from it's opening in December of 1992 through October of 1996.
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW's vlinnesota Industrial Conta.inment Facility serves the best
interests of our community by providing a long-term economic and environmental partnership
with the City of Rosemourn.
NOW TI-�REFORE, be it resolved by the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce, as follows:
The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI Inc. interim Use
Permit to allow increasing the maximum hei?ht from ZO to 60 feet with slopes of cells increasing -
from 20 to 25 percent and construction of a new cell.
� �/
(.�( —
_ s
c
�' �
��- �. z� �
�
�; .
�i� a ��
, �
��
>
�Q � �
, �
,
� , � ��
, , . �
,
� � ��.�
�;��
�
� . `�
. . � „��� �
c�� � z
c�
. . . . . . .. .. J �r � . . . �. . . � � . . � .. �.
. . // . . .. . � ... � � ..��� M.. � . ...� .
� / • ��. � .. .� . . � � . . .
. _`�'.. "'�.l�.. . . . . � . ... .�JGJ' � � � � . . �� . � . .
� � � . . � � n}�fn�� . . � . . !x �.� . . �.
// ��J
. � A A� . � . ✓V� v� . . . .
� : . .V�v_"�.. .. . � .. � .� . �. �. . � �. . � .
- (� W � ��r.� �"
�� •
�� � - - �
WHEREAS,USPCULAIDL�W is a member of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce:
WHEREAS, USPCULA.IDLr�W has built a containment facility far non-hazardous industrial
waste in Rosemount utilizing"state af the art" technology to protect our environmerrt;
WHEREAS, the containment facility has improved environmental quality in our community by
improving handling and storage of certain classes of solid waste already being disposed in our
azea under less stringent environmental standards;
W��REAS, USPCULAIDLAW is paying 9%o of it's revenue to the Community of Rosemount
which amounted to $741,000 from it's opening in December of I992 throu�h October of 1996.
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW's Minnesota Industrial Containmern Facility serves the best li
irnerests of our community by providing a long-term econornic and environmental partnership 'I
with the City ofRosemount. '
NOW THEREF4RE,be it resolved by the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce,as folIows: ��
The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI Inc.interim Use I'
Pemut to allow increasing the maximum height from 20 to 60 feet with slopes of cells increasin� i,
from 20 to 25 percent and construction af a new ce1L
// IZ/�6
�S G� G�-�-.. la,�,,, f� �Za s.�.�..,-..�,...f- G��.,.�..�
�
G�-w ��.. �' S u �,�L � S �l
�
� ��T��'—�/�l/
�� !JZ^ ��N y'�
� C /t�.�^'"� �G/ `
f _
/'7 �� �/.� /�s�r��� .
� `
T
�
�Z,f�'��
U,� �-�-'-�-�.�..�' ,��-J� �---/'
/1�---%-
VV��REAS, USPCUI.r�IDLAW is a member of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce:
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLr�W has built a containment facility for non-hazardous industrial
waste in Rosemount utilizing"state of the art" technolo�y to pratect our environmeat:
WHE�tEAS, the containment facility has improved environmental quality in our community by
improving handling and stora�e of certain classes of solid waste already bein� disposed in our
area under less stringent environmental standards;
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW is payin�9°'0 of it's revenue to the Community of Rosemount
, which amounted to $741,OQ0 frorn it's openin� in December of 1992 through October of 1996.
;
WHEREAS, USPCUI.AIDLAW's i�linnesota Industrial Containment Facility serves the best
urterests of ow community by providing a long-term economic and environmental partnership
with the City of Rosemount. .
NOW TI�REFORE, be it resolved by the Rosemount Charnber of Commerce, as folIows:
The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI Inc. interim ITse
Pennit to a11ow increasing the maximum height from 20 to 60 feet with slopes of cells increasin�
from 20 to25 percent and construction of a new cell.
� Gt. v'*�a�-�yQ/ 0'Wn�t'�- �" ��A..¢-�n G^u.� aQ
C�- �
�put�, �it a..�,+Uz.�, �.,r�.Lr+G�.rne� , (.l S/�'C7/ '
/ /
. t �, c� �,'rt.a.C.c.�n�r crt,c.cv I
iu�
���- ��' C��y,� �m�rw�-�� �I
� ;i
�« �� �,
i�,5�v u�S,9 1��..k,��,4- ����.:2_ .
�u-�- ,
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW is a member of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce:
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW has built a comainment facility for non-hazardaus industrial
waste in Rosemount utilizing"state of the art" technology to protect our environment;
WHEREf1S, the containment facility has improved environmental quality in our community by '
improving handling and storage of certain classes of solid waste aiready being disposed in aur
area under less stringent environmental standards;
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW is paying 9%of it's revenue to the Community of Rosemaunt
which amounted to $741,000 from it's opening in December of1992 through October of 1996:
WHEREAS, USPCl/I.AIDLA�7V's�Iinnesota Industrial Containment Facility serves the best
imerests of our community by providing a long-term economic and environmental paztnership
with the City of Rosemount.
IVOW T'HEREFORE,be it resolved by the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce, as follows:
The Chaznber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI Inc. interim Use
Pemut to allow increasing the maximum height from 20 to 60 feet with slopes of cells increasing
from 20 to ZS percent and construction of a new cell. l�"�� ��
` � �����-'� ���`�
� �����' � '� �
��� �
____ -�-- �
WHERE�IS, USPCULAIDLAW is a rnernber of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce:
WHEREf1S, USPCULAIDLAW has built a containment facility for non-hazardous industrial
waste in Rosemount utilizin�"state of the art" technology to pratect aur enviranment:
WHEREAS, the containment facility has improved environmental quality in our community by
improving handling and storage of certain classes of solid waste already being dispos�d in our
area under less stringent environmernal standards;
WHEREAS, USPCULAIDLAW is paying 9%0 of it's revenue to the Community of Rosemount
which amounted to $741,000 from it's opening in December of 1992 through October of 1996.
WHEREAS, USPCl/LAIDLAW's iVlinnesota Industrial Containment Facility serves the best
interests of our community by providing a long-term econornic and environmental partner�hip
with the City of Rosemount.
NOW TI�REFORE, be it resolved by the Rosemourrt Chamber of Commerce, as follows:
The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI Inc. interim Use
Permit to allow increasing the rnaximum height from 20 to 60 feet with slopes of cells increasing
from 20 to 25 percent and construction of a new ce31.
�
:::-, � �,,�-. .�1,� �' �� � b� a� 1.-P-��- .�c.fsi n.�ss�.,
Qo �
--��--. �-.�,�_:�-e �^. s'���''�-� r '' ��,�- ��,��
�-- � - �vs
,