The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. U.S.P.I. - Zoning Text Amendment DpKOtA �� pKorq N��N COMMER�E � '�°E°Fcoo CHpMBERS OF �j c�� CEN�Q CURVE #116 o% . "� ��oRP�Fl�� z; �,�,AN,N►N 55121-t200452-8978 � �' . FAX: (6121 �� '�5/`'c+`� (612)452-98?2 �6',v��•_��'� '�ENS OF �� p,pril 13 , 1994 E• B• M�Men��Y MaY°r gosem�unt C�tY i 5th St• 2875 55068 gosemOunt� �' e out ln or McMenOmY' cam Interim MaY ecent meeting� ent pear er�e ► .at a r amend their curr o� ash and at unt Cha�er �es � the ci�Y� allow the f a�p 1 Yl in Rose�°unt• The ROSeof USPCI' S requ ordinanae tainment suPp ort it and the ZOnte industrial con use Peno�aZardous was ement• ive their of that endors coun�il to g is a coPY and the citY EnCl�$ed o f Commerae urtost�s pr�Posal• The Cha�er �onsideration af f irmati�e S in� �el � l/�- p,. p,berq� Daniel t presiden Rosemount CitY Counai7-trator Tom Burt � cc: ount CitY Adminis gosem � AGGRaD��.o .pOSEM�UNT Cha►nbeC of Commerce � ber of Commerce K� erce• MEND OTA HEIGHTS Cham MENDOTA•SUNFISH�-p` er of Comm and the Cities of IiLYDA�E• �GpN Chamb e�ce, WEST ST.PA��hamber of Comm o�corq NORTNERN DAKOTA COUNTY �j MEN qr y CO �/ y��y CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE �� ' 1380 CORPORATE CENTER CURVE N116 `` a�,' EAGAN,MN 55121-1200 g�',��1r �4,jys a�aF�� (612) 452-9872 • FAX: (612) 452-8978 United States Pollution Control Inc. ("USPCI") is a WHEREAS, a division of the member of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce, Northern Dakota County Chambers of Commerce; USPCI has built a containment facility for non-hazardous WHEREAS, ��state of the art" industrial waste in Rosemount utilizinq � technology to protect our environment; . WHEREAS, the containment facility has i�ndlind andlstorageaof quality in our community by improving ha g certain classes of solid waste already being disposed in our area under less stringent environmental standards; WHEREAS, USPCI is paying 9% of it's revenue to the comme�,atingfat Rosemount, which amounted to $112,000 in 1993 , while op 27� of budgeted capacity; WHEREAS, USPCI' s Minnesota Industriab Co�ovidingta�longltermerves • the best interests of our community y With the City of Rosemount., economic and environmental partnership WHEREAS, USPCI will comply with the conditions of the Interim Use Permit and Ordinance of the City of Rosemount, the Dakota County Permit, the Minnesota Pollution Control newly adopted regulations controlling the storage of combustor ash and the Environmental Pollution Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce as follows: � The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI, allowltherdisposaleoflashnatttheir zoning ordinance to nonhazardous ind�ntRosemounte containment facility located in easte Date• April 13 , 1994 ROSEMOUNT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ' , Diane Pinkert, President N DAK TA COUNTY CHp1MB S OF ER Dan' A. A erg, Pres' en � ACCREDITED EAGAN Chamber of Commerce • MENDOTA HEIGHTS Chamber of Commerce • ROSEMOUNT Chamber of Commerce �a�� WEST ST. PAUL Chamber of Commerce, and the Cities of LILYDALE• MENDOTA• SUNFiSH LAKE Unaudited list of contributions made by USPCI Inc. Rosemount Community Trust. Rosemount Halloween Committee $ 500 2500 Carroll' s Woods Committee for excavation of trail . 2500 Rosemount Chamber of Commerce for banners 3600 Dakota Technical College for scholarships 5000 Rosemount Area Hockey Ass'n for lockers Rosemount Youth Hockey Boosters for ice time & Jerseys 1500 Haunted Woods 500 High School Soccer Club year end recognition 100 Rosemount Middle School new addition dedication 500 Rosemount Chamber Christmas Contest for youth Rosemount Meals on Wheels for those who cannot afford meal 500 Nancy Wolfe for recliner for husband who was burned Dakota County Youth and Family conference. Rosemount youth 1d00 participated in this conference. 1250 Rosemount Highschool Ringettes for lockers Rosemount Activities Program for youth unable to pay cost 500 of program. Boy Scouts of America for summer camp for Rosemount Youth 1500 Rosemount Chamber for Shamrock Award celebration 3000 Senior Dining for Rosemount Seniors 5000 Erickson Community Square Project 500 Ringette Boosters one time funding of first banquet 5000 World Ringette Championships 2500 Leprachaun Days . 250 Rosemount City Wide Garage Sale Committee 2124 Rosemount Fire Dept. 1400 Rosemount Area Athletic Assoc. 1250 Pack 270 Cub Scouts 7500 Carrolls Woods Committee 360 Del Lorentzson Hosting 25 German Students in Rsmt. 15125 So. Robert Trail P.O. Box 69 Rosemount, Mn 55068 RACTOR � EO�UIP. CO. 612-423-2222 or 1-800-642-4441 Toll-Frsa SALES =SERVICE =RENTAL - April i9, 1994 Mayor Edward McMenomy and City Council Members City of Rosemount Rosemount, MN 55Q68 RE: Public Hearin��ng Text Amendment U.S.P.C.I. Honorable Mayor and Council. Members, We would like to express our supp ort for the �equest before you► made by U.S.P.C.I. , that would allow them to receive coal ash and ustible ash at their containment facility in eastern Rosemount. comb We have been aetive in the waste and recycling industries for more �han 12 years. We subscribe to Waste Aqe, gi.o-Cycle and Municipal Solid Waste magazines. It is with that background and knawledge this position of support for the U.S.P.C•I• that we are taking ou tonight, Zoning Text Amendment. Tssues, s o�t on hof loqic�r knowledge and are best dealt with from �h� P �sYtion to this proposal facts. It is very apparent that the oPPolitical in-fiqhtinq and is based primarily upan fear, emotion, p eneral. opposition to incineration o€ wastes in g orting this request knowing We are convinced and feel secure in supp and regulatinq that the County and the NiPCA have the monitor f our community. rules in place sufficient to assure the safety Sincerely, ��,'��r ��_ � C_..- '." /` � � � � Rich Carlson, Vice President Ron Carlson, President E�UAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER t, April 16, 1994 James Staats 2685 128th Street West Rosemount, Minnesota 55068 Dear Mr. Staats: I write as President of the Rosemount Area Hockey Association. It is our understanding that U.S.P.C.I. , Inc. has approached the Rosemount City Council for an ordinance change which would enable it to expand its business in Rosemount, Minnesota. Our Association's experiences with U.S.P.C.I. over the last several years have been extremely gratifying. Our Association has received contributions from U.S.P.C.I. and the U.S.P•C•I• Rosemount Community Trust which have enabled us to expand and enhance our skating programs for young hockey and ringette participants. The U.S.P.C.S. Rosemount Community Trust also made a substantial contribution to enable the completion of locker facilities at the Rosemount Community Center. We look forward to a continued positive relationship with U.S.P.C.I. and the Rosemount Community Trust in the future. We believe U.S.P.C.I. to be a "good corporate eitizen" whose continued presence in Rosemount should be welcomed. Assuming you find U.S.P.C.I. 's requested ordinance changes to be environmentally safe, we encourage you to take appropriate actions which will allow U.S.P.C. I. to remain an active and viable business in Rosemount. I thank you for your time and attention to our letter. Very truly yours, ROSEMOUNT AREA HOCKEY ASSOCIATION �� - Keith Juhnke President cc: Tom Burt ' �MpORTANT ESSAGE, ��-�� FOR � A.M. 1-.� " �� TIME a:ZZJ p.M. DATE M � OF � PHONE NUMBER EXTENSION AREA CODE O FAX I� MOB��-E � NUMBEF TIMETO CAL�- � � qp�CODE i i ��EPHONED �I PLEASE CALL j � i ' ' i� WILL CALL A�AIN I • ` GAME TO SEE YOU � iI � , � WANTS T O S E E Y O U j �,� RUSH ' ' � gpECiAL ATTENTION I � RETURNED YOUR CAL�-! . � MESSAGE ---'� - Lt � C i � � - SIGNED TOPS � FORM 3002S LITHO IN U.S.A . ` ` � USPCI ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT J PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC CO1��IlV�NTS Act�S b p�D 2�-�`� Please print your nam^below if you want to speak at the public hearing. Each person will be allowed to speak up to 3.5 minutes. We would appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. . � 1 � � � ,� � � �`�z�` � �r i�7a� �� -� �.. , 2. w...� r 2 �-� � � z ��s j3a � C-� u�. /�� 3. r.J�j a.n-e P'�n ,��c �f" ! ��a S e m Q l.t n � f��1a-•rr b�t o� ��rn rn e c r� 4. � ; �NN�` l�U w�=L�- I S(� 7�0 �,c' eron e Po�h . �o�s�mo�ri.�' 5. �.��, Q�ti'�, , 5 6�3 l 4�..r� E. 6. � ��lr-cr. .o � l /�?f �� • ieos�.rnc�u�r7� 7. � � c D•E.CA.� ! (k�.k.Cfy.A-l-l�erna�, I 8. �� Z�o ��41e€�'v �� '� • to Bcxrnir-� Cle.a,� Wa-kr ��' `'•��Y�YI1� l�- � �S ��`lc�1 ' R�o+n�tllta�• lo. /�Y 3� � � � - �a�-�� il. 1a-as� v � �2. � �a75 l��,�� 13. l; �_l�.H.� �� 33r� �r�� S�. cu /�� Z • �4. (�r, •J ac�b�� 3C��f� l�3 S f u� F�oS�,�,�" 3 iS.��C'rv I�ci..Vls �18��5 �S�i,�,�-i2.r �'�f-gS ��Co�-iV y 16. �m ►lv � alnh �� , S' 1�. P In� l �-�e�-r�e,r L S(o�� C.i c�ro n� Pcv'� I� o s em,�,�v� is.�,.,� �'�cksor�,�. v. P , Ct s PC � � T�C �9. (Z�.X �(Z/�-�-f- , 1'1'l �r. lA S n C( , �S�m�-.o u,w� 20. 2L 22. 23. � � � � USPCI ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING � SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC CONIlVIENTS �4�b(�De��=� Please print your nam^below if you want to speak at the public hearing. Each person will be allowed to speak up to 3.5 minutes. We would appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. �--, 1. � G'� � �¢..��.g � 2. 3. ' 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. :� 17. 18. 19. 20. 2L 22. 23. I� _ _ __ _ ___ . -__ __ _ -- ' ' ' ' USPCI ZONING TEXT AMEI�TDMENT PUBLIC HEARING � SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COMNIE1vTS ��1b p�DeE�� Please print your nam^below if you want to speak at the public hearing. Ea.ch person will be allowed to speak up to 3.5 minutes. We would appreciate your coopera.tion. Thank you. � � 1. ��'' V 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. > 17. ,I 18. 19. ' 20. 21. 22. 23. ` , . , . USPCI ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC I3EARING � SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC CONIlV�NTS �t�Sb p�aDeE�� Please print your name�below if you want to speak at the public hearing. Each person will be allowed to speak up to 3.5 minutes. We would appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. �.�_ ; ,, , 1. i�. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. ' 15. 16. D 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. " ` ' ° � USPCI ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT PUBLIC �iEARING S SIGN-IN SHEET FOR PUBLIC COl��IlVIENTS �lSb(�DQE�� Please print your name�below if you want to speak at the public hearing. Each person will be allowed t sp up to 3.5 minutes. We would appreciate your cooperation. Thank you. l. � ) s��=..G�,LI�,� �s�.�� /G e l�oHC �/_� 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. � 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 2 3. ! i , �: ITY HALL C � h j C I TY O F RO S E M O U N T z875—145th Street West '� �� P.O.Box 510 �� ` Ever t�'lil'1 s Comin U ROSE'►710Ui1t.►I Rosemount,MN v�y, y � g� g p � 55068-0510 � � � �.��'�' � Phone:612-4Z3-4411 � � � Fax:612-423-5203 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILED AND POSTED HEARING NOTICE ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT AND USPCI, INC. INTERIM USE PERMIT AMENDMENT STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF DAItOTA ) s s CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ) ' Susan M. Walsh, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: I am a United States citizen and the duly qualified Clerk of the City of Rosemount, Minnesota. On April 7, 1994, acting on behalf of the said City, I posted at the City Hall, 2875 145th Street West, and deposited in the United States Post Office, Rosemount, Minnesota, a copy of the attached notice of a public hearing for consideration of a City of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment and a USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit Amendment as submitted by USPCI, enclosed in sealed envelopes, with postage thereon fu11y prepaid, addressed to the persons listed on the attached listings at the addresses listed with their names. There is delivery service by United States Mail between the place of mailing and the places so addressed. Susan M. Walsh City Clerk ; City of Rosemount , Dakota County, Minnesota ', Subs ibed and sworn to before me this _ "� _ day of , 1994 . � o tzb��.if+��A.�.�UiNTu& NQ'fAiiY PUBLlC-MlNNESQTA �' �AKOTA COUNTY "•• �dq Carz�n�s��on Expires June 7,1999 Pn�«o,��, �.!d►vMM'4V'.7+fylF\hW:V•M'!N1��MM�IG � cnntain�n¢30% Fnsmm�wnrer marerials. .'.±�'� 4 �°'�'erkrt.' . . � C I TY O F RO S E M O U N T z875-C145th Street West P:O.Box 510 _� �V('f 1'�'l!F'1 S C01711I"1 �.1 ROSe17)OUt1t�� Rosemount,MN Y 9� g P 55068-0510 � Phone:612-423-4411 3'a "�'�� Fax:612•423-5203� Public Notice CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT AN D USPCI, INC. INTERIM USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO PERMIT NONHAZARDOUS ASH ACCEPTANCE & DISPOSAL IN THEIR INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY Petitioner: USPCI, Inc. To Whom It May Concern: No'r�C� Is I�x�sY G�1v, the City Council of the City of Rosemount will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, April 19, 1994 in the Council Chambers of the City Ha11, 2875 145th Street West, beginning at 8:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an Amendment to the USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit that would permit the disposal of ash at their nonhazardous waste industrial containment facility located in eastern Rosemount. The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendrnent is to remove reference to all forms of ash from the definition of Nonhazardous Industrial Waste. The petitioner, USPCI, Inc., operates a nonhazardous industrial waste land disposal facility at 13425 Courthouse Boulevard and wishes to accept ash wastes at this facility. The property is located on the south side of Courthouse Boulevard (STH 55) east of US Highway 52 and north of County Road 38 is legally described as: A tract of land lying in Sections 19, 20 and 29, Township 115N, Range 18W, all in the City of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota, commencing at the SW comer of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said Section 19; thence east and southeasterly along the centerline of County Road 38 to its intersection with the North and South Quarter Section Line of Section 29; thence north along said North and South Quarter Section Line of Section 29 and the North and South Quarter Section Line of Section 20 to the southwesterly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway 55; thence northwesterly along the southwesterly right-of-way line of said Highway 55 to its intersection with the centerline of the Chicago and Northwestern Transportation Company right-of-way; thence southwesterly along the centerline of said right-of-way to its intersection with the west line of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 19; thence south along said west line to the point of commencement. Persons wishing to speak on this zoning amendment petition are invited to attend this meeting on Tuesday. Aaril 19. 1994 at 5:00 p.m. or submit written comments prior to the hearing to the Rosemount Planning Department, 2875 145th Street West, Rosemaunt, MN 55068. Dated this Sth day of April, 1994. � , � , �, ,' . _„i Su M. Wals , City Clerk City of Ros_ ount Dakota County, Minnesota � - . Pnnrtd�,xrrecvciedpaprr I�� . � conbmin¢30"', . po.t-�un.urtrer.v�arcriuls. 340200001028 343340003001 340200001039 PINE BEND DEVELOP CO SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP PINE BEND DEUELOP CO % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 13220 DOYLE PATH RD BOX 10 % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 1200 HWY 13 W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068•0010 1200 HWY 13 W BURNSVILLE MN 55337 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 343340002001 343340005002 343340004002 SPECTRO ALLOYS GORP SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP 13220 DOYLE PATH BOX 10 13220 DOYLE PATH E T3220 DOYLE PA7H E ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-0010 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2500 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2500 340200001027 340200001025 343340001001 CNICAGO & NW TRANS CO PINE BEND DEVELOP CO SPECTRO ALLOYS CORP 1 N WSTN CTR % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 13220 DUYLE PATH BOX 10 165 CANAL ST N 1200 HWY 13 W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068•0010 CHICAGO IL 80606 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 340200001035 340200001013 340200001038 KOCH REFINING CO PINE BEND OEVELOP CO KOCH REFINING CO ATTN R D ECKRIDGE % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD ATTN R D ECKRIDGE BOX 2256 1200 HWY 13 W BOX Z256 WICHITA KS 67201•2256 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 WICHITA KS 67201•2256 340200001037 340200001011 340200001160 NINTH STREET PROP INC ORRIN KIRSCHBAUM USPCI INC % UNION PACIFIC CORP 13220 DOYLE PATH 515 GREENS RD W P 0 BOX 2500 ROSEMOUNT MN 55U68-2510 HOUSTON TX 77067•4531 BROOMFIELD CO 80038•2500 340200001041 340190001002 340200001150 STATE OF MN KOCH REFINING CO USPCI INC DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION BOX 2256 % UNION PACIFIC CORP RIW LEGAL SECTION WICHITA KS 67201-2256 P 0 BOX 2500 SAINT PAUL MN 55155 BROMMFIELD CO 80038-2500 340190001006 340200001077 340190001275 � KOCH REFINING CO D W SEVERSON USPCI INC ATTN R D ECKRIDGE 13650 COURTHOUSE BLUD 515 GREENS RD W BOX 2256 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068•2551 HOUSTON TX 77067-4531 WICHITA KS 67201•2256 34020Q001086 340200001082 340200001088 JAMES H KROMSCHROEDER PINE BEND DEVELOP CO MASAHIRO & BRENDA SUGII 13625 COURTHOUSE BLVD RR 2 % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 13701 COURTHOUSE BLVD ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2550 1200 HWY 13 W ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2508 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 340290001020 340300001001 340290001035 PINE BEND DEVELOP CO PINE BEND DEV CO PINE BEND DEVELOP CO % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 1200 HWY 13 W % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 1 Z00 HWY 13 W BURNSVILLE MN 55337 1200 HWY 13 W BURNSVILLE MN 55337 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 340290001125 340290001020 PINE BEND DEVELOP CO PINE BEND DEVELOP CO % MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 'Yo MELVIN G ASTLEFORD 1200 HWY 13 W 1200 HWY 13 W BURNSVIILE MN 55337 BURNSVILLE MN 55337 ! �, �� , �j li I I j, I Ii j �i � ' � � I' I ; , ', i � , � � I i � ��; �I i � � � I ' ' � � � � � � . . . Rosemount Town Pages c,tyorR��t Poblto Notlae AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION ��°"�°�`�`�°°°�"`"�°°` uspa.m�.�u..�u� ' ToPlimit Nodumrdoo�Mh Aooepu��DLpwal in Diane Berge, being dvly swom, on oath says that she is an authorized ��r agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper, known as The Pe1iooacII�'�`' Rosemount Town Pages, and has full irnowledge of the facts which are '��M�'MAYwN�xx: stated below: Narice,s�xesY civex.ma c;c�c�u or me (A)The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting °ty°�R°'°m°°°`"""�'�°'''��°°"'� Apdt 19.1994.in U�a Cooncil�Sm6as ot 8�a 6ry HaQ qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statues �s�asw sa��w«�,e��u s:oop.m.a m,� 331A.02,331A.07 and o[her a licEtble laws,as amended. '''°'°�``�ffi P°"'�'°.'�`p°'�°"°p'h°'""'°�"`° PP ��a��o►w�usec►.m�.�um �)The printed___�_L�--�+c�" 11�� . TS�c . Pami�ttn�..00w,�ermic cce dispoal oi.,v a�u�eir 000hSaraow.raMs'rodwa;a�ooa�c fsedkty bated in eutern Rosemoant.The parpoae ot the Zoning O�e Tact Ameudmen is w rcmove rs&oe�e ro aii forms of uh fcom the defioitton ot Nouhazardoas . � . IodaWial Waeb. � � . which is attached, was cut&om the columns of said news r and was ""°""'°°"�'�,�`.,°�`°"„nooeaffidoas P�+ iaao.mal waab tana ai�o�t rsavcy u 134as coocuwax printed and published once each week for i (��_ successive ��a�a�� Te -� 1Le pmpaKt,yy is locaoed oo tLe wot6 eide of Coan6onse weeks; it was first published on Thursday, the _�S +t.N day of a�k�acs�ss>��rosc��sz�a�,n�r �r�_ 19�� and was thereafter printed and published on �'��"'`�`�"�'� every Thursday, to and including Thursday, the �____day of A�or�a�s�s��.�9,�o�a�s.T�a:r , 19 —; and rinted below is a co of the 15",x�°�'s"'''�'°`°`a�''�rR°"m°"°`'n,'�" P PY c��y,Hs�.«s.�u�sw�ot� lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, which is hereby ��o�� acknowledged as being the size and kind of type used in the composition w�.�wM�n,n,x��as�u�.�s�«cW and publication of the notice: t��s�a�z9:ttieooe mrtb atou8 asid NaW and SoaW Qaackr Secti�Line ot Seaiou 29 aod We No»6 aud Sonth Qnarter Sacdon Line of Seetion 20 w t6e abcdefglajkl�op�ttawncyz sootLavaeedy tight�of•way tine ot Stab Trnok tligLway SS.�nathavesoetlY abnE the wnW�vea�ulY ii�Lt-of- /� way tine of amd FTighway SS w itrinoaneaion wAL�he By: �. ),i;� -.�)A Jk_ ��pCLieago aud Natthwatem Txamponatiao {Ll�,� JU�•'�� waY:tbenoa wothwpEuly sloug the itle:Typesetter °��'��°ya a�.�-«,��"'�'�'�°°""n m° . . wert lioe�me Pa.c 1/2 ot urc soorLwe IM et searou 19;tLeoca wn�h along said w�est line w the paint of Subsc ibed and sworn to before me on this _�day `°�`°`' Of � , Perwm wishiag w qxat on Wis zooina ameodment 1(�1 pditiao m invi�ed w wead mis meetina ou'Ibaday.April 19.1994 ac 8:00 p.m.ar,e6�t.rsiuea cammaua pda w �he heming w the Ra�emoaot Pls�ins Dep�msnt,2875 • 145th Stroet Wa4 RaemouW.MN 35068. ` ' Notary Public n.e�a�.sm a�ocapu,i9ss. s��r.w.eu.aq�a� AFFIDAVIT °ry�eR°.�°°°� �Ioo�coamr.Mi�ao� �f8 ��,.::;:: C^uNNi� E �!FAREic �i� �„� N,>t<r . . •:-:asora . . S 'vir::<, �.� riy `�1� �v Comm cxp 5-15-96 � , � �pK�rq c NORTNERN DAKOTA COUNTIf �►�� A b � a�� '�� CNAMBERS OF COMMERCE .� �� ,' 1380 CORPORATE CENTER CURVE #116 Q� EAGAN,MN 55121-1200 s� ti. �4��=�'� '��`� (612) 452-9872 • FAX: (612j 452-8978 �as oF cu� April 13, 1994 Mayor E. B. McMenomy City of Rosemount 2875 145th St. Rosemount, Mn. 55068 Dear Mayor McMenomy: � The Rosemount Chamber of Commerce at a , recent meeting, came out in support of USPCI 's request to the city to amend their current Interim use permit and the zoning ordinance to allow the disposal of ash and at their nonhazardous waste industrial containment facility in Rosemount. Enclosed is a copy of that endorsement. The Chamber of Commerce urges you and the city council to give affirmative consideration to this proposal. Sinc �el , C/� Daniel A. Aberg, President cc: Rosemount City Council Rosemount City Administrator Tom Burt . EAGAN Chamber of Commerce • MENDOTA HEIGHTS Chamber of Commerce• ROSEMOUNT Chamber of Commerce � ' ACCREDITED WEST ST. PAUL Chamber of Commerce, and the Cities of LILYDALE• MENDOTA•SUNFISH LAKE `"'"`"°"°"""� ' � , h��, opKotq coG NORTHERN DAKOTA COUNTY o,� ��f�, CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE : �.� , QP' 1380 CORPORATE CENTER CURVE ift 16 � � c``i' EAGAN, MN 55121-1200 4��5 OF Ca�� (612)452-9872 • FAX: (612)452-8978 iaHEREAS, United States Pollution Control Inc. ("USPCI") is a member of the Rosemount Chamber of Commerce, a division of the Northern Dakota County Chambers of Commerce; WHEREAS, USPCI has built a containment facility for non-hazardous industrial waste in Rosemount utilizing "state of the art" technology to protect our environment; . 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 area under less stringent environmental standards; WHEREAS, USPCI is paying 9% of it's revenue to the community of Rosemount, which amounted to $112,000 in 1993, while operating at 27� of budgeted capacity; WHEREAS, USPCI 's Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility serves the best interests of our community by providing a long-term economic and environmental partnership with the City of Rosemount; WHEREAS, USPCI will comply with the conditions of the Interim Use Permit and Ordinance of the City of Rosemount, the Dakota County Permit, the Minnesota Pollution Control newly adopted regulations controlling the storage of combustor ash and the Environmental Pollution Agency; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Rosernount Chamber of Commerce as follows: The Chamber respectfully urges the City of Rosemount to amend the USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit and the zoning ordinance to allow the disposal of ash at their nonhazardous industrial waste containment facility located in eastern Rosemount. Date: April 13, 1994 ROSEMOUNT CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ��r�i;c� �v»�.t.� Diane Pinkert, President N DAK TA COUNTY CHAMBE S OF ER Dan' A. A erg, Pres ' en EAGAN Chamber of Commerce• MENDOTA HEIGHTS Chamber of Commerce• ROSEMOUNT Chamber of Commerce � ACCREDITED WEST ST. PAUL Chamber of Commerce, and the Cities of LILYDALE• MENDOTA• SUNFISH LAKE `"""'°"°'� r . . . � . . . .. Unaudited list of contributions made b USPCI Inc. Rosemount I'I Y , Community Trust. I, Rosemount Halloween Committee $ 500 , Carroll' s Woods Committee for excavation of trail 2500 ' Rosemount Chamber of Commerce for banners 2500 ' Dakota Technical College for scholarships 3600 ' Rosemount Area Hockey Ass'n for lockers 5000 ' Rosemount Youth Hockey Boosters for ice time & Jerseys 1500 ', Haunted Woods 500 High School Soccer Club year end recognition 500 ' Rosemount Middle School new addi�ion dedication 100 ' Rosemount Chamber Christmas Contest for youth 500 � Rosemount Meals on Wheels for those who cannot afford meal 500 Nancy Wolfe for recliner for husband who was burned 500 ' Dakota County Youth and Family conference. Rosemount youth 1000 participated in this conference. ' Rosemount Highschool Ringettes for lockers 1250 Rosemount Activities Program for youth unable to pay cost 500 ' of program. Boy Scouts of America for summer camp for Rosemount Youth 1000 Rosemount Chamber for Shamrock Award celebration 500 Senior Dining for Rosemount Seniors 3000 ' Erickson Community Square Project 5000 ', . Ringette Boosters one time funding of first banquet 500 World Ringette Championships 5000 Leprachaun Days 2500 Rosemount City Wide Garage Sale Committee 250 Rosemount Fire Dept . 2124 Rosemount Area Athletic Assoc. 1400 Pack 270 Cub Scouts 1250 Carrolls Woods Committee 7500 Del Lorentzson Hosting 25 German Students in Rsmt. 360 � ClTY COUNCIL A�E�qBERS CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ROSE�vIOi�NT, MiNNESOTA Dear City Counci! Member, Unfortunatefy i witi not be able to attend th �4��2/�4 cancerning US��1 to be t��),� 7��y � �. � Open Hearing prof�ssionai cornmitment. � wasn`t plann��+i ZOth due to a prior unless outside spoi�espeopl� from so � � °n spea�in gave too much of a sianted presen a11ed �nvironrrten al o�rg�n�zatn� � would �ike to make it elear tha�t�na one f ans presentatic�n from me or for t�is lefiter to be wr��m �SPCI asked for a writing is that I thir�k USPCt has been a darn t�en. My reason far communit � good mem�er ot this Y• have requ�sted funds a number of times frc� for different chamber projects, Mea�s on i� cornmittee and each tirne t � the�r trust fund �e committees ere�s�ran tl Er�ckson Town �reen me more important, d�fferent members of (JSPCI participants in aur town rau 5 ted funds. filso, and to givin n�v� been active � �f their time. g �S and cQmrnittees and have worked hard �urmg the �ate i 9�60's and early ?t3's, I was ' Club. In fact J started the first glass rec for the Mpls ci�apter �o a memi�er of the Sierra _ +�g before rt was ma{da ar°gr�m o� � loeai level barre�s in t�e back of mY Paren�t`s p�armac out to Rosemr�unt. Tl�e reason � . . Y ptaced recycling y for glass and haufed it way "Not biincf o lomed the c#ub was because af t�heir motto: pPosition to progress, but Qpposition to Howeuer a�ter severai years I became disen blind progress°`. �h�y didn"t iive u ��'�� rti� tt�ern b��ause everythin p t° this mot�to. Instead the g and took a extremist hardline y �'�re against just about the vaiue af this when it �omes to com ro � position on e�erything. i realize seemed to want ta cornpromise. p m»es, however the The issue that the outside graups hav Y never cauncil previouslY, reminds me of t�is. !t e bra�ght in front of the +n anything, just tMe bad. Y seems theY lust ��n#� see burnt. And es it's too bad that some Jaod Y�s, it's too bad that there is ash 1�ft ��a�HQ�� ° �e not the cause of this. They are tr in Y g to take care of a problem�t a��Ct is there and is of real cc�ncern. The rea�ity �� seems a iot more Iagicaf and safe to bu �at there is ash and tq rne �ut USPCI rather than in a non contrc�ited locatio , ry it in a controi1ed site such as shauldn't tr +�• This daesn t mean that we Y to eleminate the need fQr incinerators in probiem is real today. L,et f� n,�t �ury are heads �he future, but the ��d �gnore that we may �: need temporary salutions today before the perfect sofution hopefully is put in pla�e some time in the future. The reaiity is that these speakers should all be standing in front of you stark naked after walking here from where ever they came. Uniess they handsheared sheep, spun and weaved their own cioti�, t�eir c�oths have contributed somehow to t�e demise af our environment. No matter how much any of us realiy cares about the environment, the reality �s that nothing is perfect and as long as we live on this pfianet, we are going to have an impact on it. Thus the best that we can ask is that we do the best we know how at any given time and that we continue to strive for better. To me the USPCI site is the best that we can ask today. Hopefuliy next decade wiN see na need for it. However f must once again state that I would much rather have everything buried in a controiled site rather ti�an in a landfill with very few controls. Thank you for taking same of your valuabie time to read this letter. R e� �u �Y Yours, � ohn Loch 4wner Loch Phacmacy,lnc 2975 145th Str. RQsemount,Mn 55068 f I � . •. "� . ��.. USPCI FACTS SHEET �II ASH CONTRACT �ITH H.E.R.C. II (A. ) USPCI has a five (5) year contract to dispose of the ash in North Dakota, unless a second USPCI site is approved. (B. ) If waste is HAZARDOUS then it must be sent to USPCI' s Okla. I� facility, at a much greater price. � ' (C. ) Disposal price will be the same at MICF as it is in North Dakota, this won' t help HERC stay in business. � CLOSURE/CLEAN-IIP COSTS (A. ) USPCI has posted irrevocable letters of credit to cover the most expensive closure or clean-up cost scenarios MPCA could come up with. (see the Environmental Trust Agreement) (B. ) USPCI has indemnified the city and its officers against any and all claims arising out of or in any way related to MICF. (see Interim use permit paragraph 24) DIIST ' (A. ) USPCI is required by existing city and state permits to control dust. The proposed Interim use permit contains requirements for dust control . (see pages 3 & 4 of the MPCA Permit) (B. ) MPCA msw ash management regulations require extensive ma.nagement procedures to control dust. (see Subparts . 10 and 15 Section 7035 .2885 Municipal Solid Waste Combustor Ash Land Disposal Facilities. MPCA MSW ash management regulations. ) FEES TO ROSF�OUNT I (A. ) USPCI has a binding contract with the city to pay the fees. ' MICF currently pays nine percent of revenue (9%) . (see pages 5 and 8 of the Development Commitment Contract) j (B. ) The county receives $3 .33/ton of� waste disposed. (see page 2 ''� of the Dakota county agreement) � (C. ) The city permit expires every five (5) years , if the fees I aren' t paid the permit probably wouldn' t be renewed. (see I� Interim Use permit) i GROIINDWATER/SITE CH�i'R.ACTERIZATION (A. ) USPCI spent several hundred thousand dollars to carry out a complete characterization of the site as part of the initial permitting process . {see volume 5 part l of 2 in the permit application) I (B. ) There are twenty three (23) monitoring wells on the site j now. (see Groundwater Monitoring section,Report & Appendices � Volume 3 in the permit application) � � � I i . � ; i I � � , � ( . - HAZ�iRDOIIS DQASTE (A. ) City, County, and State permits preclude MICF from accepting Hazardous waste. (see Interim Use Permit, Dakota County Permit, MPCA Permit) (B. ) If MSW ash is determined to be hazardous waste MICF couldn' t accept it. (see Interim Use and MPCA Permits) (C. ) The ash could be treated to render it nonhazardous prior to - shipment to MICF. LEA�HATE (A. ) MICF must comply with its MWCC discharge requirements. (see MWCC permit) (B. ) MICF isn' t asking for an inerease in SAC units. (C. ) If leachate doesn' t meet discharge standards it must either be treated to meet those standards or taken to the : Metropolitan plant. (see MWCC permit) . _ LINERS (A. ) The MICF permit doesn' t allow it to accept anything which would degrade the liners. (see MICF Permit Application) , (B. ) The MICF cells have both plastic and clay liners, clay , liners have 50 to 60 year operating histories. I (C. ) The leachate removal systems prevent prolong exposure of I liquids the liners and only concentrated liquids have been shown to be detrimental to the liners . (see MICF Permit I Application) 'I APR 19 '94 15�04 P.2i2 Date: Ap=i1 19, 1994 i, To: Whom it may concern � F=om: Lee Rnutson __ �? �� Subject: USPCI request �or solid waste ash at their locstion in Rosemaunt, Mn. Due to circumstances that hav� required J.ast minute changes in my plans t4 attend the city �couneil meeting on this date, I wish to request that my comm�r�ts be r:ead and ent�red into the minutes for this hearing. It seems to me that the requegt th$� has been made far �sh storage at the Rosemount site is reasonable. Over a perivd ot years in working with USPCT, theiz consultants �nd staff, ; � have found them to be very practical in their approach to enviranmental responsibiliti.es. Th� design standards are � done in complianc�, with al.l regulations . �he monitoring i teahniques have to meet federal and state specifications. 2 I fu1.1y understand that issues at oth�r sites may present some faulty histor�r. I believe �hat this history is based on a ' early generatian of encagsilation and is not relative td the late�t technology which USPCI has developed and / or utilized from the industry. � have a strong desire to ��e that al]. of ug accept otir ' r�sponsibility for the environment.� Part of our responsibility is to utilize space �or �torage. The ar�a set agide in our community is an ideal site. Th� location allours for land to be used �or s�r�rage of non-hsz�rdous waste. What other us� is appropria�� for this site? We knaw that the direction of ground w�ter fl�ow is away from our deve�.oped area�. We know that the industries that sre presently iz� th� area axe doing their best to elimiriate air poll.ution, and they have been ef�ective. The location of the IISPCI site is the h.i.ghest and best use far land in this ar�a�. I, I am willing to accept responsibility for groviding solutions to the waste etream of our 1.ife �tyle. I urge you tn consider yaur responsibility to see �hat Rosemount remains progressi�re and sympathetic .to the issue af dealinq with this type of storage. � urge you to support the USPC2 ash storage request. i I ,,tM�ORTANT ESSAGE - FOR a� �- �- �� ATE 1'�' � � 1 TIME a:Z� P.M. M oF �l01 Ca l� �- �• PHONE AREA CODE NUMBER IXTENSION ❑ FAX 0 MOBILE . � AREA CODE � NUMBER � . TIME TO CALL , TELEPHONED � f PLEASE CALL CAME TO SEE YOU I WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU � RUSH RETURNED YOUR CAIL' SPECIAL ATTEN?lON MESSAGE ` � --. � i�t� (�C 1 � �-(-�-- �T I � SIGNED TOPS FORM 30025 ' . � LITHO IN U.S.A � � � � � � ♦ s '4 City of Rosemount Executive Summary for Action City Council Meeting Date: April 19. 1994 Agenda Item: USPCI, Inc. Public Hearing Agenda Section: PUBLIC HEARING Prepared By: Ron Wasmund Agenda No: Director of Public Works/ � Building Official Attachmentsz P.C. Summary; IUP Amendment; Approved By: John Loch Letter; Memo from Miles; Resolution; Ordinance B-40 . / The purpose of the public hearing on April 19 , 1994 is to allow the Council to hear the public points on USPCI' s request for a modification to their Interim Use Permit (IUP) . The modification they are asking for as you are aware is to allow them to accept all forms of combustor ash at their Rosemount facility doing business as Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility (MICF) . The questions and major issues of the public regarding this issue predominately concerns the classification of the ash. Because of the presence of heavy metals such as, but not limited to lead, mercury, cadmium, silver, etc. there is a question of toxicity and hazardous levels . This is a question that is still being debated on the Federal Supreme Court level . A decision is expected in late summer 1994 . The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has classified the ash from all combustion of municipal solid waste and refuse derived fuel as special waste, neither hazardous nor nonhazardous. Along with the "special" designation is a list of tests and acceptable containment levels that determines the disposal cell design. There are two cell designs that are currently accepted, referred to in the rules as "N° or "P" designs. The eurrent cell at the MICF does not meet either design criteria. If the disposal of ash is permitted by ordinance change, a new cell would have to be constructed. USPCI has verbally agreed to do so. The request made by USPCI is a policy change. The ordinance must be changed to allow this request. If Council' s decision is to allow the acceptance of ash, the technology exists, but the cell must be constructed to the highest standards, those of a "P° design. Recommended Action: City Council Action: 4-19-94.007 , i 1 � : City of Rosemount � Executive Summary for Actior� . Planning Commission Meetiag Date: March 22 1994 Agenda Item: USPCI: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Agenda Section: Petition OLD BUSIlVF.SS Prepared By: Ron Wasmund Agenda No.: Public Works DirectorBuilding Official I1�N1 NO. Sa. Attachments: Memo; Zoning Ordinance Sec. 11.3; Ciean Approved By: Water Action Group letter; Willcox correspondence. e�� The attached memo from me outlines the technical facts we have discovered through conta.cts made with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Dakota County Environmental_Health Department, and Barr Engineering. - There are rules in place that provide technology for safe encapsulation of ash and monitoring of the leachate monitoring. There is always a possibility that better technology will evolve. What is outlined in the MPCA rule is the best we have to guide us now. We still need to develop the specific language of the IUP if you action on this item is aff'umative. ' Reeommended Action: MOTION to recommend City Council set a public hearing for consideration of an Interim Use Permit amendment for USPCI. P�I3IIlrig COmmi.cclOII ACtI II: t �L,tJ,, j c7- ' � 3-22-94.OSa r C1TY OF R�SEMOUNT z8�5-`;TMths�tW�t P.O.Box 510 Everything's Coming Up Rosemountl! Rosemount,nnrv 55068-0510 Phone:612-423-4411 • Fax:612-423-5203 To: Planning Commission Fltolvl: Ronald E. Wasmund, Director of Public Works/B.O. DA'rE: March 16, 1994 Su�J: USPCI We have received a request from the owners and manager of USPCI to take tlie definition of "non-hazardous industrial waste" out of the zoning ordinance text and place it into their Facility Interim Use Permit; and, further, to modify the definition of "non-hazardous industrial waste° as presented in their letter 2/7/94. ' The cunent Zoning Ordinance language reads in the definition section: �, � Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Solid waste generated from an industrial or II ;_::::::::;�:.::.;:.;;:.;:.;�::.;:. manufacturing process. Non-haza.rdous industrial waste shall not include: �i�i�::t�zr�: ;;:,:::.::;.:;;:::.;:;<.;>::;;;:.;>;;::>;:.;:;.>:>;�.:�::::::.::.::::.�::.::::::::::...::::::::::::::............................................................. .::.;;:.::::�>;:::.;:.;:.;:.;:.::.::� .............._........:..::...........;.::::.::;:::.;�: ..:::::::::.:::.:..;;::::..><::;;:::...;:>:;:�;�.;;::><;;;:.;::::.:�:::.;::...:: :<;<.:::<.;>:::� :<:<,;;:<>::>:::>,::::<::>;:><�:,<:><:::«.:.;:.:;:::<,_:;::><:«<>:>:;<::_::<::::,<:.<::<:.<.. ��r�ree.;�a�� ::::�;�-: �:��::>:o�:::�:- .r�c��r�. � ac�s�za. ¢��..�.I�x� .:4,� .::..::::�.:._::::::�.::........:�.:::.�::..:::::::::�:::.:�:::::::�.:F:::::::::::::::::........:..::::::::::.:: .:::...:.::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::: ....:..... ......_ :�::.:;;:::.;::,>;:.;::.;>;<::.:.:.. .., ........................................................................<:.::.;:.;;:::<.:;:::<..;::;;::�:.:;;:.;::;:;:.:::.::;::�'.�:.;;:::.::::::::::::�::::_:;;::.::�.:;;;:>: ��i�h;:as�?: li uid wastes not r .:::.; ..;:;.::._:;�.:>��;;::;:::.:;;<;::::>�;>;:: ,:;:.;>:.;x q p ocessed at the facilit ; s��;�:::;�.�;e�'::�ri��udu� <;::�e€�:::�� <>�..>;;<::<::><::;:.:_::;>�:.::::..:::::.:::::.::..:::::..::::.:.. y....;:;::.::::::::g:::::::::::::::�.::�::::::;.:�;:;<.::.;;;:.:.;::�>:;.::.:;::;:.;>;�.;:.::.:.::::. ...:....:. ...:..;:..:..,:::.::,.:;:;_:..:::::::::::._: , , . . :.;:.;;;»;>;:,::>.::>;<<::>:::::>::>::«::<::<:;:>::::;<>::::::<:;:::>::<::.:>;;<:<:::> .......... c�Z;��ted.;s��a��.:;s��td e� PCB s, uifect�ous waste, :�au�el�c��.�::: :.:.:.:..:. :;::::��:::re��;-� non- :..........:...::.:...;........:.:...........:.::::;�.:;:: ;:.;;;;;:.:�;:.:;;:.:;:.:;:::.;:.>;��;.:;�:::<:::.:_:.;»:«::�;>r I hazardous industrial waste that is economically fea.sible to recycle; radioactive or nuclear ��'��.��:t:i::i'::::::i��.`i::i::.:i:i::i::::i:F..::::iij:::ii��?i::;:::::i:i::::�:iJ . waste• ��::;,;,.�::_>:::;::>:::<::::::�:::::::;::,.-:;::::>::«<:::::::,.;.>::<;,>: � ::»::»>::»>:;::;;:.;;;:.: �� .:.��ha�€�� z;:>aF.:��o�s�:::;qa��t�; ........�:::>::»::»:::»»::>:�.::;:.<:»::>:<_:;::»::>;::»>:�::»::>:.::::::::::::::::.:::._::::::::::.;._:::::.;::::::::�:;:::.;::;::.<... USPCI has requested the definition to be placed in their IUP to read as: Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste• Solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing process. Non-hazardous waste shall not include; liquid wastes not processed at the facility; PCBs; infectious waste; non-hazardous industrial waste that is economically feasible to recycle; and radioactive or nuclear waste. The areas of difference have been highlighted in the existing language to show you. Some of these items which have been excluded from their proposed defuution of non-hazardous industrial waste seem significant to me, so I have had discussion with Mr. Chapdelain and Mr. Kraft. Upon discussion with USPCI, Inc. representatives, they indicated that those items were not necessarily a part of their request. Any desire to accept those types of materials would have to go back through a similar process that they are doing now. An amendment to both the text and to their permits that are issued to them from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County is required. Their request at this time, is to be able to accept ash of all forms. That would include incinerator ash, RDF ash, coal ash, sludge ash or by-product from the process of recycling that ash - whatever form of ash there might be. � � �� cannmirq�3os poutmalmrr makruh. Staffs role in this approval process is to review and comment on the technological aspects of ' ash landfilling. To deternune what the regulations are and what available technology there is ' we contacted: ; 1. Dakota Counry Environment Health � 2. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (1V�CA) 3. Tom Ra.due of Barr Engineering What we have found is that approval on the local level is simply a zoning ordinance text amendment which allows that type of facility to be used or to exist within the land use rules of the City of Rosemount. Above the City of Rosemount are two "higher power" agencies that have a permitting and testing process that promulgate rules this facility n�eds to follow. Those agencies are Dakota County and the MPCA. We met with Dakota Counry and found out that their process consists of an application and then their review of the process in which USPCI will handle this material; what form the ash comes into the facility; and how their proposed acceptance methods of these materials fits into the MPCA guidelines. MPCA has a whole set of rules dedicated spec�cally to Municipal Solid Waste Combuster Ash Landfill Disposal Facilities (Minnesota Rules 7035.2885). There was a lack of any rules at all prior to 1992. Since 1992 they have developed the rules I have referred to. Since the development of these rules, there have been five facilities built in the state to accept ash from combusters. Three of them that were identified to me are located in Red Wing, Becker County, and Mankato. MPCA, in their review, has a 30-day comment period that the application must go through prior to acquiring the permit from MPCA. Through the rules, when someone makes application for this type of facility, they must first identify the waste stream(s) that they expect to be accepting into the facility. Thea, at that time, samples of ash material are taken and tested against the parameters that are identified in the "rules." Those parameters are listed on page 281 of the rules. They also indicate the required cell construction that must take place depending upon the contents of those tests, or the elements discovered, to be in the ash material. It is predominately metals that they are looking for. The contamina.nts that MPCA is looking for are listed as follows: Maximum leachable contaminant levels. The maximum leachable contaminant levels are as follows: Substance Maximum leachable � contaminant level (µg/1) Arsenic 750 Barium 30,000 Boron 9,000 Cadmium 60 Chromium 1,500 Copper 15,000 Lead 300 Manganese 9,000 Mercury 30 _.. Nickel 2,100 - Selenium 300 - Silver 300 Tin 60,000 Zinc 21 000 � � Based upon the measured Maximum Leachable Contaminant Levels (ML,CL) the cell design : is selected from the liner design standards shown in table 1 of the rules (pg 285). The following is an excerpt for cells constructed after January 1, 1993 Bottom Ash Combined Ash Fix Ash After Jan. 1, 1993: (1) Leach results<MLCL L N* N (2) MLCL<Leach results<EP O P* P (3) Leach Results>EP P P* P *Leach results must be taken from fly ash only. Key: Lea.ch results must be determined according to subpart 4. MLCL means the maximum leachable contaminant levels established in subpart 5. EP means the maximum concentration of contaminants for the toxicity characteristic established. in part 7045.0131, subpart 8, as tested according to subpart 4. Bottom ash presents the least concern, fly ash the greatest. Combined ash falls in between somewhere depending on the proportionate amount of fly ash to bottom ash. For fly or combined ash there are two cell designs. Both cells require a 3-foot clay layer built up from virgin ground/undisturbed soil for the base of the cell. On top of the clay layer is a sand filter{or a filter level) with a synthetic material on top of that, and then a cover material over the synthetic liner. Then they can bring in the material that they will dispose of. , When the levels measured in the ash aze "low" they can get by with a single synthetic liner. If the test results show a "high" level of "contaminants" then they need a double synthetic liner. Currently, the USPCI site does not have a cell with the double liner or 3 feet of clay. The acceptance of this ash material will require the construction of another cell that meets the more restrictive construction. Then it's a matter a quarterly reporting of tests upon the ash material which determines how they ca.p that material at the end of the life of that cell. In other words, if the initial test para.meters that they have show that they can use the best case design then they will be allowed to take that materiat in and dispose of it in a cell with a � single liner. But during that period, or life of that cell, if the levels within the ash test "high" then that cell can be continued to be used with the "higher" levels in it. However, there is a greater requirement for the capping of that cell upon the ended use of that cell and they are no longer allowed to use that design for any future cells that will take that particular waste stream. At any time, during the routine or random tests, that the metal content or any other undesirable elements of that leachate is found to fall within a hazardous classification then acceptance of that waste stream must be temunated at this facility. They would then take it to another facility that deals with and is pemutted for acceptance of hazardous waste. The , source of the ash must always be identified. ! After review of the rules on a limited basis and discussion with the MPCA, Dakota County, and Barr Engineeri.ng, I am certain that the technology is there to encapsulate the ash and monitor the leachate contaminate levels. Leachate collected from the cells is treated in a waste treatment facility. Currently USPCI has been allocated 118 Sewer Availability Units. The construction of another cell may cause an increa.se in the amount of Ieachate collected. Given the restricted amount of capacity in the Rosemount Waste Water Treatment plant a condition of approval must be that sufficient storage for leachate is provided. This will ensure that no more than the 118 SAC units will be necessary. Any flows above that amount will need to be trucked and treated at a different plant or stored on site with regulated flows to the plant. In 1993, USPCI generated 4,902,000 gallons of leachate treated at the RWWT plant. , � At our least meeting a representative of the Clean Water Action Group gave a presentation and I passed out a set of documents that reported various information. I have asked the representative from USPCI to respond to the questions raised regarding USPCI operation in Utah. They will be providing a written response. I have also given you materials provide by Mr. Iiarry Willcox. The information contained in his memo represents Mr. Willcox's recollection of facts. Any questions regardi.ng it should be addressed to him. It is my opinion that consideration of this request from USPCI should be considered as an amendment to their Interi.m Use Permit rather than an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The modification to the NP will keep the Zoning text in ta.ct. USPCI can request a change in their IUP without providing other RTM sites in Rosemount the ability to receive ash. A draft e�mple of the IUP will be circulated to you on Monday. USPCI has committed to meeting all standards set forth by USEPA, MPCA, and Dakota County regarding ash management and disposal. Tha.t implies to me they will also meet all standards set out (within reason) by the City of Rosemount, Section 11.3 subpart A and B of the Rosemount Zouing Ordinance lists the information required for consideration of a pemut for non-hazardous industrial waste containment facility. These should be review as part of your consideration of this request. The technology is there with regulations set forth. The only question remaining is how to answer the publics concems and insure fmancial security for our citizens future. 4 �� SELTIOh' 11 PERFORMANCE STAI�DARDS - ALL DISTRICTS SECTION 11.1 RESIDUAL FEATURES � Uses which because of the nature of their operation are accompanied by� excess of noise, } vibration, dust, dirt, smoke, odor, noxious gases, glare or wastes shall not be permitted. 'Tbese residual feawres shall be considered "excessive" when they either exceed or deviate from the �� limitations set fozth in the following performance staadards: . _ A. Noi e: Noise shall be muffled so as not to become objectionable due to intermittence, � _ � beat frequenry, shrillness or intensity. Noise levels shall be rcgulated by the standards ' of the Minnesota Polludon Control Agency (MPCA). & Vibratlon: No activity or operation shall at any time cause earth vibrations percepuble beyond the Iimits of the immediate site in which the operation is conducted. Temporary � vibrations restilting from normal consuuction or reconstruction projecis may be excepted. C. Dusrt. Dirt. Smoke. Odor. Gases: ?he release of solid and liquid partieulates, smoke, gases, toxic or noxious materials and other.matezials or odors shall be regulated by [he standards of the MPCA D. G;are: Glare from high intensity lighting or high temperature processes, ahether direct or indirect, and as differentiated from sueet lighting or general ill�aination, shall not be visble beyond the lim.its of the immediate site from w3uch i[ originates. General lot lighting or security spot lighcing shall be directed away from adjacent propercies, eliminacing or reduciag the illumination geaerated on the site. E. Wastes: All solid waste material, debris, rubbish, junk, refuse or garbage shall be kept withia a completely enclosed building or properly contaiaed within a closed coacaiaer specifically designed for such purpose. In no case shall noxious or odorous refuse or garbage be kept outside of a compleseIy enclosed building for a�period of time exceeding [he average iaterval of refuse collection by commercial rubbish haulers. Hazardous wastes generated from any acuviry or operatioa shall be properly contained, labeled and stored . for traasfer to an authorized processing, storage or burial fac�ity, according to the laws , of the State of Minnesota. SECTION 11.: EXPLOSNES Any activiry or operation requiring ihe use, storage or manufaciuring of explosives shall be located no cioser than 500 fect from any residential district, provided further that the location of said aaivity or operadon is such that damage from explosion, including flying debris, vibration or smoke, is limited to the si[e on which the activity or operation is permitted. SECTION 113 NON•HIAZARDOUS INDUSTRIAL WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILIT�' A Permit appIicanu shall submit the following informatioa together with any other informadon requested by the City: L 'rhe proposed projeci layout induding site drawings stiowing buildin8 locations, access roads, buffers and all major faeilides. 2 Proposed technology and desiga. 3. A complete desaiption of the proposed projeci's operation, iacluding but not limited to phasiag and aaticipated operating lifetime, types of wastes to be accepted and , methods to verify the waste stream,record keeging methods,.staff'mg,antidpated waste volumes, containmeat facilities, contingency and response plans. 4. A description of anucipated tr�c generated by the facility, routes to be used, and ` access to the site. _� 5. Identification of lanowa and potential environmental risks associated wi[h Lhe construction, operation and closure of the faaiity. . 43 . -. . 6. �.losure, post closure and coatingency plans, includine C:nancing plans. 7. A descriptioa of the existing site and surrounding area includiag current owners3up and land uses,curren[zoning, uansponation access to the site, topo�aph}�, existiag soil and hydrogeologic coaditioas, vegesation, wildlife, surface waters. , � 8. Need for Ciry emergency services iacludi.ng fire, poIice, emergency response, medical. 9. A descriptioa of the applicant's experience in operating the technology, proposed [raining for all operation staff, and the environmencat record of the technology. B. Permits for non-hazardous indusuial waste land disposal facilicies shall only be issued if the following standards are mei or exceeded: L 'Ihe faciIity must represen[ the best available techaology for land dispasal of non- halardous industrial waste. Z The operator and staff must have sufficien[ experience in the operation of such faciliues to ensuze competent ogeration. 3. The design, construuioa and operauon of the faciliry must minimjZe negative eavironmental impacu and must miti�ate such impacu to the fullest exteat possible. 4. Public health, safety and welfare must be ensured. 5. Adequa[e closure, post closure and conangency pIans must be estabIished. 6. Aa emergency respoase plan must be established and accepted by the City. 7. An EnvironmentaI Impact Statement must be completed and dectared adequate by [he responsble governmeacal unic. � 8. There must be adequate access to the site. ':-" c 9. The pro osed ro�ect musi be com atible wi[h surroundin land use. P P l P - � 10. The applicanc pro��des finandal security sufficien[ to guarantee compliance with the terms of the permiG 11. 'The economic benefits, inceatives and ocher advantages to the City and cornmunity must ou[wei¢h any known or po[ential negauve aspecu of the facilin�. 1? 'TIse appIicant must have a plan for worl:ing with industry to develop techniques aad markeu for reryciing industrial waste streams. 13. An interim permit shall not be issued uncil aIl required local, sute and/or federal . permiu have been obtained by the appIicanG 14. The applicant must notify each user of the site that free liquids cannot be placed in the coataiament cell; inspect each container of w-aste for the presence of Gee liquids; and have procedures to preveat any free liquid from being placed in the cell. SECTIO�' L' PLAh'YED IJNIT DE1�rELOPME�T (PUD) SECT'IO�' L'.1 PL"D PliRPOSE �►,\'D COh'DITIO\'S A. Pv ose The Planned Unic Development (PUD) procedure is appiicable to all uses and disuicu and is optional except where speciFcally required by chis ordiaaace. Iu purpose is to allow variauon from ordiaance provisions in order to: 1. Eacourage more crea[ive design in che de��elopment of 1and. 44 CLEAN WATER ACTION March 14, 1994 . Ron Wasmund Director of Public Works � City of Rosemount Rosemount, MN 55068 Dear Mr. Wasmund: I am writing to submit comments from Clean ��iater Action Alliance (CWAA) to the Rosemount Planninq Commission regarding USPCI ' s proposal to dispose of incinerator ash at its Rosemount __facility. Please find enclosed d�ta provided to us from the Environmental Defense Fund. As the cover memo and accompanying data indicate, leachate from incinerator ash from a variety of monofills around the country have significantly exceeded Federal Drinking Water Standards for toxic heavy metals such as lead, chromium, cadmium, and mercury. The enclosed data is sianificant because it confirms the hazardous nature of incinerator ash. As incinerators are forced to conform to stricter air emissions standards , the toxic characteristics of ash will onlv increase over time For example, the Hennepin County incinerator will be installina an activated carbon iniection svstem to decrease mercurv stack emissions. It is likelv that such a svstem will enrich ash with mercury. Secondly, the issue of whether incinerator ash should be requlated i as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of the Federal Resource II Conservation and Recovery Act is. before the United States 5upreme Court. Please find enclosed a some backaround information on the � Iower court rulina of November 1991 that concluded that under I current Federal law incinerator ash is subiect to hazardous waste ', reciulations. ' Finally, CWAA is concerned about USPCI ' s compliance history. I am enclosing a letter from the Union County (PA� Planning Commission which cites concerns over USPCI ' s repeated violations at various facilities around the country as one reason for the Planning Commission' s opposition to a USPCI ash landfill . CLEAN WATER ACTION Midwest Regional Office.326 Hennepin Ave.E..Minneapolis,MN 55414.612/623-3666 1418 First Avenue,NE.Rochester,MN 55904■507/281-1390 394 Lal:e Ave.S,#312A.Duluth,MN 55802■218/722-8557 118 N.Broadway,#211 .Fargo,ND 58102.701/235-5431 4990 Northwind Dr..E.Lansing,MI 48823■517/337-4447 National Office. 1320 18th St.N.W..Washington.DC 20036.202/457-1286 . a _ rri�_ . �� . . For the aforementioned reasons, CWAA urges that the Rosemount Planning Commissions reject USPCI ' s proposal for an ash landfill in• Rosemount. Please don't hesitate to contact me at 623-3666, if you have further questions. Sin�ely, , r� l � -� I , ��%f/�-- /��/C�,. Frank Hornstein Organizing Director , MAR-17-1994 08�21 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO 4235203 P.01 . •� �'� � !L� 1G� .t�'e � j � r�+ ,�t �T, �Taf , �'� ' 1L '!�r•�1.. lL7R l�l `L.J► .�..r � � ]L ..m Chu cenr�ra ' 825 415�'AVE.N.E. . r '•'. COC.L-'Iv�1A HEIGHfi.I�fN 55�2I-29""�4 . • � Pf-{C�NE (fi 12� 751-4881 •FAX .NUMB��?: fi�2 783-4884 . ( } 1VAi�fE: �f/ � --- DEi'T: � �1�X � #: NUMBEI� O� PAGES: � (3NCLUDUVG CQVER SH�T} �� FROtvf: ��.-„� �'LEAS� �A1..L AF7'ER YtaU R�C�iVE TH1S �AX? Y�S �"' NQ ❑ �-. , i�rt�SSAGE . ,, A private,nanprofit mllege�evoted to technir.�!trainingsinte 19:� : �,�;� .eeuano :: ...,:��«.- w..n. � �. . MAR-17-1994 08�21 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHN�OGY TO 4235203 P.02 , SCpt�mber 19, 1989 Hazardous Waste Ordinance I wauld liK�� to put �r�to the r�cords the following r.ew reasons not to accept the proposed ordir�ance. 1• E�n3y nan-hazardous waste will go in there. I repea� that � circuit boards frcm computwrs contain Iead, tin and �opper which 1s hazardous wren allowed to corrode. Aaint was�e is al:�o hazardous. 2. ?''�R p M� :'�arZ 198G �� Iars g�.ven to the city over 30 yaars �a maintain the site, w�en infla�i.on is fa�:to:ed in, wii� �e ' wop*h �nit► � iri3 A�.;r� c�c�Ilar� wh�c� I d�ub} wil� cuve� �r.y rz$2 ' prablems. The enviroru:zental surcharge income for the r.ounty �ril � ', be 392, 404 and for the eity will be 52, 600 dollars per y�sr with I a waste stream input of �15, 0�4 �ons p�r y�ax-. The coun+y out of ' �ocl�et e:�enses pzr year i s est xm,ated at 1a, Ofl0 do l i ars and- the city rs at 5000 doI laxs, the�efore the co�nty �s incom� ig about 7. 5 timss fh" C3'�;y� 's w�th or�ly 2 tim�s the expertse, �Y ZS THIS A GOOD DEAL FQR TH� RESIDENTS OF ROSEM4UNT? 3. The storm water draina.gs that USPCI refers to is only their � iciea o�' what it should and would be. In view r�� the fa�t that ? sat on the storm water AD HOC cammittee that drew up the master ��rn wa�Ge�r plar f�r the city of Ros�maunt, this nroposai was never presented to us for apFroval. Is it consistent witlZ w3zat We want far +he cit�J;� Tne stef£ whert giving Harr Engineering and the comm�.ttee the �ssignment, told us to �o only the West ha2f ;rbm Akron Avenue west to �he Apple VaII�y baxder. Also that when the East half af R�semount started deve3aping that they wvuid inxtiate a study on that. 4. The gund3.e liner that is used ciaims on site test�.ng: both destructive and non-destructive seams �.ests and that they are 200� vacuum chamber tested. I find this to be false due to the ��t tY�c�t it is extrusian welded on only one side and it comes in 22. 5 foot widths which when ro2led out in the lengths required to line the cell it would be impasgible to find that large a vacuum chambex. 5. The ��achat�, which is caused eitY�er b;� x•sin, sr►owfall, ruz�off oz- percolation, can become contaminated and then either pe��i� 3 #.me,, qufck 3 ime and/or i ime ki ln dust' ar�d can be used +o bring back the PH balaz�ce of the warter bcfore it enter� the soz�. or the Mississi�pi River. It� however� goEs undetected anct Ieac�ces into the soil and upsets the PH� a� th� so�.� which in turn ellows . e?ectroly�is to work on the many burzed gaso?ine and LP gas pipelines that � referred t4 �t the 2ast meeting. We then have a $ood chance for an explosion that WOLIICI mske Shoreview �s explc�sion very smail by c�mparison. Tlnat acci�ent cisimed� I believe, 2 lives and a�out 3-4 }�ouses, not including th� suffering and pain. Is this pros ect worth that kind of risk? I think not. , � MAR-17-1994 08�22 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO 4235203 P.03 6. I th�rik that the council shouid keep in �ind that BF3 has a proposal before the MPCA for a permit tc burn hazardous medical waste and store it at the site of the present Iar�dfill which is in that area. � believe that the legislature ha� acccpted the rules and regu�atians for the harzdling of inedicsl waste. Th� . peop3.e that cap these celis predict that to be ab2e to cap th�m when full, whether it is the ash or the waste itself, maybe 20 years away for a safe solution. Do we vrarit this in our backyard � �oo? I think not. Remember that there are compan�.es todsy that go around and clean up and cap the cells that were stax-ted or f i].1 ed up 2t3 years ago and thought ta be safe on).y to f ind out that today we h�.ve a much larg�r problem than was original2y envisianea. ?. May I suggest to you that you re,�ect any type of waste martagement nrdinsnce because we are doiz�g our part for ti-►e state �s a whole. For �xar,zple, the po� 1.ution at Koch Refinery where the state gets a I arge par� of tYteir g�so i is�.e• T:�st i�_ r��t �uivc�c.i y�t. ��r� L,�i�i�,��.t tY�� i$�fot� c�f �rac�iLion�r� �� Tri�F�:�:�_�*i �,��vrr_:1 �r:_:_� �;PT �t�e �.��}i�� r t��x�y wrote c�r� - �F�;c'��"��U� l"l1�t��C$� WB��a, �r�n C�i!'2�8vt E:':Vj:'�l13�.1E^''i.H� ��vC�TE?"V rG CENPECQ INC. Z the Fisk 3uildirtg, P, 0. BO� 98�3, A��Y'�.i iw� �'�� 79�tJ� �:xea CQde �t,��a-�'?�,�-��x�4• Finc� �u-t what �Y�eg have to say about the final casts and problems we may incur vaitl� sucYi a facility. Please do and make an informed deci�ion. 8. Even though the Met. Council, the MPCA, and Dakots County say the site is suitable, may I remind you that tney do not goverr. th� ci.�y le.nd ar:d tha� ar�iy Y�LT Lh� ccunci i are resnon�ible ta the wishes of the people tnat elected you. A3�ID WE SAY NOt ! ! ! t � t TY�ank you. Harry R. Willcox . MAR-1?-1994 08�22 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO 4235203 P.04 " . � � , ....._.�.._..... ' ...._..._..- USRC3 FE��.� . � . � .. • . � . � , . , � . . F=I�fqNC'IA1.. CON�`�'IDEF2ATTUN�a • . . , ' � . � 1. U�i}C� a7"ATEsa" TMp'T' ZN 3l1 YEAR� i�4�tt> RpSEMQUNT WILL HAVE R �� TRUST 'CµG�T XS WCJFt7J-d E3. � tytZ�L.S01�1 DC3LLF�E�£. THIa WSL•L GTVG US t3NLY 2 � " , MILL..Yt�hf 1:�B"•3 Uf)l..L�R�. Tt-�23 x� h10T. A G�OD D6A1,., F'Q�i RCISCMOUNT. � . �_. USG.,CI� ;a "t"i�UST ACtiR��:.MENT DO�� NOT .SF3Y Wt-iCRE TH� hit�NEY IS G02t�iC3 � TO GL7M� �'�{�}M pNtf W�tEN QR HCIW Y7 WIL.,L BE F'I.1T Y1titTU "t"HC TRU�7. 7NEY AL.SC) � t�i«Vf": 1�{�37 MF�UG G� GFlf3'+1 I Ga"X Uht TtI F'UT . I tV MQRE MU{U�Y, TC3 faLC.UW 7FiC TRLJST TQ i:E.:S.:F� {:,F�C:F�.i W L TH x PJ�(_HT I LJPi. _ . �%. 7 t-dC� L:,I'i"Y .:t�a J�C:�C�/Llhd3 x E3l.E FC1t� tJF� �TD t h1I t�L I C1N i�OL.LAR� t3R . UNI.�•'f�{�iSRI� tJi� '1"!•iC.: Mb�i�:Y' :� lt+t "i'HC TRU�T FU�tb WWICH EV�R 15 L.�S3 ztV TWE �V:.:i��' tJf= F�N G��L;"i' t�i= GC)1) Glft F� CF3TASTRE7F�t�1Ei. . , ��. 'i'i-I�_ E_F��r�t) �tr.C��Ut�Cs��S� Af�RE:EM�N'T T� A E+�.N��XT �]hiL.Y TD U�aCx. THEY Y;S(aUt:ii 1T 'i`F-1;;" LHJ�II) d�a'(' 1`:!«}� l�1fZ I C�� ia1Vl� W Y i,.t,_ 5EL1.. AhiY F2EMA�i+i�lVU. LAND aACK _ � � 'I't1 "�If£: C�'i'Y t�'D' t3'::�/ t1�� c:C3r;1.i LF1NU AF�F�STA1''-a"f�U VFaLUC:a. � • . ''' .`:�.. G(=�i�AGf'�AN�!•i� a 1 pNt�. 4 l��U�2F'C1af•; lai�IL} U5� 0�' TN� 'i"F2U�7) �C1htTRADICT I � EAC:N UTI-IE:l� 4J�'fNi l2k�:�F��Lc:"r T(:J Ti-fE U��: U� FUI�Dfa FOFt ��f?L�I7IL'�L��U�tVOSC� S � �CT. . L�i. TFiL: F'F1G!L'x T'Y W!i...l. C:L.C1^aE I 1V ,��a Y�:Af�S (2Cf��) f�t�fF� �"I�i�fi�' �a !VO " . F'RQ�1.z5IQl�E !'fC�b� t=Clf? Faf:f.'!I)C�i�T.�".� Ot� CfaT��'F'F�CIF�!•!E' � AFTEF3 TF�AT �L}ATC, 'LINCR: � : . 1. TI-�� L.Y E'J�f�t �C)M�:.; UN ROLL� X N ;:::,, �; F"Of]T W�D7H5 ANA WH�N F�t,1'I" X N f� ACF2�, 4U f'UU'T pL;:E�► FiUI...L.�.r's I T W I LL i�EqU x t3� A NUMEaER OF rEAMS. THC.,�'3E �CAid h(U7' E+� C}�E:G.I{�:IS bY VF�CtJUM A.-,""i YF3E CCIMPANY WQUIr17 1�EAVE YQU EsELTEV�. '1'E1�Y AR� �CAM W�L13�D �f3t�t E7hIl.Y dN� SIU�:. 71�� L.zN�R S�' GU{�F2f1NTE�A FOR ' UNl..Y r'�� Y�faFl;�: TMFaT I::i �tC� Y�Af7:i L�aa ThiAN TF1�:: Cl..qSTNG DA7"G O�' 7H� . f'A�:11..X'FY (:�d�:4� . ' � � . �. T}•iC J�ti31V•••i-tAZA�2L?UIJ� a7ATU�.3 ?hiFa�' U��s`i"�C� t�lAa Ar-'FLS�D �'Of2 r�ELZUIRES �NC.Y, C?N� L Y Ni�Fi, THGY HRE: PUTT I NG X 1� T!-i�EE L I Nf R�, WH Z C'�� Ci..AS��X�� x T . Hu � �-tA2ARA0U� WR�TE �AUMN LIN�i2. HC1W L.Cfi�lG •Wi�t.. IT �5�. �EFt]R� THEY CL1ME • '�faC!< i�N2� l�G��LY FQft A FiA71�f2'�}t��}�IT,t f� CtJM�'ANY CAPE t+fC)'i' •MAi<�^ R ' . PHUFIT FsY C�UER �UZLA�IVL A P�20JECT. • � . . . 3. TFI�Y pRE, US'lI�L',` �a�QtiT CO pCRC� C�f" Tf�� TnTAL �f�t� ACFtC� t7F LAND THE"•.Y WANT S�CXGM�D FOit 7�i1; �RCS�N'f Lf�1VU '�'Xt.,.L.. WW�:fV F�al{�� p�pU'� TWE: ' ft�MfliNYNC lE3U qCRC:: Ui= t..(�hIIJ Tl�t�:Y AfiC :VEFtY VF3ELtEy WHY? � ' , ' W�:�"C�e 5TF2EpM INiF�UT; � ' ' . . 1. T�l� £�R�AK �U�N P�lIdT L3F Tt�tE U��C� �ACTLTi'Y 7LS 4`:�, 4G1� •TONS F'�R 'YGl�1Fi. Wi•iCN pafC�U WS-iH'T 7�l:.:Y W:[t�L Dt7 �F T{•I.�"-.Y Df3 tVUT' (a�:T' �T1dCa'i" FIMOUNT T1-{E � UNLY� fatV:aW�:F7 71d�i'C Tl3�Y W,::.:l., (;x11� �� Tl-l��T TF9E:Sf't M�F�It�:'fXNC� al"Ullx�� Shtt7W Tf•IF3C .Tf•iCY CLth! CwT �T i'1L.c. F'fZUM t3UF2 M�,'f�:Q A�EA. 7hf�1F CLtaxM T��i�1T 'iHCY �WAVE:: �ND a�.TE:HhtFa7�: �LA1v "t�U E+RSNG Xiv m�T��ZX�L �'RUM GTFa�R ��c�A� 5 FsUT • THEY ivEEL? 4W;� pi:�c] �'pJy� TL'? li REAF4 EV[:lY.. TFi x S I a T!-tE F I RST CUNii�ANY 7U F'U7' . Al.l.. T!-iC:ZR �EGG� �tiV (3N•L'•' Gf�:>:S�T xF' WE: �f�� 'i'p �CI..x�VE WNi�'l" T�tEY �«Y. , UNG .MUu7 E'sEAR. IN 3�7XtdD TS•t� f�l�:.:II..YTY ;E"f� N�XT •TO A RAYLfiflAU f;GUR AlV� C� . M�IN HlGtat�JAY. ' � � 2, TF�E ENV x RONM�:tvT�L .��,Ut�Ct�iARC� T hiLL1M� �'UR .TH� C:OUIV'1'Y W I L1.. � �E 3►3r.�c'i �r�A ANll �UR Ti-I� t:�'�Y si:�c:� E-.GG. T�•IC COUi�lTY' S EXF'EN3E Wz�L E�� . •s xC�, 444 Aa�lb •'C�ifr ��TY• :3 ��;<aC�c7, TF•ic:F��F'CiF2C 7t-�E -COUNTY° S i NCUM� X� A�ouT ' . 7. � 'C:t MG5 7Y-�C: C;�7'Y� � W I T!�i t1Nf�Y ;w �7'I Nik;:i l"f•�E� �X GCN:iE. bU:�Y�.Y,_�:1_�.Y�..A t . C�.��Cai.,�F.��3...'fl•1f'f.._T'�i�fjl�3f�t.t�C'��" C]� �. `�r'3.1�4.N�:'. . . ' , � . � . , , � MAR-1?-1994 08�23 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO 4235203 P.05 � •� , I WISFi TO THANK "CNE MAYOR pND MEMHERS CJF ThIE CCtUNCIL FC�R ' THE C3RPQRTUNITY TC3 AD�DRE�as YQU THI� EVENItr1G CL7MC�RiVING THE . ' PROP�05ED Hf��ARDOUB WASTE QRDII�tAtVC�. I H�Ve BE�N A RESIDEnlT ' �'F3R �0 YEARS AND HDi�E TQ RETZRE HERE. I SIIVCERELY HOF�E THAT YOU CQLL.ECTIVELY AS EL�CTED OFFTCIALS ' W I LL VC�TE 7H Y S QRD I NflNCE DC1Wl�l AS THAT I S THE W I�M OF THE MAJORITY �F T�-!E P�OPLE HERE FdR Tt�E FOL.LCIWI�VG �2EA�ONS. 1. THE �I�DIN�INCE fiS ht�Q��OS�D WrLL QPE3� 'THE DOE3�t TCI ALL.i�I,J TME EA�TERN HfYLr OF OUC� GflMMllN I TY TO PEGOMES A �l��L.I C DUks+IP IN TERlnS OF LAND, AIR, AND WATER POLLUTII�N. I THINK YUU W�LL AGf�EE WTT!-S ME WMEN YflU �OIVSrDE� THE 1=tJLLt3WZN 1=A�T�� A, T!-tE CELLS AS U« S. ��. C. I. CALLS THEhS. MAY�t�• �TlVED AIVD WITH EXSZSTItVG TEGHI�tL'lLC3GY A�'R�Aft T[� L� SAFE Tl3D6�Y. i FTND TNI� V�RY HARD T(3 ACC�PT DU� T(7 TFiE FACT TNf3T OVER T1iE Y�ARS 1`MAT 2 HAV� WC?RKED I1�S A LEADIfVG EDGE TECWNQI._i3GY THAT HAD ALL. THE AI�fBWERS ONLY TO FIND THAT THE RTGMT QUESTIt�NS NAA NQT BEEIV ASKEA. CQ�EGUTER P1C R06�RDS CONTAIrii LEAD, TTNC, TI1� At�D COF�FtEE� Rt�iD ARE COhiSIDCRED HAZAF;DDuS WASTE. YQU CA�i A8EC ANY .�NG IlVEER ANb THEY W I LL 7ELL Yd�1 7HAT �T WORKS PERFECTLY QI�! F�APER i3R COMF�UTER h10AEL, QNLY TQ FIND .OUT WHEl�1 PUT Tt7 THE T�ST EVERYTHI NG D�D NOT GO AS RLANlVED. T DO N�T WANT TO �-fAND Th1I S TO MY CH I I...DREI�t iVQW ONLY TQ F I�fD OIJT THAT AT THE ENI? QF 3�'1 YEARS TH� TEC!-{NOLQGLY DOES 4VOT YET EX I aT TO CLEAN UA Tl-tE M�SS b+fE GAVE Tl-iCM. �„ WE ALSO H�1VE TNE FOLL.QWxiVG CURRENT SOURCES OP RQt�.C.UT I QN THAT I FEEL Sf-�C3UL.D F i L� W I Tt-i THE G I TY WMAT THEY ARE GOZNG TO L7b TCt HEL� IMfi�ROVE OR �ZRz LAIVA AND WATER GEUAILTY Ah,ID W�-E8lV I�' LJIL� BE Df7NE SEFdftE ietE ADTJ A N�W S�LJRCE QR -r'aOURCES bF Rf7SSIBLE PtILLUTION. p. KOCH REFINERY EST�PLI�H�D Ilti A��PROlC 195,� l�ND �S FROCE5S I1�iG ? AMt�L.�t�tT MQRE NQW THAN THEN. DOES THE C I TY MONITOFt 't'HEM NOW? � 8. M I D-AME R I CA �I pE !..r NG ��TA�L I 5I-tED I N THE 1954+ S LP BA8 WH�LE�F�L.cR C. GAS SUP�LY CC]. <NL7R7HERh2 HYDRQ CAR�ai�t} E�TAf#L ISHCI? I i�l TN� 195�� S. LP GAS Wi-k�LESALER D. SU�UREsAN GAS; EST. ? HA� AT LEi�ST 4 3�K GA� STt�RAGE TANliS raQME �� WHICH WERE MADE FROM BpRGE T'rZA1VSF�fi TANt4S. ARE THESE UP Ti3 COD�? TFlEY ARE L h1ILES FROt+�I K�CI-1. 1_P GAS RETAILER. E. CEt�lEX EST. ? THEY ARE APQU7 ONE HALF A MILE FRQM KOCH. REF I NERY. F. UNICIN CARBIDE CARBON CHEMICALS COR��. EST. ? tLINDE DTV. } 7HEY ARE RFGHT ACR08S T�-IC FENCE FROM KQCH. WFiAT ARE TFiEY DOINC., Tl-iERE? IF TNEY M{�NUFACTURE C�XYGEN TH�Y ARE 5"RR TOO Cl..OSE T� f� HYDRD CARHON PLAN7. �SAS�D UF�O�V . THE FLA�#�1 GLI2fV7 QF TI-I� F'ARTYCIiLAR HYDRO-CARB�N SPQNTANQUS COMBLlSTION CpN AND WILL OCCUR DURING THC MANUFACTURING aRQCE�S. RRI�R TO 1960 UGC t-iAD AN �XCELLANT �A�'ETY REC�RD AND I D(]UBT THflT HAD THE SAME SA�cTY i��2AC�TICE5 BEEN Fa��.owE�r PDUPNAL YNDIA WOULD IVC3T I-EAVC HflW�+CIVED. MRR-17-1994 08:24 FROM NEI COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY TO 4235203 P.06 " . � G. Ut�iIVERSITY OF M•INIV. EST? LAND GR�11VT FNSTITU�'�dN, �XP��M��iT rTATION WyIGH �i� TH� 195�3T S WAS WELL FC1VOWi�t F�R I T s S LEAD I NG EDGE 7EC;-�Nb�.i��Y I i�! TWE �A I RY INDUSTRY TIV THW AR�A Or F'FPE tI1�tE MILM�RS AND IYiILiiING FjAR1...t7�iS. TO DAI� THEY HAVE THE UNDES I RAEtL.E RERUTAT I C#N 13F BEING A MAJOR G�20UNt7 WFITER GQLLU'�ER, f#Y IdAUY1VG HAZAR13tJU5 WASTE� F�CB" S ANL7 �rIRS'i'� F'�tCtDUCT5 FRtaP�t Ti-i� f+lF1EVUFF�CTtiF2E Q� AMMUhl�TIp(�I DU�ING WW 2. H. SPECTL3R A��t3Y EST. ? s. TF-i��E i S A�.SO TALK AH�UT A BUaN �AC�L I 7Y THA�" �!3 Ll. �RQDUCE C-��H AND FLY RSH�. IF THL SCF2UB�Sc�i� ��N' T 4,tOR�C TT WZLl,. 5�1..�aR �RGDUCE AiR F�G)Li..UTIQtV Ai�tD IF Ti-�EY iAB�VE 3r1EN'f'ION�n IsJD�S'i f�IC� I}C1E�1'-�T �URN CI.=AN Wl-EO 6C7S 71-fE �LAME'� � 4_ THE[�E �� f�L�O 'f'ALh A�OU7 1'�-lL NEED rt7R A AS}-t �ECYCLI NG i�LAI�T Ti� TRN.c CAR� OF THE ASH t REM�H�R M�LS. Y S N�7T HAV I NC flNY �.UCK �ETT I NG ANYO�EE 1"0 TAKE .7HF�f?�} . RE�ARDLESS HC3W �'a�i�Y ATTLM��T TU �QNTA X N THE M�1TE�I�►L THER� Z� � PETTER THRN AVERAGE CHRNCE I? WILL LEACH I1�1TC3 TWE GROUND WATEI� Ti-fEi�i WHL'� WTLf_ ESE �tLf�MEb Ti-!� Ui�tTV. QR TH� ASH PL�-1�IT? AL.SQ C�NCE TI-;E RLANT �S I iJ fxLACE THERE �S hid Ci 7T I I�iC� �t I D Q�' I"!'. 5. Oi�i AUGUST c2. i'3fs"3 THE CCIUN i"Y EZOARD �FF�W F I T TQ �-1L..Lt7W SrS�t TO I U I LD A 47 AC�E Ia�Mt�L I T�DN WASTE MAN��EMENT F�iG Z L I"f'Y ;G(7 YARI?S EA�T OF R I CH VALLEY BCIULEVRCD I h� I�V�R Gf�D`JE HEYGH7S ANU rt0:3CMOUNT. �KB SAiD TFfAT THEY WERE G�ZNE.� TQ l=6.1T I1V A CLFtY LINEft FOR THEIR PROTEG7ION f�1�iD TME F'RQTECTIQN OF Tri�. CCihiMUN I TY. THEY G'TR�SSED f-ft3W�VEFt 7`r1AT TNk:. W�T�E� GAlV SEEG I N7tJ TWC GF�OU;VD AND THAT THE t�I NER I S NQT A "COTALLY TIGMT CDNTAINER. THIB LIyER HAS A MrNIMUM I..Tt"�' tyat,AIiVG TH� MQ�ECU�ES) Qr �t7 YEAR�. THE LTNER Ia REING ��UT IfV E�ECAU�E Q� T!-i,'-= �LO�E PROXIMITY TO. f�iOC�-i? TI-tIS ZS VERY GQQD DUE TO THE FAGT Ti-iAT ThfE AFi��1 R�WIh11� !�{tl��-i Y S CR Y S�-Cr�QSSEA W I TH I..P-GAS iA I RE L F NES FRCM CL..�f-�R i_AK� 3[3WA a�D wOC?bST�GK �LL. �MiL�-AMER�CA� AND THE1V Ta SUE�uR�Ac� GAS COM�'ANY TO THE NORTH� i{�CH GE'1"� �"N£1 r� CRI.lDE �r�t�M F4�1ltit�AS �t7 "�l�EY YJ I LL. MRVE i NCON'l I NG CRUDE r�[�lI1 OLITGO I i�IG F Y N I�WET} PROT?�i�T T t� 7HC �AME �r ELD. CE�aL'X GCTS Tt-��i� c Ru�E �ROrf WRC�a�HA TM��iEFORE TNEY WILL. HAVE 4�i� INCbh�€rN� C�UDE AIUD At�! OUTGtJ I NCz F I N I a}•lEE? F��tt3DlJGT L�IVE �N THE SAI�'!E RRER. c'�cH 7 Nl'? SUEiUR�-�AN GAS Tt-;�KE I S A �Hhibt=T LL W S ZH 1-l�WV�tii ONLY KNQWS WHATS I1V Tl-iE4E. IN CQI�CLUS�OI�i 7HERE I5 NDT a �Ei��3y HEFtE TI•iAT AaE�1V° T GI�t1�iT T� DCt THEI� fiART IkV T�IE FIGHT AGflFi�4ST R�L.LUT:t�N TH�� FQR I I FEEL. 7NAT WE ARE THE SILEhlT MAJORITY aND RESF�ECTFULI�Y '' RE�U�:ST THFil' Yf]U PRC3'PECT tt5 THE GEO�'�E THAT VOTED YL7iJ INTi3 � OFFICE AI�tD VO7E THIS OF2DINANCE DQt�t�t. TMEiV WE Cfll�l WORti ' TQGETt-fER WIT�-i TI-!E S+IAPiL7FFiCTURES� RACKqt�",� � �-11�iD RMTC��..,=RS, TO 'I STO� POLLU�'I C1N 4�IHERc I T BEC-�INa. I f= NE�D �C ��U1" X T QN A Ft�F�R�NDUM. TOTAL P.06 Exhibit A Amendm ent to Interim Use Permit Agreement USPCI, Inc. 1994 THIS AbiEN'DMENT, dated , 1994 is made by and between USPCI, Inc. , a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter °USPCI��) and the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter the "City") and is intended to amend the Interim Use Permit Agreement, dated March 19, 1992, between USPCI and the City (hereinafter the "Agreement") . RECITALS * USPCI entered into the Agreement with the City on March 19, 1992; * Among other things, the Agreement identifies the types of wastes which USPCI may dispose of at the non- hazardous waste containment facility (hereinafter the "Facility") further described in the Agreement; and * The parties to the Agreement are desirous of amending the Agreement to allow the disposal of ash at the Facility under certain specified conditions. NOW, THPREFORE, the parties agree to amend the Agreement by adding a section after Section 12 of the Agreement to read as follows: 12A. Disposal of Ash/Conditions: Despite the provision of Section 12 above, USPCI may dispose of ash at the Facility, but only pursuant to the following conditions: 1) USPCI shall not use ash as cover over waste when fill heights exceed the height of the perimeter berm at the MICF. 2) During transport of all 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 mitigation from ash disposal at the MICF. USPCI may utilize, but is not limited to, one or more of the following methods for dust eontrol : 1) conditioning the ash by addition of moisture; 2) handling ash when wind conditions are calm; 3) immediately covering ash with cover materials. Al1 methods utilized must be in conformance with all other provisions of the permit. 4) Ash disposal at the Facility must not result in leachate discharges to the Rosemount Waste Water Treatment Plant which fail to comply 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 eomposition of leachate discharged from the MICF to the Rosemount WWTP. Except as specifically amended in this and other I properly executed Amendments, the Agreement shall remain at full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written. USPCI, INC. A Subsidiary of Union Pacific Corp. By: CITY OF ROSEMOUNT By: E.B. McMenomy, Mayor By: Thomas D. Burt, City Administrator STATE OF TEXAS ) ) ss COUNTY 4F ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of , 1994, by , its , on behalf of USPCI, Inc. , a subsidiary of Union Pacific Corporation. Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _day of , 1994 by E.B. McMenomy, Ma.yor, and Thomas D. Burt, City Administrator, on behalf of the City of Rosemount, a Minnesota municipal corporation. Notary Public 3 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS CiTY OF ROSEMOUNT ROSEMOUNT, MiNNESOTA Dear City Councii Mernber, 04%12194 ' Unfortunately I will not be abie to attend the Open Hearing concerning USPCI to be heid Tuesday Aprif 20th due to a prior profiessionai commitment. i wasn`t pianning on speaking at the hear�ng unless outside spokespeopie rrom so cailed environmentai organizatfons gave too much of a sianteti presentation. I wouid (ike to make it clea� that no one from USPCf asked ror a presentation from me or fior tnis ietter to be written. My reason for writing is that 1 think USPCI has been a darn good member ot this community. i have requested tunds a number o� times irom their trusi tuncs for diffierent chamber p�-o�ects, Meais on VVheeis, and Enckson Town Gr�en committee and each time the committees were granted func�s. �is�, ar�a L� me more important, different member; or USPC! i-�ave been active participants in our town groups and committee� and have w�r�z�S �-�arci, giving ot their time. During the late i 960's an� eariy �0's, i was a member or thz Sierra Ciub. In fact I started the first gfass recyciing program �r� a loca� ie�e� for the Mpfs chapter, fong before it was mandatory. ! piaced recyciing barreis in the back of my parent's pharmacy for giass and r�aul�d �c wa� out to Rosemount. The reason f joined the club was because of their motto: "Not biind opposition to progress, but opposit�on ta biind progress" However after severai years I b�ecame disenchanted with them because I, they didr�'t live up to this motto. Instead they were agair�s� just about ', everything and took a extremist hardline position on everything. i reaiize the vaiue of this when it comes to compromises, however they never seemed to wa�t to compromise. , The issue that the outside groups have bro�gi�L in front ofi ti-�e �ouncil previously, reminds me of this. it seems they just can't see good in anything, just the bad. Yes it's too bad that some garbage has to be burnt. And yes, it's too bad that there is ash left over. However, USFCI is not the cause of this. They are trying to take care of a probiem that is aut there and is of reai concern. The reaiity is that th�re is ash and to me it seems a iot more fogicai and safe to bury it in a controlied site 5uch as USPCI rather than in a non controiied iocation. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to eleminate the need for incinerators in the #utur�, but the problem is real today. �et's not bury are heads and ignore that we may need temporary solutions today before the perfect solution hopefuily is put in place some time in the future. ' The reality is that these speakers should ail be standing in front of you stark naked after waiking here from where ever they came. Unless they handsheared sheep, spun and weaved their own cfoth, their cioths have contributed somehow to the demise of our environment. No matter ' how much any of us realiy cares about the environment, the reality is that ' nothing is perfect and as (ong as we live on this planet, we are going to ', have an impact on it. Thus the best that we can ask is that we do the best �'� we know how at any given time and that we continue to strive for better. �'� To me the USPCI site is the best that we can ask today. Hopefully next decade wiii see no need for it. However l must once again state that i wouid much rather have everything buried in a controifed site �ather ti�an in a landfiil with very few controls. Thanic you for taking some of your vaivable time to read this ietter. R ec �v�iY Yours, �� -�2 ohn Locn . . Owner Loch Pharmacy,lnc ' 2975 145th Str. Rosemount,Mn 55068 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Tom Burt City Administrator, Rosemount FROM: Mike Miles /�� City Attorn DATEs April 15, 1994 RE: Miscellaneous USPCI Matters As you requested, the following are a series of brief responses to questions that have been posed to you with respect to USPCI ' s desire to obtain authority from the City to place ash in its non-hazardous industrial waste containment facility in Rosemount, Minnesota . If you desire more elaboration on any of these issues , I will be glad to provide same in writing or discuss these matters with you and/or the City Council . 1 . Must the City of Rosemount amend its zoning ardinance, as wel l as the interim use permit granted to USPCI, in order to authorize USPCI's placement of incinerator, resouree recovery or power plant ash at the Rosemount facility? Section 3 . 2 of Ordinance B of the City of Rosemount zoning ordinance, defines non-hazardous industrial waste in such a way as to exclude "incinerator, resource recovery or power plant ash, or byproduct from the processing or recycling of such ash. " Therefore, this ordinance, which supersedes the provisions of the Interim Use Permit Agreement between USPCI and the City, would require the enactment of a text amendment to remove the enumerated exclusion and authorize USPCI 's request. 2. Is there a difference between toxic and hazardous waste and, if so, what is the difference? This is a relatively complex question in terms of the myriad af federal and state definitions involving pollutants . Consequently, I have consulted with Ms . Kris Hulsebus, Special Assistant Attorney General, assigned to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on Hazardous Waste Issues . Based on this consultation and a review of applicable law, the following information may be useful . Generally speaking, hazardous" waste classification of „ substances is a much broader characterization than the term, "toxic . " Under federal law, hazardous wastes are placed into two general categories : Listed hazardous waste and Characteristic hazardous waste. Tom Burt, City Administrator April 15, 1994 Page 2 Listed hazardous waste substances is a list of which, if contained in waste materials , makes these materials so hazardous that even if only a minute amount of the substance is found in a body of waste, the entire body of waste material would be declared hazardous . Characteristic hazardous waste is that which is sufficiently toxic, corrosive, ignitable or reactive so that it is deemed to be hazardous . The test for Characteristic hazardous waste is whether one of the , elements ( i .e. , toxicity, corrosiveness , etc. ) is present in sufficient amounts in the waste to "earn" categorization of the waste as hazardous . Stated another ', way, waste material could be toxic, but if the toxicity , is not found in a sufficient amount, the waste material '' would not be deemed hazardous . 3 . If the federal government or Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in the future, declared certain types of ash to be hazardous, would USPCI have to stop dumping them into the Rosemount containment facility? If the City of Rosemount elects to allow USPCI to place . various types of ash in the containment facility, and assuming that the City continues to limit USPCI ' s permit only to non-hazardous materials , USPCI would have to stop dumping any materials which, by future reclassification, did not meet the limited authorization provided by the City. Moreover, if USPCI' s current permits from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County only allow the placement of non-hazardous waste into the containment facility, USPCI would also have to obtain new permits from those two agencies before continuing to place a material newly classified as hazardous into the facility. Please note that Special Assistant Attorney General Hulsebus believes that the reclassification of materials currently viewed as non-hazardous to a hazardous classification, is very unlikely. The reason for this is that the various regulatory agencies at the federal and state level are attempting to "down-classify" many waste materials because ( 1 } experience and new technology have provided effective ways to deal with such waste, and { 2 ) the cost of storing hazardous waste is extremely high, and thus to be avoided where reasonable.: Tom Burt, City Administrator April 15, 1994 Page 3 4. If governmental authorities do upgrade the classification of certain ash from non-hazardous to hazardous, would USPCI have to remove the newly-classified material which has already been placed in the containment facility? Except in highly unusual circumstances , USPCI would not have to remove the material already stored. Generally, laws are not made retroactive, except where an extreme risk makes it necessary to do so. According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, it is very unlikely that the reclassification of industrial and other ash would gose such a health and safety risk. 5. If USPCI goes bankrupt, what happens to the containment site? Existing state and federal laws and regulators provide a series of safeguards which, in all probability, would obviate the need for the City to become directly involved with the containment site. These safeguards include: A. The current requirement through the MPCA that those operating waste containment facilities provide "financial assurance" that they have sufficient assets to operate and deal with any problems associated with such a facility. Financial assurance may be shown by the setting aside of specific funds , the amount of which is determined on the basis of the amount of material in the facility or by a strong showing of the financial resources of the operator. B. In many instances , waste facility operators have insurance which would cover problems beyond their financial capabilities . I am not aware of USPCI ' s current insurance situation, but this should be determined prior to or as part of the hearing process on Tuesday, April 19 , 1994 . C. The "Superfund laws" were enacted, in part, to remedy the inability of those disposing of various wastes to deal with the cleanup of the site on which the waste was disposed. Among other things, the Superfund laws require that operators of containment facilities maintain business records indicating the individuals and companies from which various wastes have been received. In turn, if USPCI no longer existed, Superfund laws would allow regulatory agencies to require the individuals or Tom Burt, City Administrator April 15, 1994 Page 4 companies providing the waste material to the site to participate in cleanup or other necessary activity at the facility. Additionally, under certain circumstances, Superfund provisions allow for the tapping of the fund for cleanup purposes . D. Dakota County is viewed by the MICA as being an effective and "ardent" participant in the � environmental protection area . Therefore, it is likely that Dakota County, as a permitting body, would be significantly involved in administration of the containment facility if USPCI were no longer in the picture. 6 . May the City of Rosemount impose a fee on operators of industrial waste containment facilities? At the present time, it does not appear that the City of Rosemount has the authority to reQuire USPCI to pay a fee (based upon volume of waste) to the City. Under Minn. Stat. §115A. 921 , Subds . 1 and 2, the City may impose a fee (based on cubic yards of waste} for "mixed municipal solid waste" and "construction debris located within the city or tawn. " However, mixed municipal solid waste, as defined in Minn . Stat . §115A. 03, Subd. 21 , does not include "auto hulks, street sweepings , ash, construction debris, mining waster, sludges, tree and agricultural waste, tires, lead acid batteries, used oil, and other materials collected, processed, and disposed of as separate waste streams . ° At present, there is a bill wending its way through the Legislature (Senate File 1788) which, if passed, would allow certain governmental bodies to impose charges for the storage of waste materials . Unfortunately, Senate File 1788 would only empower metropolitan counties to collect such charges . � However, I am not aware of any prohibition against the operator of a waste containment facility from providing funds, at its discretion, to governmental bodies for general municipal benefit. For example, the current USPCI trust fund is utilized for various public purposes . It is possible that some mechanism could be developed whereby USPCI could voluntarily provide such municipal ' benefits , so long as the arrangement was not compulsory and thus, in effect, the imposition of a charge. ' JMM:gmo , CITY OF ROSEMOIINT ' DAROTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA ', RESOLIITION 1994- ' A RESOLIITION APPROVING AN Ab�bTDMENT TO ' THE USPCI, INC. MINNESOTA INDIISTRIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITY ' INTERIM IISE PBRMIT D�HEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount granted an Interim Use Permit for the USPCI, Inc. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility on the 4th day of February, 1992; and WHEREAS, USPCI, Inc. and the City of Rosemount entered into an Interim Use Permit Agreement on March 19, 1992; and WHEREAS, USPCI, Inc. has submitted an application for an amendment to the original USPCI, Inc. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility Interim Use Permit; and wHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount has reviewed the proposal for an amendment to the USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit and recommended that City Council conduct a public hearing; and D�I3EREAS, the City Council of the City of Rosemount held a public hearing on the 19th day of April, 1994 to consider an amendment to the USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit that would allow the disposal of ash at the Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility with conditions . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves a 1994 Interim Use Permit Amendment for the USPCI, Inc. Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility, subject to the conditions as specified in the Agreement hereby attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby approves the USPCI, Inc. Interim Use Permit Amendment subject to conditions and hereby attached as Exhibit A. ADOPTED this 19th day of April, 1994 . E.B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in favor• Voted against• City of Rosemount Ordinance No. B-40 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE B CTTY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING ORDINANCE THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF ROSEMOiJNT, MINNESOTA ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: SEC�oN I. Section 3.2 D�oNs of Ordinance B - Ci1y of Rosemount Zoning Ordinance is amended to read: Non-hazardous Industrial Waste Solid waste generated from an industrial or manufacturing process. Non-hazazdous industrial waste shall not include: liquid wastes not processed at the facility; sewage sludge, including treated or digested sewage sludge; PCBs; infectious waste; household garbage or refuse; non-hazardous industrial waste that is economically feasible to recycle; radioactive or nuclear waste; rendering or slaughterhouse waste; or hazardous waste. SEc'r�oN II. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication according to law. AnorrEn this 19th day of April, 1994. CITY OF ROSEMOUNT E.B. McMenomy, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Walsh, City Clerk Published in the Rose»aount Town Pages this day of , 1994. , Ord#B-35 I Page 1 of 5 !i �� -- � 4•a� I j . . . . . . . ��. I � ° the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency' s (MPCA) solid waste .� f acility permit review, ° the Metropolitan Council ' s evaluation of the MPCA permit application, ° the Dakota County solid waste permit process, ° the City of Rosemount' s zoning review and building permit reviews. USPCI must obtain approvals or permits from all of these government units before it can develop its project. 6. From what distance would waste be coming? The majority of the waste would come from the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Some waste may come from Duluth or Rochester; this would be a small percentage of the overall total waste received. � 7. What companies are likely to use this f acility? USPCI, Inc. currently does not have a customer list with specific companies on it at this time, however, the following list il�lustrates the industrTes that might be interested in the facility: °automobile recyclers (for auto shredding fluff} � °aluminum recyclers (for aluminum slag) I °metal recyclers (for contaminated kiln bricks) °eyeglass manufacturers tfor glass grinding wasteJ °printers (for solidified inks) °foundries {for spent sand) I °computer industry (for circuit boards and iron oxide tapes) °paint manufacturers (for paint waste) 8. How are these companies currently handling their industrial ,, . wastes? ' , Some companies are co-disposing their wastes in municipal sanitary I -�'� landfills such as Pine Bend. There is widespread scientific '' opinion that disposal of industrial waste in a sanitary landfill ', �s undesirable because it exposes the wastes to an acidic � environment that can promote movement of contaminants out of the wastes. (The acidic environment is created when arganics, such as food wastes, decompose. ) State officials indicate that the majority of this waste in the metropolitan area sti11 goes to sanitary landfills in Dakota County. I USPCl/11/QC3 � �-- �t � � . I � i 9. Do this f acility compete with recycling? � USPCI strongly believes that this f acility will help recycling. Recycling operations produce residuals that have no alternative use and require land disposal . To date many, if not most, of the • industries, that have lnquired about the project are firms that produce residuals from recycling. 10. Does this f acility compete with the waste-to-energy plant? 6� This f acility will not compete with the county' s proposed waste-to-energy f acility. As mentioned earlier, it will not accept materials that can be recycled nor will it accept municipal waste. The wastes that are acceptable at the USPCI facility will generally be unacceptable or undesirable at the waste-to-energy facility (eg: foundry sands, aluminum slag, and materials with traces of inetals) . 11. Will this facility accept ash from the Dakota County waste-to- ener y plant? _ 9 -�j This f acility is applying for a permit to accept non-hazardous � industrial wastes. Tne permit application specifically indicates that no hazardous waste will be accepted. 12. What is the proposed �fi.nal use of the facility after disposal operations are completed? Originally, USPCI proposed to leave the remaining property as a buffer area for use as a wildlife habitat and enhanced wetlands. City officials have requested USPCI to consider other final uses that would be more compatible with the industrial area. USPCI recently proposed a new layout of the facility that would accommodate development of the land for industrial purposes. 13. What does this f acility meao economically to the city of Rosemount and Dakota County? � An independent consultant recently estimated the overall direct and indirect benefits to Rosemount and Dakota County would be 100 million dollars in 1989 dollars. 14. What is the Rosemount Community Trust being proposed by USPCI, Inc.? This is a charitable trust that would be funded by $4.00 per ton fee from each shipment of waste brought to the containment cell . The trust would provide the City of Rosemount citizens with 9.5 million dollars for park improvement, community activities, etc. over the 30 years of the project. USPCl/11IQC4 , , • � ', _._ _ ,� ' � 37. What is leachate? Leachate is the result of precipitation that has percolated through or come in contact with waste. Depending on the waste type, leachate can be contaminated. 38. If the leachate is contaminated, how is it managed? Precipitation which has percolated through the waste or come in contact with the waste in any way will be stored and collected by one of the three leachate collection systems designed into each containment cell. For the leachate coliection system, the leachate is pumped to the leachate storage tanks . Here the leachate quality will be tested. If it is within standards set by the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) , it can be piped to the MWCC treatment plant. If the leachate is contaminated and below the MWCC standards it must be pre-treated with lime to achieve a minimum standard before being piped to the MWCC plant for further treatment. Following treatment at the MWCC plant, all water flows through an outfall from the plant to the Mississippi River . 39. Can this Facility be used to contain solid waste incinerator ash or hazardous waste? � � The City of Rosem ount' s proposed zoning ordinance, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit and � the Dakota County permit would not allow solid waste incinerator ash or h�zardous waste to be taken to USPCI ' s Facility. 40. Could the Facility take solid waste ash in - the future? There are no plans to do so. To take any of these � wastes an additional EIS would have to be prepared as ' well as reapplication for all of the permits would be �'"'" necessary, including the City of Rosemount' s permit which identifies the types of wastes which can be accepted. New public hearings and opportunities for the public to comment would occur at that time. , � / 52. In terms of the total volume of non-hazardous industrial. waste generated in Minnesota USPCI ' s Facility �1oe�n' t seem big eno�gh. won' t it fill up very quickly? ;�` This Facility has been designed to serve the Twin Cities Metro area. Many of the waste generators in � greater Minnesota have their own landfills or they . co-dispose in solid waste landfills. The haul costs of moving these wastes is such that only those g enerators within a relatively short drive distance will use the Facility. The Facility' s marketing is aimed at those environmentally responsible industries that want the security of USPCI ' s Facility, don' t want to co-dispose of their wastes in unlined solid waste landfills and will pay the costs to achieve better waste management. 53. Do non-hazardous waste generators have to use this Facility7 Under Minnesota regulations non-hazardous industrial wastes can be co-disposed in a solid waste landfill or contained in a facility that meets state and iocal permitting requirements. Waste generators are not required to use this Facility. However, because of the liabilities associated with co-disposing in solid waste landfills , and the recognized problems resulting from landfills many generators will use this Facility. Responsible waste generators recognize that the USPCI Facility offers a better way to manage non-nazardous industrial wastes. • 54 . Are the containment cells placed below ground level or in the groundwater table? Because of the rolling topography of the site some excavation, grading and leveling will be done as the celis are constructed . Some of the cells will be constructed on what originally were hiils so excavation into the hill wi11 occur but wouldn' t be considered below the ground level of the site, For each containment cell the bottom of the leachate collection systems will be well above the groundwater table. , - 3 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE HISTORY _ * USPCI ' s Corporate Policy is fuTl compliance with the regulations that govern its operations. The fact that USPCI has been cited for alleged violations is because of inadvertent situations as opposed to intentional and deliberate policy. * None of the alleged violations for which USPCI has been cited has tk�reatened the safety of employees or resulted in a release to the environment. USPCI does, however, regard a11 alleged vialations as serious. It has a history of promptly correcting situations that �, have 1ed to the allegations. � � -� * The USPCI nonhazardous industrial waste disposal operations have never been cited for a violation. * Many of the alleged vi�olations tfiat were discussed with you earlier have been dropped and the penalties reduced as a resu1t of discussions with the regulatory agencies. comp -�' U��.- �v� � G� �- a� _ �3 ' ��.� G��:�-lu� . _ � _ ._ �,Q-�- � � , �� _. - ,��u.�� ,��'-�- ��-a�,p`— �,�. b- ,� f--Z .-- ��t�� ` �� `_' � ..L_ �� — L�o�c�..�ze- �v � � ��,�.-� �-��- �-�� /5;-Ut�� - 3c> nvv , . � , - ' -� �� -�-�`'=.- �s�z� � � �� .� ��,,,.� ��,,�,.�,�� -� �;�-�Y� ,�.� � �_�.,,�, ��- �� cv.� � � �j j r � K �� ..�� %-�' � � �� 0 t� �yc „��/- ,-- � � . . - �� _ ---� �� ' � �t� P�� pK �'Y1 P�-�� /� . . � �� -�-� _ �,�- 1�,� �� -i°��4- � � � �-- �� '�v .�-�` - � .��- - j°�' - ' - �---�,o�-��-- -�-�- - �, �,��,,� ��. ` �-��.� , � � . �� .�-�-� �,� �- -�°� �� t> _ - + ,..^G�- �'"�X Li�� i y � i . � .. _ �� . �Il . . � � . . . � . . __�.. . J- .. I �ii�� :�./ j� ,///,//I�� i��YIJ1�. . . � . ( � ��(i�� O �/_-��" O r .��.. c:�- .�r� ..� c�.��.�- �� y ^ GUL��L�v�-�'�-� �L �—� —,�-�-� � �- �"`� �2��`� _. -��-� - ��'� .1�� ,� �.a� 1 d- � �L,�� . T��. l �:�%�c��°-�..,�� G�'�`" . ; t^-�-� �� '� i fi-�C��i�/► � �� L'�.�Gt C�s'Y�-�'L-�y�-� G�G �C . � � � � � ��N c�,��9��c� n �. �L� �-�.�� ' � ��. � � . � . "��i� � . . � �"�� L/ -""v (J�+.� . � . ��T/I��W 4�`G.�G.� � . . � � . . � - � � � • . . . � " � � "�� . � � . . . . � ��z��f/ ��-�:�1 --�� /� �� -�.� vcr�4h:�-�� -�.-� � L� �� ' � ��.�„��,--t- .:�.� �� r��-�.-��-�� — v �� — '�-�( . , ��' -�'�' �-�./.�� C'="�'C �� /..�G�`--�� ' ` �.:, �,, i�''�"L.� G,� ` � �`�� n /' crti� .�G�� /.�-y�.�' , �,� , ��.� �� --�.� - � --�� ,�..� ��,� � «, �_�--�� _ _. L�� ..�-�--��-c.��! i�`�, G:G-�/�;i�C"� - '. Ci-� �. ��k � , �� %� O'1�U ;%i� ��a�� :�- - �� % �'-� :� � � / G�� . - � �� /d `�'�--�,./ ��Uc'`��• �� 'vCL�..� .�-'�"�v .�//� ��'��`-�--►, �r., �G-�="� �l.x-=" -G'�' • - +�� , Amendment Request � page two j ; � USPCI requests that the defuution of non-hazardous industrial waste in the Rosemount Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Delete: Non-hazardous waste shall not include: incinerator, resource recovery or power plant ash, or by-product from the processing or recycling of such ash;,.. Insert: Non-hazardous waste shall not include: ash generated by waste incinerators or waste resource recovery facilities that burn municipal solid waste, or by-product � from the processing or recycling of such ash;. . . We have enclosed a completed Zoning Ordinance Texi Amendment Petition with the required fee. We will be contacting you ta determine what else needs to be completed in order to expedite this amendment. Please call if you have any questions regarding this request or if you have su�gestions on how to proceed. Sincereiy, Rex Kraft Facility Manager RK/dd enclosures: Zoning Ordinance Test Amendment Petition and Application Fee cc: Bill Shea Ken 7ackson Don Chapdelaine Liane Hetherington-Ward I'I 7im Gaughan I Barry Schade Mike Miles �I Lisa Freese I'�— ---_._ _ • , � 04/20/92 � , (�gVISOR 1 CMR/AH AR1H655T • ` . . . _ i ' . 1 heat by direc: combustion ar by first convertinq it into an - . . 2 inte:mediate Fuel pcaduct. Municipal solid waste combustocs are 3 included in the definition oP enerqy recovery facilities. , • .. 4 Subp. 35a. EPA iiethod 2312. "EPA Method 1311" means the � : � 2'oxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure issued by the United � � � � 6 States Environmental Protection Agency as EPA Method 2.311 as • � 7 provided by the Federal Register, volume 55, number 126, June . Z.9��1.999- — � __ _--- _. � � 9 Subp. 35b. EPA Iiethod 2312. "EPA Method 1312" means the ; • � ' 10 Synthetic Frecipitation Leach Test for Soils, which is . . . 11 incorporated by reference in part 7035.OB85. .� , ' . ' 12 Subp. 35c. EPA 5W-846. "EPA 5'r1-846" mea^s Test :�!ethccs _ 13 for Evaluatinq Solid Was�e, EPA SW-846, Third Edition, which is ' . ' • � �.' 14 incorporated by reference in part 7035.0605. . � • . 15 (For text of subps 36 to 38, see M.R.] 16 Subp. 38a. Fly ash. "Fly ash" means ash generated by a • ' " . , 17 combustion facil.ity which is carried out of the combustion 18 chamber by the Plow of gases and collected by air po2lution ". . . 19 control equipment before exhaust gases leave khe facility.• An • � .. 20 owner or operator may include ash which is captured by boiler • 21 tubes, economizers, or othe: equipnent which captures - � . 22 particulate matter beFore gases enter air pollution control 23 equipment. Z4 [For text oP subos 39 to 44, see M.R. j . � : 25 Subp. 45. 2ndustrial solid Waste. "IndustriaT solid craste" ' • 26 means all solid waste generated from an industrial or . . 27 manufacturing process and solid vaste generated from ' ' : � • . : �}:T.... 28 nonmanugacturiag activities such as service and commercial . � ' . ' 29 estab2ishments. Industrial solid waste does not include office ' ' • . . �. 30 materials, restaarant and food pregaration waste, discarded . 31 macninery, demolition deb:is, municipal salid waste combustor ' 32 ash, or household refuse. � . � ' 33 (For text oE subps 46 to 48, see M.R. ] . � 34 Subp. 49. Intermittent cover. "Intermittent cover" means . � � � . 35 cover material that is spread and compacted on the tap and side "� ," � 36 sloQes of compacted solid waste at least as often as the end of � • . • , . g . . . ' I i' : . � i . . � : • 04/20/92 [R� 2S R � CuR�pn AR18655T • 1 waste combusted, that the ash crhzch has not been tested is not • 2 likely to exceed the maximum leachable contaminant levels o£ . - • 3 subpart 5, and the ash is placed over a liner which comolies � q with the design requirements of subpart 11, item L or N, . ... � 5 whichever applies to the type oE ash to be disFosed• of. If this 6 subitem applies, the ash must be considered in storage and the , 7 commissioner sha11 not approve disposal oE the ash until Eour ____—___—_— ave een co pTe�e�c�'��— ---_.- . g quarters of ash and leachate testing : � 9 • tesults oE ash or leachate testing for the four quarters exceed . 10 the maximum leachable contaminant leve2s, the ash must be • .'` For the purpose o£ ' 11 removed Erom the 2and disoosal Eacility. . . 12 this subitem resuLts must be calculated according to subpart 4� � � 13 item A, subitems (1�) to (3) . - - • 14 Subp. 5. Haximum leachable contaminant 1evels. The - 15 maximum leachable contaminant levels are as follows: Substance Maximum leachable � 16 contaminant 1eve1 (u4/1) • ' •. 17 . 750 . • • . 18 � • ' 19 Arsenic 30.000 . , . ZQ Harium 9.000 , . • 21 Boron 60 ' 22 Cadmium 1.SOo • .. 23 Chromium 15,000 . .. • 24 Copoer 300 " 25 Lead 9.000 • . 26 Manganese 30 . 27 Mercury 2.1Q0 28 Nickel 300 . 29 Selenium 300 • 30 Silver 60,000 , • • . 3i Tin . 21,000 ,, 32 Zinc . 33 yocation. The owner or operator must locate a .: . 34 Subp. 6. ' • sh 1and disposal facility according to parts , . mbustor a . 35 waste co . � . 55 and 7035.2815, subpart Z• A . 25 • 36 7035. erato_ • ' : 37 Subp. 7• HYdrageologic evaluations. The oWner or op . • 3g must complete a hydrogeologic evaluation of the site according : : • : 39 to part 7035.3815, subpart 3. . The oWaer ar � � 40 Subp. 8. Groundvater performaace standards. : - ' 41 operator must design, construct, operate, and maintain the . • • ' � � act 7035.2815, subpart 4• � .� , � • 42 facility to achieve compliance With p Waste combustoc - . 43 Subp. 4. General desiqn tequirements. A • n requirements of ' • ' 44 ash land dispasal facility must meet the desi9 and G in • � .. 45 part 7035.28I5, subpart 5, items A. S� D� E' F' ' � ' 23 , . . . . � , •r.. " _ .' • . • . . � ' . . . � . � . . . .. � . . . representative sample of the waste contains any o£ the . - contaminants listed in subpart 8 at a concentration equal to or greater than the respective value given in that table. Where the waste contains less than O.S percent filterable solids, the � waste itself, after filtering, is considered' to be the extract. --:J�„��f B. A waste that exhibits the characteristic of '� �. toxicity has the hazardous waste number specified in subpart 8 ` � . ;� �, which carresponds to the toxic contaminant causing it to be t� , aj hazardous. �� C. If the concentration of a constituent in a waste �. ° is known and that constituent is listed in subpart 8, the maximum possible concentration in the extract can be calculated on the assumptiom that 100 petcent of the constituent will be ��o�... extracted. If the calculated maximum possible concentration in N . Ry��j the extract is less than the limit listed in subpart 8, the 'e� 5.oi3 � Waste is not a hazardous waste because of the subject constituerit. Subp. $. Maximum concentration of contaminants for the toxicity characteristic. . Maximum Hazardous Concentration Waste (milligrams ��i-`�'/ Number Contaminant CAS No. per liter) ��'� D004 Arsenic 7440-38-2 5.Q --r ��'� D005 Barium 7440-39-3 100.0 D018 Benzene 71-43-2 0.5 D006 Cadmium 7440-43-9 1.0 t,� D019 Car6on tetrachloride 56-23-5 0.5 D020 Chlordane 57-74-9 0.03 D021 Chlorobenzene 108-90-7 100.0 D022 Chloroform 67-66-3 6.0 D007 Chromium 7440-47-3 5.0 D023 o-Cresol 95-48-7 *200.0 D024 m-Cresol 8-39-� *200.0 10 D025 p-Cresol 106-44-5 *200.0 D026 Cresol *200.0 D016 2,4-D . 44-75-7 10.0 D027 1,4-Dichlorobenzene 106-46-7 7.5 DOZS 1,2-Dichloroethane 107-06-2 0.5 . D029 1,1-Dichloroethylene 75-35-� 0.7 �J030 2,4-Dir.itrotc�ue:�e 121-1�-i �.13 D012 Endrin 72-20-8 0.02 D031 Heptachlor (and its epoxide) 76-4�-6 0.008 D032 Hexachlorobenzene 1L8-74-1 0.13 D033 Hexachlorobutadiene 87-68-3 0.5 D034 Hexachloroethane 67-72-1 3.0 D008 Lead 7�34-92-1 5.0 �' �� " D013 Lindane 58-89-9 0.4 D009 Mercury 7439-97-0' 0.2 -- a J .:f ,;,= �1 198 - - F.'' .-` . . � � . . . � . :f..l . . . � . . . . ., � % � f . n . �'1�/ "'f � t �,e � .�e+r,;. ;`�'; " f�`� v y .'1 .� � �`, .� , U?;` � ._ � �� , , � � ��f — �cc � r�� , , , J�\ �; ,� . -�_ 72-43-5 10.0 D014 Methoxychlor: 78_g3_3 20D.0 D035 Methyl ethyl ketone 9g-95-3 Z'� D036 Nitrobenzene s7_86_5 10-0.6 _ D037 Pentachlorophenol 110-86-1 5'� D038 Pyridine l.p _„ �V'D 7782-49-Z DO10 Selenium 74�0-22_4 S.0 DO11 Silver 127-18-4 �-� D039 Tetrachloroethylene 8Qp1-35-2 0.5 DO15 Toxaphene �9-01-6 0.5 D0�0 Trichloroethylene 95-95-4 400.0 D041 2,4,5-Trichlorophenol gg_06_2 Z p D042 2,4,6-Ttichlorophenol 93_72_1 1.0 D017 2,4.5-TP (Silvex) 75-01-4 0.2 D043 Vinyl chloride *If o-, m-, and p-cresol concentrations cannot be differentiated, the total ccesol (D026) concentration isensid�e� The regulatory 1eve1 of total cresol is 200 milligrams p SA: MS s 116.07; 116.37 � HIST: 9 SR 115; L 1987 c 186 s 15; 15 SR 1878; 16 SR 2239 7045.0133 EXEI�TION FROM REGIILATION DUE TO LETHAI'ITY. ' Subpatt l. In general. A speciEic generator's waste that meets any of the lethality characteristics as desccibed in part 7045.0131, subpatt 6, may be exemptedene�ratorgcantdemonsttate to ' - parts 7045.0100 to 7045.1Q30 if the g the satisfaction of the agency that the waste is not capable of posing a present or potential hazard to human health and the environment if the waste were to be 1mPedpunderttoutene waste transported, stored, disoosed, or manag : management methods. that Subp. 2. Factors to be considered. In demona��St�045.0100 a waste should be exempt from tegulation under p to 7045.1030, the generator must present information related to the following factors: A. the nature of the lethal'ity displayed by the waste; B, the median lethal dose or median lethah �ethal concentcation of the enzire waste and each of e constituents within the waste; resent in �, the lethal constituent or constituents p the waste and the respective concenttations; 'i p, the quantity of the waste produced by the qenerator on an annual basis; , g, the types oE improper or routine waste management to which the waste could be subjected; F. based upon the improper or routine waste management methods considered in item E, the following factots: (1) the potential oE the lethal constituent ooducts to . constituents o= any lethal degradation pcoduct or p 199 TABLE 9-9 NENNEPIN FACILITY ANNUAL ANALY813 OF FLY ASH FOR 1985 — TOTAL YETALS ', � � 200+ OEA 240 170 800 000 97 620 4 400 6 100 6 15 000 02 430 180 000 92 000 12.? 94.5 20a4 OEB 290 150 920 000 �0 540 4 E00 4 400 � t 7 000 92 �80 110 000 20 000 12.{ 81.9 208� oEC NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NR NFI NR NR NR 95.0 1909 AVERAOE 49'S 1 a0 910 000 90 590 4 500 0 250 7 18 000 62 445 120 000 2E 000 12.9 94.6 19Q2 AVEAAQE 250 220 815 000 45 12 280 E 104 0 600 1 t i�000 210 . �55 105 000 21 500 12 84.9 HENNEPIN FACIIITY ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH FOR 1999 — LEACHABLE METALS -�'��`'I'"� � p l� �`� � . �' � � � � >�,'G7�� rE,;''��? . �t,,.)t,----;� :�.., _.-----.. _�:1n-.- - . /,', �,j•. . . . � i 2044 oeA e4o 200 9 100 000 <60 < 100 200 700 <90 4A0 000 9 000 • <2U0 9 700 000 840 000 11.0 2 000 000 14 000 �064 008 6�0 200 9 000 000 t'SO <100 <50 E20 <90 140 000 2 600 t 200 9 200 000 480 000 11.0 1 700 000 61 000 � 200� OEC 6�0 200 9 000 000 <50 < 100 <50 �80 < 90 �40 000 9 200 <2Q0 9 100 000 MO 000 11.E 2 100 000 02 000 190�AVEMQE E07 200 9 099 999 <60 < 100 <as ee� <90 440 6Q7 9 099 <200 9 999 999 620 000 11.T i o99 9S9 4�000 1Y02 AVERAOE 00� �07 2 E00 000 1� 96 6 699 6 919 999 �oA7 10 2 D00 000 999 993 12 2 16A E07 02 000 �Jur,um �Urnh Cti�4,p,.,,, L:hraY.4. , �'r��F.*r� '1'�� 11'/grG '�r'ItRr ,, ,l., . �• .,, .��, ?.!.. . .. „ , . rr, �l�� 'l''�' I . , , � TABLE 3-t0 �', 'a { %�-�� ,, � .. ,. ' HENNEPIN FACILITY ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF COMBINED ASH FOR 1993 TOs AL METALS ' �I1t2 '� . ... . , � rnn; C+�li�.um: Ghrts�i u Cdppat : irqn . n�neniu 8 var 8t�diunn 6Ucsnlfum n Ghlorlde Su. Mu p RPT:<:<SM.;:: Ruriurr�s :s>:::;. �:;;;:.:.. . .:. :...: ;:: . >::, � :: . ,.> �ti '!k` :.m.�Ik ; . tur� 96 Mtf� ::.>:rtt !k .;rr� %fc ...:'>m J�.. ::m ..lk . .:. .m 1k : rri : .. .....:. .:: N�i<:: ....N(�.::. :m.:,]k m:..�� .:::�;y k ;;:::: rr� !k ;»m 1k . 2084 12A 430 �30 110 000 56 30,000 28 000 9,700 1 9,700 65 390 28,000 3 200 12 5 22•1 2084 128 b00 2094 �2C q80 140 100 000 38 78 000 18 000 5 200 <0 S 8,700 52 780 27,0 0 13,000 12 3 20•6 2084 120 2084 �2E 500 170 120 000 '49 1,400 19,000 6,800 <O 3 11,000 65 190 26,000 2 300 12 3 24.6 2084 12F 1,6 783 �,2 9,400 61 290 24,500 6,050 12.5 22•7 1993 AVERAGE 663 155 107,833 73 31,883 26,667 6, 1992AVERAGE 988 172 105,500 98 5,483 56,833 8,033 0.6 10,100 185 213 21,667 3,900 11.9 24•8 1991 AVERAGE 502 255 104,000 67 3,850 29,667 5,283 4.5 8,760 143 428 29,333 5,233 11.9 2�•� ', � HENNEPIN FACILIIY ANNUAL ANALYSIS OF COMBINED ASH FOR 1993 - LEACHABLE MET�ILS .. .. ....... ..... :.:::: ... . :>..n >: la ,,. ...... :. ...... :;: . . : ...; . ;: tran wn >:>...n�::;;::>:: Is�r. a u a[e<:;;<:.::::;:•..»: :<:<:::�::::;:::�.::. �F ' .. ....,.:;:: .. . ........::: rain u ;: p er: .rna ugne�lu vi vnr Sa um ' �� m:.: .; ran a c um::.::...:.::;:. p � ,: � ::>��:>:> tu,.u..........:.:,:.::.........:..:,...:.. ....:..::: >: ::;. : :: .. , : : :, u�/i. ... ,.:: u l..::....:.u:. �: ... ..;: u L .... ><:>: .H>�:>:>:. : u 4 .... .::u� ' �� . it` L .. ;i� I. >:.:u l:«:::::::::::u �. :. ..:;.tf �::::.::>u t.l:,::.:;:.;:..u !» :..: .. u L!;. ;.:u :L.. .. . .N.O...:.:..Nt�..... . 2084 6A 3,500 50 520,000 �5 90 200 750 <3 460,000 1,300 <20 780,000 1,700 11.2 540,000 29,0 2084 6B 1,900 10 81 Q,000 <5 100 59 170 <3 t B0,000 1,700 <20 860,000 5,500 11.3 580,000 38,000 2084 6C 2,600 8 590,000 �5 � 110 <5 140 <3 160,000 1,500 <20 500,000 8 800 11.3 620,000 34.000 2084 6D 1,300 8 5,800,000 2084 6E 2,200 8. 580,000 �5 100 30 140 <3 180,000 1,500 <20 690,000 2,200 11.3 480 000 33,000 2084 6F 3,800 9 550,000 i993AVERAGE 2,550 15 573,333 <5 105 61 250 <3 223,333 1,550 <20 796,667 4,067 11.3 551,667 33,687 1992 AVERAGE 3,850 88 460,000 5 ��Q qp 330 2 188,333 2,167 '8 t 450 000 26 333 '8.4 786,667 28 887 1991 AVERACiE 1,850 23 780,000 3 130 i `, TABLE 3-12 �//� HENNEPIN FACILITY QUARTEFILY AVERAGES OF FLY ASH -TOTAL METALS >:::�::<:::>:;:.;.:»:>:�::::>:<:::;::::�::�>::::>:>::::::::. : :>::>:::; , ;::. ::.::::::. ;><:>:::: ..;�:.;:::;;;>;:,;;> .. ...:.. . ...... . . . : .:. :.. ..... . ....;- ..:. ', ; . ... . .:::::•::>�::>><:::: �:........ ....,: e..:::<::.:>;»>::::: :>::::::<:;:.. :: ..t..::.. : :. .. . ..:..:.. : . ::::::. :...::.: . ....... ..... ..pb........ ,.....:::.n.:.::.:: :::.�... ............... ......... _......... ....... n.,...:.:. :,.:..::: :..:.:.::.�.:................................ ............ ,::::::::.�::::: ::::::.::.:::::::..:...::.:,:::.:,:::::. ,:,: _.._ .,..:..A�.._.:.. _.................... ....._�d.... . . .................. .................................J..... ......................... ................,...............:....... .. .....P............................................. . �: :...:::::::: .:::.: :: ::. ;: :�.:;::.;;... :. .:. . .: :. .:. .: ..:�............................. , :> .. . .... :: . :: Ki K ::::>:<:::>:::::s:�>�:<::::::::::?:>::?::::::::::: ;:;::.;» � ::::�<::>. ::::::.:::::::. ;>:m K :::>. m K :: .m.. K _.' ...m K . ;: m ...K.. . ':.:m .K :. . m I� ::: �>::�::; 9�+:;.:>:::» . .. ..::...:::::::..:.....::. . ::: m .. .::. .. ... ... ..........:..........::....... .. .......:�:: i st G1tf�1990 11,167 23.3 85 1,267 280 51.00 16 0.6 5,900 2nd(atr 1990 7,275 26.3 115 1,200 188 31.75 12 2.7 5,900 3rd Qtr 1990 6,075 �2A 103 1,000 175 30.75 13 2A 4,425 Ath Qtr 1990 7,725 26.8 143 1,250 205 34.75 15 3.8 6,625 1st Qtr 1991 Avera e 11,500 25A 130 1,392 251 47.58 18 5.8 6,292 11.8 35.1 9.4 2nd(�t�1991 Avera e 2 10,338 26.4 126 1,450 234 38.38 14 6.8 6,963 11.7 36.8 7.7 3rd Qtt 1991 Avera e 1 14,458 34.5 149 1,817 280 50.08 23 6.1 7,733 11.5 24.5 17.6 4th Qtr 1991 Avera e 12,000 20.9 134 1,517 262 36.50 22 t.4 6,875 11.5 26.3 24.4 1 st C�tr 1992 Avera e 9,667 24.3 148 - 1,592 269 32.92 26 4.6 6,825 11.7 27.9 18.1 2nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 8,633 64.7 169 2,133 281 27.W 24 5.4 9,208 12A 32.3 13.3 3rd Catr 1992 Avera e 8,467 602 164 2,208 295 23.75 19 5.0 9,450 12.0 35.9 12.2 4th Cdtr 1992 Avera e 10,017 45.2 175 1,992 318 27.90 21 62 10,075 11.8 36.6 10.9 1st(atr 1993 Avera e 13,083 16:4 161 1,575 325 13.64 19 5.6 8,133 11.6 33.8 12.8 2nd Qtr 1993 Avera e 11,633 53.6 164 1,975 277 20.08 31 7.2 g,033 11.6 34:4 11.2 3rd Qtr 1993 Avera e 11,525 69.1 193 2,275 294 16J5 23 3A 10,058 11.5 32.3 12.7 � 4th Qtr 1993 Avera e 11,375 52.2 181 2,058 273 18.05 24 3.0 10,333 11.9 33.4 10.0 ; �75U L D 3�� U�� 3 p � l/�� 30a a/r,�Tt> '' HENNEPIN FACILITY QUARTERLY AVERAGES OF FLYASH L�ACH BLE METALS ' , :. .:. <. . ,�, ,.: ,.; _:: ; :<> _ : . >, >. , ............. .. ;, .....: > :...:: ..:.... ,.::. . <.,.:_ : C ;: Rb : n... N ::: :: ::Ni;'::>`:�::::. ; :::::>:5�::: �n I N;:«:.:: , A1 >. As , � <. �...: :::: Q Sv�pa+�') '� �w ; . ;::,;..: . .. .;: . .. :;. ;: . u::�l u�/I ;;.. ..(ug/I). . �;�u /� ;: u !I <: u /I� ..>u /� ... :: u:,.,i� .... . ; u /l > ;. .. ... 1st Qtr 1990 13 25 1.3 11,833 0.5 101.0 1.2 0.0 4,900 12.1 2nd Qt�1990 46 25 1.0 9,640 � 2,0 115.4 1.0 25.0 2,500 12.0 �,/_4-� 3rd G1tr 1990 116 25.0 1.2 3,540 0.5 77.6 2.8 0.0 550 12.2 4th G1tf 1990 37 30.0 2.0 7,640 0.5 90.2 1.0 0.0 2,320 11.1 t st Qtr 1991 Avera e 18 0.5 1.0 4,692 0.5 6.4 2.8 19.2 615 12.7 ' 2nd Catr 1991 Avera e 2 21 3.0 10.1 5,225 3.1 4.2 4.1 9.0 1 099 12.0 3rd Qtr 1991 Avera e 1 53 1.2 5.1 4,042 0.6 11.2 3.3 9.1 752 10J 4th Qt�1991 Avera e 131 4A 1.0 4,950 1.& 110.3 6.5 2.5 1,193 8.5 1st(atr 1992 Avera e 63 5.5 2.0 6,292 1.3 47.3 4.7 7.1 1,60t 82 2nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 59 10.9 2A 7,850 1.8 45.6 3.8 8.3 1,765 11.5 , 3rd Catr 1992 Avera e 56 10.8 3,8 6,533 7A 42A 9.2 10.8 1,525 12.2 4th Qtr 1992 Avera e 62 5.0 2A 6,233 5.0 47.0 5A 5.0 1,783 12.2 ''� i st Qtr 1993 Avera e 140 5.0 2.0 6,342 15A 2A A8.3 5.0 1,233 12A � ' 2nd C�tr 1993 Avera e 125 5.0 20A 4,250 24.5 1.3 10.0 10.0 886 11.7 ', 3rd(1tr 1993 Avera e 125 5.0 9A 8,058 23.3 8.8 242 5.0 1,833 11.8 4th(]tf 1993 Avera e 125 5.0 15.0 12,075 17.0 11.0 13.3 5.0 4,600 1•1.7 1 Did not include Aug.25, 1991 data. � � 2 No data for May 1991. � � , TABLE 3-13 � �,r, ; � , s , t� 5tJ��il.r ; �" , . „ : HENNEPIN FACIUTY QUARTERI.Y AVERAGES OF COMBINED ASH - TOTAL META�S � � �.... ,___ _. a :<>::::::�::>;:<::>::::::<:<::>::>::::>>;<:;:»r:>:»:>::<::: 'p�: As� .. . :..: �d . < Pb`< s:Mn N : ..::Ni : :::5.�.... :' :...:.Zn...: : ..:. '�,_ <�<;:<::>::>:�:.<<::>�»>::::::>:«:><:<:;>::::;�..:: ::: :..::.:..:::.: ::: .. _ ... g ..... ........:............ . :.>:::::<::::.;»<::>::::<::<:>::»:<.:; .. . , ::: -.:.. : : .:.....::>:::::::::;:.:;::>:�::::<><:>:.;:::>.>< ........ ......:: ..:m��/i�� ';>::>: nti i� ::. ..:m'lk :m !$ . . m'lk ;; m Jk m Jk :: .;m Xk >.;m /k ;:. .+�mtws�:: 2nd Qtr 1990 Avera e 13,500 9.6 20.3 700 295 4.23 39.3 1.6 1,650 1st Qtr. 1991 Avera e 105,250 23.3 121.3 4,855 2,128 29.40 2,512.5 8.2 10,750 20.6 2nd Qtr. 1991 Avera e 4 29,000 :17.7 40.2 1,758 583 6.66 69.3 1.6 4,008 7.5 • 3rd atr 1991 Avera e 3 28,167 20.5 75.5 1,677 548 19.08 52.6 2.8 5,383 11.9 4th Qtr 1991 Avera e 2 38,438 11.7 45.5 t,826 694 10.96 175.1 1.0 4,548 12.9 ist Qtr 1992 Avera e 39,750 9.2 33.2 4,692 730 8.32 226.5 1.7 5,350 11.9 2nd atr 1992 Avera e 34,083 16.6 45.2 1,767 621 5.58 102.5 2.6 6,150 12.3 3rd Qtr 1992 Avera e 31,250 20.6 38.5 1,688 670 5.19 117.0 2,3 4,488 122 . 4kh Gltr 1992 Avera e 38,083 14.0 41.1 1,542 764 5.25 104.2 3.0 6,075 12A 1st Gltr 1993 Avera e 26,424 11.4 41 A i,215 522 8.57 � 61.9 8.3 2,865 13.3 2nd Qtr 1993 Avera e 62,125 22.2 55.5 2,684 1,044 7.62 290A 5.1 9,800 14.1 3rd otr 1993 Avera e 39,667 23.1 60.1 2,042 607 4J5 88.1 2.3 6,517 9.6 4th Gltr 1993 Avera e 36,583 12.7 41.2 1,897 664 4.76 2402 2.6 4,725 7.2 1 No 8ept 1992 data. ,I 2 Average includes annual test , 3 Includes Aug 25 data does not include Aug 23 data. ' 4 Includes July 1991 resuits. ' w � HENNEPIN FACIUTY QUARTELY AVERA�ES OF COMBINED ASH - LEACHABLE METALS ' :>:;:;::»:�><;::>; --�---T-�--� > >�::;::>::::::;.:, AI: , , As .:: Ctl P� .: . .::. :Mn .:. <... �q:' ; � Se ; Zn : ;;: , , y� :;:.>:<>::;:�:>: .,.. >tU. LI . .. ,.::.u /lj:;: .::.: u ll .. >.(u /�� ..�.91.�... ....{.� � ..:.:::.::::.::.:::.:::.........:...: . :. ... .. :..� /�) ': ;;:::: u i `:>u /I '...:: ... u...�1 <i u /I :::;: �'1 f r' ist atr 1990 15 25.0 2.8 7,850 0.5 0.67 1.2 0.0 2,583 , 2nd Qtr 1990 45 25.0 1.0 6,600 1.3 0.34 1.8 25A 1,860 3rd Qtr 1990 272 25.0 1.0 6,200 0.5 0.48 1.0 OA 1,008 , 4th�tr�990 64 34.0 1.0 5,520 2.6 0.10 5.0 0.0 1,180 ist Qtr 1991 Avera e 14,266 2.2 1.5 1,494 0.9 0.10 5A 5.3 293 2nd Qttr 1991 Avera e 3 17,764 2.9 1.6 3,090 2.9 0.95 4.5 3.5 578 3rd G�tr 1991 Avera e 2 59 3.3 3.6 2,600 13A 0.40 2.1 4.7 711 . ', 4th atr 1991 Avera e 1 107 2.8 1.4 3,475 1A 3.50 7.9 2.5 1,066 ' 1st Gltr 1992 Avera e 26,380 7.3 2.0 2,560 1.8 0.20 3.3 5.9 928 2nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 80 6.7 2.0 8,533 1.4 0.31 4.8 7A 1,g83 ' 3nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 7,133 1.1 0.8 747 0.4 0.05 2.5 2.6 147 � 4th(atr 1992 Avera e 8,304 9.7 1.7 3,896 1.3 0.30 2.7 2.0 1,102 1st Qtf 1993 Aveta e 41,296 5.0 2.0 688 4.4 0.10 4.7 5A 427 2nd Gltr 1993 Avera e 30,225 5.0 2.0 159 2.5 0.10 2.1 5.0 125 3rd Qtr 1993 Avera e 137 5A 9A 3,358 40.0 0.70 7.0 5.0 914 4th(at�1993 Avera e 79 5.0 2.2 11,458 • 1.6 1.10 1A 5A 1,375 1 Average includes annual analysis 2 Average does not include sampie dated Aug.25,1991. ' . 3 No Sample taken May 1991. . . . . . . . / ' . . . ` � . . TABLE 3-14 ��l r'� - r �`�'� �:a�,�,>� ;�t f ,� HENNEPIN FACI�ITY DUARTERLY AVERAGES OF BOTTOM ASH - TOTAL METALS s- � s- _...._��._.. � ___. _.�.__r.��.._ � :::::::::::::>:::<:»>::::»::>::><::»>::::>::::::<:::»::;::::> ,..::::.:.:..... ' :;:;�::,;:::.::>:::.::;:;�;::.;:.:>;:.:>;;:.:.;:.::::::.... :: A s::>::;:::>.;.< C , , ..:.;H ..... .,. N..:', .. 8� ri:. ;>' . . • , ;:.;:,.>:;.;>::>:;.;:.;:;:.:;;;;:::;;: ..:.;:.:,..., ..:::.:.:.:.::;;::.. ..;:.;;:;:.::::::..;:;>: :.:.:.<...::.:;::<: ..... ..... .:.� . ........ ..... ....... ........ _: > U . :::.�::::::::.:.�:.:..:::.: .::.�::>;;:,:.;:..... .:.... . _..... .. ,:.:: ..... . ...:.�:::.::, .: : .. : ::;;�.:.; '�:: ... :.:,.. . :. . ..:: .:,.::..::..:.. .:..:::. ..:.::,... ::...:,::,:::.: ,. . .p .::::.::..:::::.:::.:.::::::..::.:::.:::::..:.. �.:: .: > . ...:.. :. : ... '...:..,.:.:.::...:..:.:.:::..::.::::....::::::.::.:..::. m IK :. :: rr� K ;.:.:..:(m�11.�nL<::. �[K I� :: :.:: rr, /K ::.::...::.:.>:::::.:; .:.;::.: ;:.: ��;>..�...�m .....��..�....�:_�Z.:::; m IK )<. :. m /t� '<.:��. .....; .«:;:>. ,.:.::. ......... <.: ::: 2nd Qir 1990 20,250 0.6 5.8 843 313 1.14 37 1.2 2,900 3rd Qtr 1990 • 22,750 19.0 8.8 1,225 415 0.49 96 1.8 2,225 4ih Qtr 1990 43,250 5.7 54,5 2,500 543 0.38 50 1.3 4,025 tst Qtr 1991 Avera e 34,083 13.2 5.9 1,892 � 634 0.31 413 3.3 2,783 9.8 18.4 b.9 2nd Qtr 1991 Avera e 2 39,500 8,8 60.3 3,100 743 0.97 t31 1.6 5,375 9.8 19.9 4.3 3rd Gltr 1991 Avere e 1 48,833 4.8 8.6 1,480 722 0.52 73 1.7 4,642 9.9 17,8 7.1 4th Qtr 1991 Avere e 39,000 7.5 7.2 3,043 630 0.55 155 0.8 3,358 10.7 19.2 7.3 i st Qtr 1992 Avera e ` 49,583 38.2 23.1 2,128 852 1.41 272 1.4 4,533 11 A 19.8 5.8 2nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 38,417 t t.8 66.5 2,510 893 0.66 94 2.9 3,758 t 1.5 18.3 3.9 3rd Qtr 1992 Aveta e 39,583 10.5 13.5 4,756 1,296 0.20 161 2.9 3,767 11 A 19.9 5.3 4th Qtr 1992 Avere e 43,t67 8.8 16.8 1,621 902 0.23 142 3 5,683 9.9 21.6 5.8 tat Qtr 1993 Avera e 48,250 4.4 29.9 2,083 879 0.27 1,838 2.0 8,042 9.2 20.5 7.7 2nd Qtr 1993 Avera e 52,583 7A 14.3 9,078 788 0.19 139 12.6 4,017 10.0 19.5 8A 3rd Qtr 1993 Avera e 55,583 12.1 12.8 1,873 908 0.17 166 2.3 16,675 10.3 21.0 5.8 I� 4th G1ir 1993 Avera e 45,583 14.2 11.5 1,498 826 0.18 490 2.3 9,092 11.3 20.3 b.0 1 DId not includeAug 25,t991 results. 2 No May 1991 dats. HENNEPIN FACILITY QUARTERLY AVERAGES OF BOTTOM ASH LEACHABLE METALS _.,;.;: ,.;;.;:;:...:�;;;. . ...:: .: :.:.;:. :,. :.:. :, : ... ... . ...: w ;;::<:..<:»;::»:<:»:«::::>:; ::;::<:;:;»:;.:;>:::.... . : . ;. .:...:..: . ...::::..:.... .. N ;::;:::::;::;<;::;::»;>:>::.:.:..:::::.:::::>:<.:;»�.:::: . ...: . ai..::: n :.:.. ::<: :..:... � :<;<::.:;::;::<::;:::;::�::.;:::,;:.;,..,.:. :::::>:>::;.Hg ::... Ni ;-:; :::::::....::::.::.::::::::..::..:::. : � ' ., Ph Mn :: .::: � �n ................................ .:: .. . u /I .:.: .: :: u 1>;:>:::::>::;u :>::. u I .... ....: :::>::::>;� ::::>:<::::::::>:;::::>:.:::>::.:::.;::.:: r n .. _ . i ..: . . u n :: .:<: � n :. u :> .;:, u n .:. n « l� i st Qtr t 990 72,000 84.6 1.2 12.5 0.5 1.38 1.2 OA 2.4 �/// 2nd Qtr 1990 74,600 0.0 1 A A5.2 1.8 0.t 4 1.0 30A 27.6 3rd Qtr 1990 52,600 25.0 1.0 30A 0.5 0.32 2.2 OA 28.4 4th Qtr 1890 17,800 25.0 1.6 28.2 7.2 0.10 2A OA 12A taf Qtr 1991 Avere e 51,000 2.7 1.6 5A 2.1 2J8 3.5 6.0 10.8 2nd Gttr 1991 Avere e 1 33,625 2.5 5.9 0.6 4.9 1.00 3.8 5.8 13.6 3td Qtr 1991. 2 34,4t7 3.8 1.1 7J 3.6 0.13 1.0 10.4 9.9 4ih Qtr 1991 Avere e 50,500 2.5 1.4 1 A 1.1 0.52 5.4 2.5 14.5 1 st Qtr 1992 Avera e 66,833 9.3 2.6 5,0 t.3 0.20 2.8 20.3 12.0 2nd Qtr 1992 Avera e 55,625 7.9 2.1 6.8 3.9 1.13 4.0 6.7 21.7 3rd�tr 1992 Avere e 73,933 11.8 5.0 1 OA 7A 0.40 9A 8.3 48.3 4th Qtr 1992 Avere e 78,000 7.5 2.7 8.0 6.7 0.13 6.7 6.7 10.8 . t at Qtr 1993 Avera e 53,000 5.0 2.1 8.3 1.8 0.10 1.6 5A 17.8 2nd Qtr 1993 Avera e 51,000 5.0 2.2 5.0 2A 0.10 1.5 6.2 22.6 3rd Qir i993 Avere e 51,250 5A 2.0 10.8 2.1 0.70 1.9 5.0 14.8 4th Qtr 1993 Averq e 51,500 5.0 3.0 5.0 i.T t.00 4.4 5.0 21 J i Did not(nclude Aug 25,1991 resuita. 2 No Mtty 1991 data . _ � • • � ;,.- -,,-, 1�li�i; ;�,�,� :��. ,\'r.� ,�.-•-• t ' . _ , _ r� -_- I �-�, iC.��'� _ � �� L�� `i� �� '�T . _....�( ` .il' , -- G � �i/ r. �.-.. . _ . � . _ _. _.. � . . � . . � Overview Of Proposed Minnesota Industrial Containmen,t Facility (MICF) What type of facility is proposed? USPCI, Inc. proposes to locate a non-hazardous industrial waste containment facility in the northeast portion of the City of Rosemount.The Minnesota In- dustrial Containment Facility (MICF) is planning to accept up to 80,000 cubic yards per year, or about 20 to 25 truckloads of waste per day. The MICF will consist of a series of ten six-acre containment cells. Onlv one cell will operate at anv given time except for brief_..pesiods.aa�henacell..isneazi�g.axs..�agacit�..and.a new cell is being opened up_Of the 236-acre site, approximately 120 acres will �'e e`nclosed and used for: an administrative building and analytical laboratory, leachate storage tanks, a truck scale and platform, a railspur with an unloading area, a container rnanagement building, access roads, utility corridors,waste con- tainment cells, a future development island and undeveloped buffer areas. Of � this 120-acre area, only about 60 acres will be covered by containment cells. USPCI, Inc. plans to leave the remaining 116 acres undeveloped to serve as a buffer area. However, some of this buffer area will be landscaped to help en- sure that the views of the facility from the adjoining properties and roadways remain aesthetically pleasing. What is a containment cell? Basically a containment cell is an above-ground geotechnical structure designed to contain specific wastes while virtually eliminating the potential for ground water contamination, thus protecting our ground water resources. Each cell is underlain by a series of three liners and two leachate collection systems. When a cell reaches its capacity, it will be capped with soils and a synthetic liner to prevent precipitation from infiltrating the cell and causing leachate forma- tion. The overall area of each cell will be slightly less than six acres. Each con- tainment cell would be approximately 440 by 520 feet at the top of the cell berm and will have a capacity of approximately 250,000 cubic yards. �s. . ao�wr�a+� . . . .. . . . GOMiAO�'MC.� � � o� � ,II CITY OF ROSEMOU NT z8�5`,TMthsr�W�t ' P.O.Box 510 Ever thin s Comin U ROS2t710U►1t!! Rosemount,MN y g� 9 p 55068-0510 Phone:612-423-4411 ' : Fax:612-423-5203 I TO• Planning Commission Fito1K: Ronald E. Wasmund, Director of Public Worl�s/B.O. � DA�: March 16, 1994 SUSJ: USPCI i We have received a request from the owners and manager of USPCI to take tlie defuution of � ' "non-hazazdous industrial waste" out of the zoning ordinance text and place it into their I'I Facility Interim Use Permit; and, further, to modify the defuution of "non-hazardous � industrial waste" as presented in their letter 2/7194. The current Zoning Ordinance language reads in the defuution section: �'i Non-Hazardous Industrial Waste Solid waste generated from an i.ndustrial or i, manufacturing process. Non-hazardous industrial waste sha11 not include: i:c�e�:tc�r� �'�, �c��:.�::::;>.:>:,»>..::><_:::.�<_.:<.;;::>;�:.:..<:>::;>:::.:>::,:::<;:.:..<:>�:.:::::::<;.,._.::::::::..::.:..:.<>.:»:....�<:.«:.y>.>::«:.>:...;:::::...,,,;:.:.>.<»::::-::`:<`<:':<�::::,::>:;<::>::::<:>�::<:::«:,;::<:::�`'»::;<»>«.:<:`'`�'""'"`�:::::::::°:: I :<:::»::;::>;>:<;z e re��r x� �pc��t�,€��b��d��.�z�� Sa�;;��g ��-��;..+�� :.;:<.:.;;:.,:.:> . . �Yi:;��x l�quid wastes not rocessed at the facili , sei�:':��e:;� .��;>�at�;::�r .::,:.;::.:;::::::.::::.;:.::...................................... P tY....:.<:.::.::.:::�.;;:.::.::.;:.>:<��::;.>::::;;;:.::.::.::.;:::;�:.:::::::.:::.::::::::.�:::::: �:{4:n�:'.::.:".::.:�.l:'r'iii:i.iii}ii:.?ii:X::i':.:i:::}:i:M'.:�: � � • � � ��:::. : .��:::>siud � PCB s uifectious waste ��z�e��:::'::;:.:,;::::.:<.::.:;:..::::::a�:::��:s��= non- .;:.:::::::;;;;:��.;;;;;:.:;;:.;:.:;:�;:x , , :;;;;:.;:.;;;:;;;;:.:_;,:;;:>;;��::::::::::::::::.::.:;;:::.:t I ....... ................................................... ............................:.,:.:......................................... � hazardous industrial waste that is economically feasible to recycle; radioactive or nuclear wa • <;::::::::�:>:>>:::;;::._�::;::;:>:.>::>:.;:. � ste ��::.,>�<:��`.;: .;:.;:;.;:>:::>::.>:,.;:::°,<:::.;:.>'. , .::::::.�::::::.::::: .::::::::::::::::::: :::��id�€�::t��;::;<p�:::��a�€�`::��e`:: _..............:.:::�::::::::::::.�:::::�.;:.:,:::;::::.�:::::;:::.:::.:::;:.::�.:::::.:::.;:.::.::::::::::.;:.;:.;:.;;::.::;::::;:.�:::.;:.:::.::. I ................ U5PCI has requested the defuution to be placed in their IUP to read as: '� Non-IIazardous Industrial Waste: Solid waste genera.ted from an industrial or II, manufacturing process. Non-hazardous waste shall not include; liquid wastes not processed at the facility; PCBs; infectious waste; non-hazardous industrial waste that is ' economically feasible to recycle; and radioactive or nuclear waste. The areas of difference have been highlighted in the existing language to show you. Some of these items which have been excluded from their proposed definition of non-hazardous industrial waste seem significant to me, so I have had discussion with Mr. Chapdelain and Mr. Kraft. Upon discussion with USPCI, Inc. representatives, they indicated that those items were not necessarily a part of their request. Any desire to accept those types of materials would have to go back through a similar process that they are doing now. An amendment to both the text and to their permits that are issued to them fmm the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and Dakota County is required. Their request at this time, is to be ,� able to accept ash of all forms. That wauld include incinerator ash, RDF ash, coal ash, � � sludge ash or by-product from the process of recycling that ash - whatever form of ash there might be. � �� tonninieq 30% O�t.ronsurtu/rtutt�ials. �8 ' 93 11 : 51 �KV� �HKK tr+utr��tKinU � � ~�V��v r^u� . �� Ms. Lisa FrcGse May 28. 1393 page 2 3. The tdPCA is developing rules designcd to control Air Toxics, one component of which is mercuzy. The Air Toxics ruiemaking process is sti1Z in early stag�s and therefore it is diffirult to predict when or if such rules wi21 be i.mplemented. � reexamination clause couZd be combined with notification requa.rements suggested in response number 2 above. 4 . Refer to response number 2 above. �`� 5. As zndicated in Barr's corraspondence dated April 8, 1993, RDF ash � tends ta be inconsistent in nature. It is sometimes only partia�I: �� ` combusted, resulting in emissions of inethane and hydrogen suifide gas � I after disposal. �].though systems can be designed to propexiy hazdZe such emissions, the faciiity liner does not meet curretxt desig:� ` � standards tvr disposal of RDF ash. Therefore, i;, is agpropziate for the Gity to maz:ttain its position on riot allowing disposa1 of rZDF �sh at �he MYCF. , 6. No resz>onse requ:.red. A.n add�.tional question t>osed by another council rse�ber relates to the possible i.-npacts af su?fur compounds and mercur on the fac' ` v y 11�t_ liner. Current •y . . � . . . . . Zi�erature provided by ma.nufacturers of Hi h �ensit Pol 5 Y yathylene (3DPE) geomembrdnes indicates little or no impact on the HDPn eornponenr. o' the Ziner from conta�ct with mercury or sulfur. Im�acts o= mercury or sulfur compot:nds on the cZay camponents of the faciZity liner are more difficult to evalcxate. Testing such as pG;mea.bility tes�ing, determination of catian �xchange cagacity, or clay crystal structurz analysis using SCdI]II.lAGJ electroa microscope photoqraphs may be reguired to cvalt�ate imoacts on clav. HoweVeT, at ttte conCentrations that coal.d reasonab?y he expected, impacts af inercury or sulfur compounds on the integrity o� the clay component of the Ziner would be expec�ed to be negliqible. As we discttsaed on Thursday, I plan to attend the council meeting at S:DO P.i�, on Tuesday, June l . I� you have any questions prior to that time, p].ease feel free to call me a� 832-2871. Sincerel_v, / �'LQi''-� � - ,��.�..�- Thomas 3. � p ^ due, ..c. T,7R1tmk 23\19\260\LFS.LTR ** TGTHL PAGE . F�'� �* ambient noise levels and model increases in noise expected facility. Particular attention will be iven to the be use, f the inereases at nearby residences. g Potential naise • � No odors are expected to be emitted by the facilit �. � wastes accepted will not decompose biologically like mixed Y, primarily because the � Furthermore, wastes that could cause an odor municipal wastes. �� characteristics will not be acce ted. Problem because of their chemical odor problems. p The EIS, therefore, will not address Surface Water Stormwater on the site will be handled by directin bY collecting it in the leachate management systemgand later� Wetland areas, or the Rosemount wastewater treatment lant. discharging it to of the stormwater management plans and evaluateEtheirisuitabl�de a description capability to handle the runoff will be assessed. The ility. The significant erosion and surface water degradation on- andeofftsite�w addressed. Mitigation measures that should be considered will ill be Wetlands on the site will be identified along with measures thate su to protect or replace them. 88ested. Rosemount wasteuater treatmenthplantlwilllbesanallZachate dischargeYtoetheken composition under low and hi h y ed• Leaehate volumes and as well as the impact of thegleachateidisehargenontthesfunll be investigated, � capacity of the treatment lant. etion and available modeled to p Leachate flows after cell closure will be predict the duration of anticipated treatment. Constraints the pro,ject poses for future expansion of the sewage treatment lant identified. P will' be Ve�etation and Wildlife _ Tf'le ProPosal appears to pose no threat to wildlife habitat or t of plants or wildlife. The EIS, therefore, will not addres wildlife. o native species a vegetation and HYdroAe_ol_ogy Groundwater quality protection is frequently a concern whe facilities are developed. Leachate, or water that has ° land disposal materials, is the source of concern because it ma have the percolated through waste negatively affeet groundwater quality �e y potential to minimize the potential for ' PrQ,ject proposer intends to non-putresible nonhazardousgwastesat2r quality problems by 1) accepting only a relatively short time and then are ca�perating in small cells that are open series of three high-densit pped� and 3) underlying each cell with a collection systems. y Polyethylene (HDPE) liners and three leachate The EIS will evaluate the the hydrogeologie setting ofttheisite�andrn arbatareaegradation by describing formation, composition, and movement• y s� discussing leaehate aquifers. For each aquifer, the areal extentnandYmagnitudetofltheafoeeted potential will be estimated. Potentially affected groundwat p llution identified. Possible mitigative measures, including changeseinuthegdesil be the pro,ject and the type of liner material, will be ineluded. 8n of restrictions of the quantities and t The effect of identify materials that are not compatiblefforslandadispted will be studied to posal or should be -4- dust. Intermittent cover will be placed on those wastes which could create a dusting problem. Operations will call for watering the unpaved road as necessary to control dust, and water will be used as required to control dust in the cell . Wind erosion of materials in the cell is actually expected to be minimal as the berms around the cell are expected to buffer wind velocities inside the cell . t materials tquipment and incoming trucks delivering was e will generate some air pollution due to their exhaust. The amount of pollution they generate is expected to be minimal . Unly one to two pieces of on-site equipment will Furth rmore onl twent to b o e ratin at an one time. e , Y .Y e P 9 Y twenty-rive truckloads of waste will be delivered in any one day. In comparison, Highway 55 now carries over 500 i 1 rda . veh c es e P Y The facil.it will not generate methane gas. Methane is y generated when biological materials decompose anaerobic- � ` ally (for instance, when food wastes decompose in a sani- ' � d f ilit wi11 onl acce t Th ro ose ac Y P ` tary landf�ll ). e P P Y � � non-hazardous industrial wastes, which do not decompose in � � the same manner, if at all , �and which wi11 nat generate methane gas. Odors normally associated with aerobic biological decomposition will not be present at the f acil� ity. The acceptance procedures will evaluate the poten- tial for candidate wastes to cause odors. When found, such wastes wi11 be treated or immediately covered. Some noise will be generated by the equipment used on site and by trucks delivering wastie. The impact associated with this noise is expected to be minimal , due to the low volumes of vehicles and the distance separating the facil- ity from tne nearest noise-sensitive receptors. , �- 3. Existing Area Air Quality Issues , The proposed facility is located in what is aften referred to as the Pine Bend area of Dakota County. The surround- '�, ing land uses are primarily industrial in nature, and , -73- � � PETITIDN TO THE ROSEMQWNT CITY COUNCIL JU�� ' d 2�� A� NoT � �',ec d , oni� C'bp�/ � WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cali upon the City Council of �� Se,c , R�semount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. G�O�`0c`' � e We oppose the landfiil expansion for the following reasons: . (1) USPCI made expiicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to inciude ash, and if would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3} TMese TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE"**" Name Address Phone ` `�- i5��6�,<<��n�� °5�,��,-t a,a 3 �fg5'�` 1 � � / �` �7 �� .��c��..� � ' -, ,..n, �%-z-Z-Sz�� ,° 3 /567� ` � .� zz- zY9f� 4 ' r ��I 3 -4�3 �! �� a�- � s - f, � o _ �_� �j - P A 3 -� s7� 7 $ `�� `� ��itir.�'� /S 7c y C i c ai'v., -c /�,�� c/2 3 _ c./6 / g ' ..: �.L ` c� � � a. -�l � ' ° i.S�7 y �'�`Ge��'��---�—�..:�� 1� �f�?3- s��' 1� (�,�., /SL� l C.�r� 1 � ��, � 1 S 6a � C'�,, ,� // i��, I �/�.3 � �� 12 `_"�G � — 13 . �'b:y� A -� �"/�C� ,c 1 q, : " ' / �� C.C'Z�r�� i . �/�3- 73� �5 "�� ^ �5� ,��. C'o�r�e ll ?`c� -��( . i 6� h?�v�S�: - 17 � �1. /� �� 2��J�y)[\� � Q 3 7'^ //� `�.�/�i`r.,, � 1 V �1 V/ Yi � _ _ � . � � r'-� ,� (� � `�� > �>-�� 19 � — ,� �:� � , �y 20� � l U C�rv�t�/ �. 3 � C��w��: 7;t .�3 E-yr 3 21 -�- �-(..�- .--. �s"��f� � _ , �fi�;. ��"�� .n,, �S�C�� c� 22 ' - •� � ti �r , I �j (� ^ C-�i�CLL C S' 2 _ UU .3� 23 � �3 �� 2� ,� � � �:� .�.I � �t � 3 � -` - S_ G c�4��G��e c �� 3--�6�y 25 � G,�a� ` /,�,,r . f . ,` � � b **Continue signing o �photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,19 9� , PETITlQN 70 THE R4SEIVlOUNT GITY CQUNCIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cail upon the City Council of F�isemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFiLL EXPANSION. �� VUe oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as Iead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; **""Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE*""* Name ._.-- Address Phone , ,�;w� _ � i3� G d ��1�� -..� 2 � i 5'1�G� � � �� r� `/2 3 r s s` 3 �� -�.� �/� r � .j�G 3� 4 � 3; � _ �s 7d CjZ,��rE ,, �z�_i�,o.7 5 � ]1,:��.,ti� ��la- �� '�n� c�=- `�a3 -�C,j� 6r � � �. a-`E �/ 7��r�`�"— � /S��br t��.2EsTON� �'. 32�-��2� $ �/L�� ,. g ,+, �v��s- C' ,�w h� - i,�l,� 1 o I r �� :�� 9QS� i1 J � 3 � .C7 �✓� � 12 %�� -.��-8�� 13 � �o(o CU — � � 14 � � S �r �-�Y ' 3�- c�l�l �� L� l� �r�� 1� �r , 1-� 3- I��t . 16 �r� c .n G�� l/ 'T . 02 –o�//�'L� 17 /,�G3� L�t�/J/.i' l?��GG��' I 18 �% -� �r �e N c h � S 6 3 3 ('��n�l� 7`t � Z �' �5�3� I 19 (/ ' 7 " �`�3� I � � A , � 20.�,�C ,, �� C - � �a3 ��3 ' 21 ( r <o �� ll l� � , � a - � 2 ` 7 ir e r r� �'"'+ �(�3- �1 � 2a ,r 1. t �a3- d 2 ' � � �' 4�3- 25 � CY �- �Z - 35 ""`Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Aprit 4,199�4 PETITION TO THE �OSEMQUNT GtTY COUNCIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCi's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFtLL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: 1 USPCI made ex licit romise that it would n t ex nd the landfill to include ( ) P P S � pa a,sh, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash h�s the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3)These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; "***Please write NEATLY and sign �NLY ONCE**"" ame Address Phone � 1 � �i� �f/�a S 1 5'�7",. s>' e.w ��.��`�`C�s 2 °� I�? � %1�C�--vlf� q- i�,,��j- ��-� S-� �� .3�a'��v��=� 3 ��C�� , ', t' et:� ylN� �5�}f�'/�. CtJ �/�2.�'--��`� ' r- / / , +4 t..r. � ` � ( ! 4� � �'�C :v� 1 �� S y�' � � `ti j 1_�2—�I/ '��; ' , ,1_ rJ �� ( �� . �,'l; Z � "��T 6 _. / �d' /�-�"H .S%7/� � `f Z 3-�,57�% , � � ;,r. � ;�� i s�. �'��-,- �1:� �I a�; s `� ��'� 1s�� ; �� .7 % ry J � J ' /Li � �� J�" � �JT L�v<s� � ��.�/ � 10 � . �..�� - �5�:, �� • �..Z.3--/y`�f"3 11 �L ,� �' �� . C�� '[��,`"�I�� 12 ULI� �L�=i.n �dZ �-/2 ?-- 72�� 1 L �-Il`l�l ()�.�C"�t��i [�r, ��,�'�1' 14 �+.�Z�c,_ �l�1 ��v�"� �+r 3a�-aS 5� 1 r �: �/.�,,.�� /�� 1 �; ,1��^ `�,�.� �/s� - 16 �-; ' i . �/._�-� i,��.�5 � ,� � -: � A y� y� ��;'��.� y�3-�i�� 18 _J� �`h � � � 19 Mti�2. y�Ss� 5�``C� �, - �3�? -�3S<./ 20 �� ' �� T�y /l S�:.� � � �Lz - �`�5 t 21 �. I 5 �" v i � w• �z�i � 6 �� 3� /5 y'.�`' �G �v� s1Z..�_�/�,� 2s - 1 hc � 45 I ��' � w. 4�3-2i� d 24-��2 `��r-� z�;� � y 3 5 i �szr-�-�� ' �� -�/�� 25 J�,�;�� C.Gf.L�a��?j L'��,1�-��f�,'� f 59�� .�.� ��-� ��-�?C�L� ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,1994 PETITION TO THE �tQSEMQIlNT EfTY COUNCIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the Iandfili expansion for the foliowing reasons: . (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the iandfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials; even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities furthet increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"*"Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE*"*x Name Address Phone 1 `5-.��, cZ,_ ;�_�e� �'Z�`I ts��`zf .� zzz s-�6� 2 �1 ;;`� ry � � Z�� l `�1� C T w �v`TG�� 3 � ie y Z� 1 IS��' � F � �Z 3-�� 4�' /!E�`� �i�'� �� l r .+�' � � s_ . � �` ` � -/� � ��' . 6 � �'� 9' � % `�-1>� c��.% �z 3- y�i� ' �`�� t� c_ i� , z ��5'0� 9 � C'�' ' 10� 5�33�" /S�'�` �� G�, ��"v�5�,�9 11 C�: �I � ; ��' 3`�� ' l ��'"�' C'�_ W y�� `�y�y �2 �/�dd /S�� i ��-� y z�� s �1374� 1S�N Cr� G(J. 32�-�6 7'�0 '', 14 " ��. /-S� � �!, �l . -�,CoZ3 -�'��S` 15 �'Yt � L� �l3�13 �S B � �`.t r.J '��3 -�� 7 g � 16 . �I�3� tS�3�;., � , � yz��- Zy7 . 17 � 01 �t � � - ,a� �. 1 `� ` ^ �-I.� � " ' S�t'' � i- w �3-S 3 S" I 1 g U�- ��- i 5� �� i,.v u Z 3 5 3 s I � 20 `{�13 ��c.f w 4a3- Ccap 21 � C�.��►'l �s�' 1��'"�.�- ��1 ��,�' ��713 22��/^��.�-�--_- �1:�5 7 /s�� f ��, �� - /7 i� 23 24 25 **Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,1994 , PETITtQN �O THE ROSEMO-UNT _C.ITY :G4UNClL. � ;.. '_ - WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the:City Cauncil of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT F4R AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the foilowing reasons: (1) USPCI made expiicifipromises that it wouid not expand the iandfiil to include ash, and it wouid remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste°; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high iev�ls of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4} USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further . increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE**** Nam� Address Phone 1�Ju�.t� �us��c�.5� 15to o� Cres�-on�., � '��s�Y.�.e►�,�-� '��3-(�335 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9 -- 10 - ' 11 12 13 14 15 i � �� 17 _._ 18 19 � 20 21 22 � 23 24 ' 25 **Continue signing on photocopy of this form �NLY. April 4,1994 , PETITIDN TA TtfE ROSEMOUNT �tTY �4UNCIL • WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , caii upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFtLL EXPANSION. We oppose the Iandfill expansion for the following reasons: 1 P1m O US C ade explicit promises that it would nat expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount cit�zens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increas�s the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *""*Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE"*** Name Address Phone 1 r� " �d��'-S l�1S� ST E. .t��5�� 4�3�-7�a�: __.____ ._.. — � , ,-� � � /,� �� c%��- ►2s��, �-aiy�( 3 a f 3�S�o �i� f�'•t�"'w� 4�3=.�'9�r� 4 � % o � x� ,� �.�-s� �� t � �� '�� i�s7� S'T r= �s�i f'�� 37 t�/rs'� . 6 / ' �,�. sm y3a- 9a� , �6c�� c� �o��u�r ��-�ao� . s d� �d�" �.• /La�� 3zz-��v ��;- 9 —� � ; � ; 10 11— ` — �� `(Zq� t S�'�° �� ►.� Qt�Serno�,-��'3Z2-Z�3� , 1 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 �, � 25 � **Continue signing on photocopy of this farm ONLY. `� � ' '��'� ' . PETIT!ON TO T[t� ROSEMOUNT GtTY CQII�CCiL WE, the undersigned residents of Ro�emount , call upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMITFOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCt made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high Ievels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Ro�emount �itizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens' , ****Please write NEATLY and sign QNLY ONCE*"*" f�ame Address Phone 1 �`C t� � C�Mar�a�z /-�ve�, ��.�au�tl�l� S`"�'�b�/ '�23.�� 2 - G' � �+ -�o�a- 3 � � '�I � L,t.:��c�t.. ��2�'�,��(y� : .�:.�—��S' < � � � 4 � � �J � `' � �'� Y � ��.�?�;.� c� r; �%, �i.7��f.3n.� � ,i�- �C �„z3 -5 s y!��% � � 6 �t�.,.,.,._:.�. v . �r �< i� > > / � � 7 �-� �� /�'-�.,,� s�' r�/ ��,�-.� �z�� 8 /�1 ' � (�! `� .3-�J 1/ ; �S ` , s � L�� _ � � 10 sQ� � ev2 � ( Z Z - ,��7 7 » 1' y 3- �S� 12 % , � , . �'�„��-�'".�'/f' � 1 .I - �� - 5�� 14 ' � 6 `� � —Z��'� , 15 v ? ;.� �' - ��,�� -; -/v�� . 16 17 a8 19 20 21 22 23 ' 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,19�� PETITION TO TEtE ROSEMQUNT GtTY Ct3�NGIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , caii upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it wouid not expand the landfill to include ash, and it wouid remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materia(s, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, I surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; II�� (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further ' increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; '�, *"**Please write NEAT�Y and sign ONLY ONCE"**" Na Ad ess Phone ' 1 - - Z - � ; 2 -tk 3 3�o Ut� Q/Z f�� S Z`•t..� �� .�,y'�� _-- 3 :��,,y�,�-"�,�,-�;;-c 3 s��"�� -m% St t.� y� � -� � � � `�� .�/ �/�' -� 3'?�S"' ,�� .��r�<-�' 5� � fi— �. ' ` � ,�� 7 , , � 3��_`�� ,l u. �-��i�- � ,�, . —�- . _ � 8 __ � 9 _ f,eGS- l�'�y�l�d'.�Il 55"]23 1.0�33-ozot�. 10_ � '�� ir�.-; ��L��, �� 11 �,� �,�d- � � ---� 12 , .s� ` `' a �� ? � „�� 13 . � �d Yr � Jr' S7 � / �3 ` ��g / 14 �SO l.t� ��I�F?'��5�`J �/c��'-o�3�� „ �5 , � r .-3 �� C9 � � ---� K/ ` �� ,r �. � �r � . 1s 3 �� .�3-t��3 � `" 33 ��" -/ �� -- � s�t .��-�e� 1 7+r.� �� 4 ��f, � _� � 1 t �� . � , , � ..- 20 , . .�.� .,�� 21 22 ` � :.�✓ ` /— �'� �'. ��.3 -io�-� 23 ,�. ��. � '�`-� � � y�� ? , . . 24 ' �� 5(�%.� lS�-�.�r 57�. Cc.� �-�}--oz l �--.:� . _ 25 C: � �. %c� ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ON�Y. April 4.19�'� PETITtON TO THE k�O�EMOUNT GITY COUNCCIL WE, the u�dersigned residents ofi Rosemount , call upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the�landfill expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it wouid not expand the landfiil fo inciude ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These T�XIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"""Please write NEATLY and sign �NLY ONCE**"" ame Address Phone ' % .� � . 1 `� .Cf `'��/ �� ~� � _� . _ 2 -- �: f" .�� ,��_��,� 'r"_� Y,��?` ^� �1� ��' ` ,� '� `3 �-�r-r-..,r� �..ur�r-,.�=r�:� •� y Q r =.,�-�, ,tr-�+r H jz:-�,,_...�,,.t.L..-�� y � 1 -`/ ��C 4 :� :�..�f ,-.�:=%'.s,� ,/�'?�-��., �`.;"-y��,�. l �/'a` „_.-.�: � � 5 ,'�! ,�, . ��3 �N� �' ��.��,`�" y 3� �i�7 _ ,� �'�/� 3 7 � �--� ft 4 r. �r 7 � � s ' o��,� �" ' - ��-�� 9 ' S � S�� 37-�"7.� 10 ��'`7 " 3��, 11.�( r � � ,r'�`r� 12 �.539 -E' '�37- 3 9�f� i3 ` i`l /` S�� ' r ��,?3 �s"L3Y 14 � � '1 l,� % l y3" �. �''�`-��-�:-�1`" �`� j .�i�yc 15 '' t � � � r � � , � .�'.�—`��s - �1 ' 1� f��, C,--ti.,L,e.� Y s-�y /Yr � f)`. � �G 1� h�t lil.�� '�' h'? 7-s�.� G 17 ' �s� /'.�'�' ��xe�.� �37-3'/�6 18 _-� ^ � `/ �3 ' ��37�CJG 19 ' ` ;i; ;��. � A, � d � ��_�G ( , � � � zo /�� ,�— � .�.� � ,�� , � s,� �� 2� - E�g� � 2� 22 23 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Aprit 4,1994 I . PETITl�N ,TQ THE ROSEMOUNT CITY CQU�lGIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSfON. We oppose the landfiii expansion for the foliowing reasons (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it woufd remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE**"" Name 1 Address � Phone 1 ,�/ /5�� 7 C:�iT��7��i f-�, �� 37-��.�" ., � �''�' c �, �Z��.�'�.5-- 3 n ` �� 4 ��-a�I�.td`��,�-�,�.C, � ��l �,�(-�(�,Z ( 5 B�Qo r� ��Sz+?� YS� -osvo � � ' ��-� ' i - �u'if w ��05 - t�N s533 7 -q� 3 J 7 .3 �/�o� ,�� °� ��,, ��a L�' u37�"�3y 8 � ��/�.�..,P�c,�-�.�"-_ c/��5�/ / 9��.,�Q:/.�/.� i�-��,7 a. �.o �./ �� -02�/� �.yr f � _ "" � �3 t "'„ � � J��,,,.f�3t � . �'v � �o �.� . �.�.�..,��..��_. 1�3'_. -� �.� _ ,�� -� �' � �. .� � ��. � j 1 �..n:::�:..�.:} �3 r� < ,� � � :.,_ � � „ 12 � />: ,�'-� �� l�. �_ 13 ..,�� '/ �e6 —/G � �� /�� -��<-�y�� 14,,,�`:'7�� :.;� '�' ' :�r�/.��:�� C�l�=�;-rr�,, /�%� (:- ✓c��is� � r,?'�.�% ��:� �.��-�.�'T� ' 15 —�� , 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 "`*Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,19�� • PETITlON TO TIiE �tOSEMQ�I'�tT GITY CQUNCtL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiii expansion for the foilowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the IandfilF to inciude ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste°; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as iead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3)These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"**Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE*"** ,,� Name ., Addre , � Phone � 1 � � � �� Z�2t� n � ��.� � 3� � 2 � , �;: i�i 3.S~c h �� . �_; LIa3- r�8��' 3 �a C1 .C`'_/ '� , � 4 y rG l �.�.�� 5.�'� 'a 6 '�.� , � !' f ^ { � � ` , � ._. _. � � /. , 7 ,�-�,'t-Ct'u, ..J, , ' �i��, � .5� � '�i��..c.�ti.-, �/l�. �{_,,�� /h`, �.� ? �J G' —C..��''u--c�-�-, G,e–�...o ;. ..L.� -..2 c�J J 9 r v i�ryi,b �./ 2 3 -� 3 3 7 �, 10 6 a -/ 3 . 11 �J� �� 12 13 � c`� 14_�r'�,�. �785r E. •� �0?�3--J�-��'— . � �� 8' ��tt,�v�.�.�, �z�, �{Z 3-�2q �� . 16 �- �7�0 �� --?�.5�� 1� -- ' G� � ��?Jc - �-7�2 S.5 � 18 ��. .[_ ��.h,�.� l 5��7�U � �1�,•� e4�c y�? -�� 3/ 1 � f� . /�� ,, � ��: ��--�� . �o � , , -s��3 21. / '�� J oZ� - ,� 22 / � , �_ �o 1 23__r,�� C�.. ��,�-�a.�-c� /�7}� t r , r �-��`z�.� ''� .-z� ��r ' � ��. 322- Z,3�S 24 � r � 25 C�...�`1�- � � �_ `�-�:� �.._. - - '`�'Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONl_Y. Anr�� 1�'�^ ' . PETITlON TO TI�E �tpSEMOUNT CITY COUNGIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cait upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCPs PERMIT F4R AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION: We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: {1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste°; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high Ievels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *""*Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE"**' Name Address Phone 1 ' � 7 � e -4505 2 � �- /�i'�.,3� CG�.�%,�--- �G� �S� 7� �� "��S , 3 � 7�0 ° �e, 3��— a.--� 7l m �i�� — ��' � , �..• ,� _� .38` 6 � - r rjr'�� >�v� 7 '�s^ �t f`' �i`��--5'F_��'' S >�37.s ti,,,,�,�a-w�. �" ��-�`5� 9 �?S 3 = 10 '' � / .S'1 S �, �-�r�,,.�,,�` '�a.3 —i'�� 11 , �� t �S �/,� � It a-ox-;�y�'-;�...� ��3 �- �AL �, � 12 ;. i S' ,�c�-�., i� r- 3 .� � - 5�'`f J 13 - �.' ��- - �'�� 'I 14 �Q..� � Fl� �i,�c� '�✓�� al� ' . 15 ��7 � . .3�a - � �J� ; 1 �� .Sf 7�',�ccJ�rnw 'aS�� 17 ' �l'J • � 18 � �r.s� %�ls�S �r�w c��,,.a{ 5�� 3-/S 3 7 19 C� iys-�s' « 5�� 3_ �r� � 20 l s s�T ' � _��7Z 21 � '`� 3- '�,,� 22 � - �" � ,�»�- 1-3-/ Z I 23 2-u� 3,� � �-�v��f j t�� U✓ � � �. .� 7�� 24 C`� �,.�-rn� `� �_;�,_ � z i � �_ i X > � � 2-3 � �.Z o_..�� 2 _ „� /�� yz-�'��'-s" `t-',...�-.�.'�f� ��, ,�,. S i *"Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April �.19�?� . PETITION �� TH� ROSEAAO��v i C1TY GuuiVC{L WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemoun# , cali upon the Ci#y Councit of Rosemount to DENY USPC!'s PERMIT F4R AN ASH LAfVDFILL EXPANSlQN. We oppose the landfiff expansion for the following reasons: (1} USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash,and it would remain a facility for "non-industrial waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics o� a HAZARD�OUS WASTE, and cori#a�ns high levels of TOXIG METALS such as tead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3} These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, anct health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the en•�ironmenta( risks to Rosemount citizens; *"**Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE*"'`* Name Address Phone 1 7'f'I� � � �f3c;'� lS�'�' L� �> �Z3--7zSZ 2 3a7s Lo�.�� so�i s-r: �a3-s�� 3 - L l�J�''_' St �c�-3-S��5 4 _ 3�o��urP�. l3'-0�`s�` � `�a-��_/(p 5 ' / �So �� ,�,71�' �� 3-331i� 6 1JOs�N SoosAi 326c�Low�t �SaT" g7. W 32Z- 2 gt� 7 /c� '(I G r� � A�-��t �� }�- 33 5�� 8 /5/ ,4., g 2 3 - z� 9 � =��..� :.�y.� � 10`��R ,..., �a sss �ow�,��i5o��sr �a3 - /�� 11 3 a � ,cow� �sv�► +- �1� - � � 1 - •��,P.�i� 3Z8'S'l�e✓ >s?>'``' Si �Z 3 -I 977 , 13��,a.�-c- � a �_� 3 z..�Fo �«-�.e.�.� /S o��'` �z 3 �3 � / c , 14 � � �1'`` z. -/3 / �5 Z7� La�,e,� So ��` � `t�z3 ' �S-"�� 1 s ;C�-�-- � 3�?'�Go�,,�„r- , 5 fc�✓' ,�'a�3-s�' �-7 » l�6 �' A`� �3- /� � 1$ ' / . �v. ��.� -��.sT 1 . . �S'�a �-��-'�77 � 2 G �.•z,�-P �a��3/�� 0 21 � 3Lga C Y �-� f �/L3 3�f�.i 2 3 uv G�y �`��t,tJ, �`�3 -� �y3 23 a'S'u � �_ �3nn ��'i�'^ �.�J �4�3 -S Ss�1 O 24_��e.��r ,�`7�� l.� �-�3-�d 25 **Continue signing on photocopy of this forr�: April 4,1994 PETITION 7ru + HE ROSEMGu�VT CiTY COuIVCiL W�, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call u�n the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the foflowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it wouid not expand the landfill to include ash,and it would remain a facility for "non-industrial waste°; (2) tncinerator asl� has the characte�isti�s of a HAZARDOUS WA�TE, �nd con#air�s high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, s�rtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens, *"**Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE**"" Name Address Phone � .S��y�- �s� 3305' /f�' TN`S"r. �e..l� , ,<� ��---1�� 2 �_ � `� �' 3 3 a t �ff� -� . G�.� ��,��r�,�.�h.�' ��-ss/� ' a�s= �c a - s�� 5 �—��y RT�,S T r,�) f? ��-,.,,�•�, yh�r�.rl _.�5 0��' ��3`S'q� _ v 6 �=tr1'/_2P-l/ S� c G�w�9D/�-��/� ��s�"�6�..�f /��rr: 5�3`��6�' _ 3�a -S OaS 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 �� 18 19 20 21 � 22 23 24 25 ._ . - _ "*Contin�_;.= ��igning on phot� this form - April 4,1994 PETITIQN TO THE ROSEMQI�NT GITY CC1U�tGIL i�1lE, the undersigned �esidents of Rosemount , call upon the City Councif of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the foilowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it wouid not expand the IandfiiF to inciude ash, and it would remain a facility for"non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXfC METALS such as lead,mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4} USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens, ""**Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE***" Nam Addr ss Phone 1 � ` \ �-�' � ' � � �-3� 2 °�`�------ ��, b�- ! �t ��'' S i� ��' /�.5� , � � . ,� �, � �- ' 3 ll,�vyyyt .t�,�L:✓1 /T/.�! /LE'�C'f'f"� C�!C'�cl� ,-��c -�7�'% 4 �—F �Y '� �� b�r��,.:.�� 3�`s` —:,:: _��-�t �,�,�� . �{..�_3 _ /5�/ � i' 3,?�2 4��' S- C.L. � �ii i� � �/c- .f-<-c•c;c,� ��r � 5 C �•� '�'-�-7-z- ��.ti' 6� ` i� � � ��)� ��- ��'�j� � �1� '�.J �,�.� ��`�;1(n � � 7 � � ' _/ T` �'—c�� -�- �-Z � ,.--- ��S � ` ,.Z — � 8 C�-...� , ..,�� SS� � � � �- .3_�-� - 1�3 �C�� 9 ; ..�; ��'L�: ' �.� I i l y ` � 1�_�h�,— L��_ 10 - l��` l�sc-lc'i K %�r'�iCo C��ol��rc �c�C ��.�- ��•� � � , � 1�1 �, �� ' � /-��j ,"�.r,�� % � l�c�, � _;'-�1�� i"�� 12--��—'� �=-L "z..�-- I Y 3��'- �L, r v� :.,.-�: �..�" �'�''� �'' �S: `� �//Z� i3 / �,fJ/, ' ��; ,'�� !`,r� ;� .�L i^�M r'.Z �-` `/i �,:J 14r�r I r tC'--�.! � �'.�tz�=�t 1''��:,-�Lo --�� 3��S L=>�:.y.c�L =� ?L'--/Z,C'7 15 �v ct S � '� '�.� �2� - S o� : 16 , C z� 7 �� 7� :�. s.c.'(txz' Z, l ( 17 LL" /) 3�"�v ��l 3`�U�� ,� � a 2� ��7 ( 18 � � Y��i/ C;«�,�.�.� ��.� �Zvse Y,�3 -C � >' � 19- �-�S 7 ��..��, , �.- � /2�h-- .��,�-}� ��i � in � . . i��,� ` }� y C(Rn�� c ,,;�_ ,n, n,�� 3?l� -�-�'� � � 21 � � � r �G l � l �Z�� c�� }�-�� 1�� 22 23 �� 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONL_Y. Aor�l ^ f��' ! P"ETITION TO Tl�iE �t4S�MQi�NT CITY Gt�UNGLL -WE, the=�tndersigned residents of Rosemount , cail upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMiT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiil expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfili to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste°; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface wrater, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"**Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE*""" Name Address Phone 1 -� �G//e�-s/�, �J�ic��/y�f�--�-�z-,.�E�C�k��- �P�,�..._��;..a'- `��-�-/E,J� c� �.y' ^ ' � z �n�� y� �� a��z: ��- ��- �� , �� ,, (� 3 �� L' �7 7'/� J7�. �,� �C'i�t'6z, L;t-:47 7 � � / � �" � 4 ' � • ( g-o�-. 1�.�-- 3 7 Qi c� 1 y y`" � �J =-�-�-� 3�.� -�� i l 5 � � 51:� �; �� -� .�z--��7,� 6 �� 1�(u� C,� ->l� �C'�C�� i�' ��1��Z-c�z,�,1�� Z � �-F`7� �; 7 ' ' .� � / ��G C.cG��=='� /� C� � �`��.�-�`�`(/ _t>�4' �-- 9,s/1i �— a 1� h/� Cr�,:l� �� } C�r �„��1� �n�0; � o.`iC' !'V1J�'� �j 2-�" — �"�(/ ' , �'�/.��7 �c�:n� rz��J `'�,�. �'12 �3��-Z� � io� �y�7j- �'��%�/'<.,q,,,, �� y��.s -z�� -, �---- 11 �. ; ; ,,� -� l,� �� .; ;� =��"�' � �%� ��c Lz . ��' _�� 12 '\ ss��z i`' l �/-��'-i <iv��vw �`� n ui�_,��,,.,.;'� ��z-r 5�7� 13 _ ,� �, � '' "d` S��: � �=�.�-�-c,�.-��-- �:�.;_ � � � 14 �� 4�-- � �'�r 1/ /t/.3��,�� S�t ��' � � � �:2Z-��;'S' � "1.'4"v�_ �5 l : ,� � 11 �� 1�2�� C t,t��.titi` ��`� k��,�,fi �Z��`��1�.�i ; 16` '' �� Ec�-r,. �`t. � �.- 1�-� '�, s�� .�< -5��7� � o ,�� '^ / � 17 � �� , ��r ��.��:�,� ,, � � � �r. - �� _ - , � ��f 1 s ,� � .z ,�,�� / L`=��-��2:� �� ;u _ � ' 19 � . 20 21 22 23 24 25 *"Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Aor14�.19�� PETITION TO TI�tE ROSEMOUNT CITY CQUNCIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Council of , Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: (1) USPCI made expticit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations p�esent a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE***� Name Address Q Phone � , ��,, . . .- c� �5/ht �}3-�G�%�,� 2 � � ��5- ..��.�� -�3-��" — �- �� -- s � �l?S ��'7 ��-��S�� -_— � < ; ' �'�;� ��'� � �..a � Q� �- �l a�sQ 1 d 6 c �r�� ve, �� ,� 3- �� . .3 �•i3�� , �.�� g 3 2 �S �'- 14�� l� � 9-�.Pi,1� Z�1 g " � �/ Z-7.5^ G�/4o�O ,iLT� ��-��''s��, 5�:c�d�'' 10 11 12 13 14 . 15 � 16 I 17 1S 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,19a� PETITION t0 T�tE ROSEIVIO�UNT �ITY C011NCIL , �IIIE, the ur�dersigned residents of Rosemount , cali upon the City Council of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiil expansion for the foliowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to inctude ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations p�esent a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record a#their o#her hazardous waste facilities#urther increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"*"Please write NEATLY and sign �NLY ONCE"**" Name A Phone ddre ss � 'r'�.o�,�-c�.�D�� --�i �i ��.,..�� i ,�z, oI 2�� y..,� �,so �w,� i��s� w .�a a - s�s-� � 3 � � � � (/L v,�.��i� S; �r!� � �,� ( �T'-=L tv 3�d�- f 3 i� ., �-r .� '1 . �i r �G` :J t' _ ' , 6. . / 7'7`Z' � 4 J�'i=-' ;.. � . ��-��/ L'� 5 �dfv� �ecvev-/�7�Sf. GUp.sf �d 3- 3/9/ 6 G(� �c'�Sc 4�..c,�tn �Y 7�' Sf W�s� ��-s -a�Y� �� - 14�T� .,S f �� .��v 8 � /9G �- r� 5`.� � �,1 ; 9 � �r S o ��.c,�.� l � L' S�. t,c� ' � _- " "7 _ `�lS �� -�.� '��-L?�� i� �� -, ,` � ,2 , • _ � ��,��,�, �� 13 14 - . 15 ; 16 17 1g �'I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 "'Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Anr�l � 1�� ` ,� PETITtQN TO THE �tOSEMO�UNT �ITY COtJNCIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cali upor� the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiil expansion for the foliowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises`that it would n�t expand the landfill to include ash, and it wouid remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compUance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE**** Name Address Phone 1 �i YC�n � z �loa� � l��r� �i �3��3� 2_��v�uu�u�o I z��'�' ��t�sf ��/ �',j7--��'� 3 4 5.,_.,_ 6 7 $` 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 � 25 **Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. April 4,199� ; PETITlQN TO THE ROSEMQl1NT CITY COUNCIL � WE, the unde�signed residents of Rosemount , caif upon the City Councii of Rosemaunt to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSfON. We oppose the landfill expansion for the foliowing reasons: (1) USPCI made expiicit promises that it wouid not expand the landfill to inciude ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, sc�rface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance recard at their other hazardous waste faciiities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; *"**Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONGE*"*" Name Address Phone � �� l ODa v '� I � W � 3'�3� 2 2 , _ �!i�¢-�—DA-k r�i� .�-�-(�.�, �� ' 16 0� g ��,1 �J �J� �� /��/ � �-, � i , , 4 . °' � ✓� � 5 1�'p13 .,(�� 1�-s�0 ` 2 1?i.s 6 �/ -.9�+>L' / S'�'o .�f,�'iriJ��e ��v �S�`� %��- - �� 7 SLS7l��7�/ili�'�' QI,G C,2� � - �/ _ o � � y � Y�� 9 v �-/ �'o 10 .�-� �"�� 4��f o Or�t n��1 t t,t,r J�'t �oSC�t o�"'� t�al.�'`�°"`S 1 ,,, � S y � � �- . � C��' 1 �� y�3-�y 1 � ` , j �5 ' r ��c��,/545'�1� S� j��- �' 1 � ,, ,. , . ,, �r ; • 1g ��l ,/,� ��S cJ�/�`r� I�� / VTsl�s"i1Li/f� � �I7 � -13� 1 ,� ,-' `"� . � �r y3s5 ��-�,, � ,�'s��-��-�r �� 1y � � �� -�`l�� 1 �' G'l�s � 4� � • -4 �9 ;, � � � , � z3-/�Y-� 2� 1 \ a+� � Y fl��,3� �ot►��d_,)�2r�v-��-..�u n� y�,.=—�-'QQ �, � �-� -�g 21 3 ��rS�' 2 4�1��5 ��/�- o�f�LO�-,�' a 23"�' r ��lle ose�ncz�-�'_�z3�� 24 � � � i Y��S" 7��, ,%� � 2Gs �a�t,�� z.� �.�� 25: � �` ' f ;; � ri,v�� vD''�� 'J-33 „ ,� ,, ,.,,,, ""C.�lntinue sig g on photocopy of this forrn ONI.Y. - ''' , PETITtON TD TWE �OSEIVkQI�NT GtTY C4l1NtGIL WE, the under5igned resid�nts of Rosemount , call upon the City Councit of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFtLL EXPANSfON. We oppose the landfill expansion for the foilowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the IandfiN to inciude ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high Ievels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materia(s, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign 4NLY ONCE**** e Address Phone 1 � L 1 � � � � / � 2 � � ��1 q � � �IZ3 =��34 3 >�fQ7S �i�-'�; c de � --20� 4 • � �� , „ � 5_ � �d a.�.v s t..� �.T�- �a�-o�� 6 I �/�b d �,� �� /��d'' � � � , �a -s s � .;f! �� -�3� s �`��c��11��`�1,� � 2 �� 10 7 �r % , � � i � ' ,�r��.c � �23- 3�'�� 12 � �/'�iv �/� � -�t �6 13 ' L � � � � � � l�� 3-160' . 15 ; 16 17 '' 1S 19 20 21 22 23 24 � 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Anri1�Y ��'°, ' PETITI�N TO T�iE E�4S�MO��IT CtTY GQUNClL � WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Council of Cr.� Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFtLL EXPANSION. � We oppose the landfill expansion for the following reasons: � (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would r�t expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; �`�"'' 2 Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains � O � high levels of TOXfC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; � (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facitities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ***�Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE**"� Name Address Phone 1�ca �-��i ��.�.;:� 14�U� ��;,,�;- Cl��v� N-�.�Z�''>�� ;,�,Y -3'-i?-4�I1�� 2 ( %rL1;l1.. �i,'��' i'Lf cl ':4-:R ,�--,T,y' 3 � s c i�i� �l.�t� (�l�`-1 y <o c o�,L�:�o �'v� ��-�- 17<j � J�- -� ��oa�-�� .�� z��I�� ' " i ' . , �z_1L�.�. 6 ' " _��t � ''�' 3Z� _��— 7 /y 7 � C�ofo.t� -1��"� >��-;�-a�% g . `��.� l=r7ir7bc� �%��a�� . �;�� -S.��/ 9� � � -L1� C:,�o�c��,� �� - �:c3:Z 1 p ` � �i�e- ��.�`t Z c.�d�c��v �- ��z_--2Z.16 11 �� - ��S'S /'`�'� � . G�, y�-.3'a`�3`��' 12 �'�' �S�ic;� �� s /L/� tNs �w' �.�3— 3-� s—� 1� � �.�.,�. 3�l� i �f�1 �` s� '�'� 3�. �.-s 3�✓" 14 rL, —„�� l Y� � �� 3.;�.2-f:�W� , 15 / �,� 3�� -/�✓ 16 � y"1 3J Cola�r�t� Ptve 3�� - �1�0�. � 3�z� ��t 17 �.t�� '� ly?? I Co�3�c r�� I 18 t �`8� co��r�a r�z�r� 3 Z 2-S7o ? 19 j � '' �,� / ' j� �c�2Qv " �� _ 5/0,.�- 20 � ' � �� 'r7e x��° S� �..�- c��g-7_ 21 _ 3$1a- l) �Q�� 1�Gfi`' �l�,3'�3 i� 22 -- � l� �c�'` ' �Z --Z�z� . 2s 1� L� '� I'�� -- ��-5 1��j I 24 ��rn, �.. t4�a5 ��.S�v��w 3Z2-��q 25 � �� z-2 �- � ""Continue signing on phot copy of this f�rrn ONI`� ,�r��' " �"��A PETITIQN TO T�fE RC}SENtOtJ�IT CITY C�}UNGt�. . WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , call upon the City Councii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMiT FOR AN ASH LANDFfLL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiil expansion for the foliowing reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE*""* Name Address Phone 1�_ �,ri.r�,d...�. �v�{1 1 S�'�t" G.:. �f�3 -�3!� 2 �� ,� /�.�s� �lll-�.3 • �.� 3.��.- y(� y � 3 � 4 � � 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 . 15 � 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. Anr±I 4.19�^� P�TITI�N TO TliE ��SEMOl1NT CiTY �OU�tGIL WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cail upon the City Gouncil of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the IandfiH expansion #or the following reasons: (1) USPCI made explicit promises that it would not expand the landfill to include '� ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; (2) Incinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, surtace water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4) USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; **""Please write NEATLY and sign ONLY ONCE**"* Name Address Phone 1 cZ� / � C'�c',��a� �-� Sa �a�- 7�' 2 ' � " �' ' ,� Lw 3��- 3 `� , Aii 3�� -57� 4� ,��'�� ,�-Y1.� !�l!� � "�' c�-G 3 ZZ- 5 �c� 5 � �q��.� (��c�7 Co1a�� f��s�- 3�.-�� s � , -i 7 -� - , � i9�9 s -�t' � ,�.'..._ /�/�'�`i ��, ,c-�,.�y � ��- ��`� 9 N ' 1 �f��3 C��S-��W � �. �z�-C��cs �� ' _��3 �. °�'�lE/�� ,�e �Z3 -`rGz/� 11_ f - y�'I �� 1 � ��'1 C, C�...-_ �7� 13 � �-�,�� . �'�u. � -�� fi- V.ti. ��.5 C.� Q�e._ `�� . 15 � E� �� Z�.g, ; 16 —15 L l� I �,J l'� -�� 17 /� � � 18 � Gt/ a"-So�7� 19 I ; /�f /v�f �/�S�J � k, ' t,-� �f 3-3 C 20 ,. . /4�iU Z �'�'��Q�.' �v�. 3a.� -.��=s% 21 �c�� '�c.k i.�-e t� 1�1�� C.-Q�-ki,�e �� a3-e ��- �. �S� 22 � a-��t,ti►�^ /�{S�� - . 3a a-a-?6 7 23 S�Oiyl i��Gd�Q��. ,��-��7 24 25 ""Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. ,'�n*'! �.1�3�� PETITtOItI TO TtiE RQSEMOUNT CI'TY Ct)UN�1L � WE, the undersigned residents of Rosemount , cail upon the City Cauncii of Rosemount to DENY USPCI's PERMIT FOR AN ASH LANDFILL EXPANSION. We oppose the landfiil expansion for the following reasons: {1) USPCI made explicit promises thaf it would not expand the landfill to include '� ash, and it would remain a facility for "non-hazardous waste"; , (2) lncinerator ash has the characteristics of a HAZARDOUS WASTE, and contains II high levels of TOXIC METALS such as lead, mercury, cadmium and chromium; (3) These TOXIC materials, even at low concentrations present a risk to groundwater, ', surface water, and health of Rosemount citizens; (4} USPCI's poor compliance record at their other hazardous waste facilities further increases the environmental risks to Rosemount citizens; ****Please write NEATLY and sign �NLY ONCE**** Name Address Phone 1 ��, i4-��+K��+v��v3 �'`e�.-�r o`� , 2 cE� f :� �3�Z.-�o i . / �� . �// .V �� . \ ^ ^ 4 �' C' e f w v+� - G S 5 ��'lb� C,�'�a-�>f rc..� �E �Z3 - r�z/� � 6 � ` i�8�9 Q r�v �ce , � 7 J ��- �1��: '�) c� S� , .,� � u� , ��;�,, c� Z� �ut S � � .l. v- ,,� �f 9� � �o�' �v�� 's�il`F"CCt� � � `�� 11 f' � 12 7�� .;��D,r� I "U l�t,v 7�Z�. ��J-�!'7�c�--- 13 / �1 C� �' ' o�ao`� �'��`` 14 � J�f u C�z�v,c-u.v �U�- ��3 -3(/� 15 � ` .qG v� �t,;-��,v f�y t ,3��- 33 . ; 16 a �� ! � I< < � C� �,�' �� 1� e - a � �� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 *"Continue signing on photocopy of this form ONLY. A.pr�l �r.1��'