Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.a. Dakota County IncineratorCITY OF ROSEMOUNT XECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING 'DATE: October 6, 1992 AGENDA ITEM:Dakota',County Incinerator Project AGENDA SECTION: Administrators Report PREPARED BY: Stephan JIlk, City AdministratorAGENDIRM # 8A ATTACffiNTSs-Press'Release on Appeals Court APP OVED BY Decision, MPCA/DAKOTA COUNTY AGREEMENT The Minnesota Court of Appeals provided a decision which awarded Dakota County the opportunity to be granted a permit for the construction and operation of the proposed incinerator. Following that decision Dakota County and the MPCA entered into discussion on the possible appeal to that decision. The outcome of that discussion was .an agreement between the MPCA and Dakota County which provided for the issuance of a permit for a smaller, incinerator. The "design" capacity of the incineratorwill be 600 tons per day versus 800. The 'actual throughput will be 510 tons per day versus 640 tons per day with original design. There are two environmental action groups which have appealed the decision to the Minnesota SupremE Court. Whether the Supreme Courtwillhear the. appeal is yet to be determined. There is a strong feeling that since the MPCA and Dakota`, County lave reached agreement for the _issuance of the permit that it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will hear the case. Meanwhile, Dakota Count is proceeding with planning the project, completing the financinc for the project and initiating the permitting; process they will need to go through with the City of Rosemount. City and County staff have met tc review the process which will have to be completed by the County for this project and discuss project schedules etc. In order to "re-educate' the City Council and City Commissions on the project we are arranginS to have County Staff to make a presentation to the council and commissions at a meeting very soon. Lisa Freese is coordinating that effort and will provideadditionalcomment on the project. At this time this item is brought to you as an update and an opportunity for discussion. RECOI�Il�IENDED ACTION': NONE COUNCIL ACTION• F/NA) r DAKOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT TELEPHONE (612) 438-4418 DAKOTA COUNTY GOVERNMENT COMPLEX 1590 W HIIN. 55. HASTINGS. MINNESOTA 55033-2392 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Marie Coutu, 438-4532 September 23, 1992 Dakota County reachesagreement with MPCA on waste -to energy plant The Dakota County Board of Commissioners reached an agreement Wednesday with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that should allow the County to stop the unnecessary landfilling of raw garbage produced in the county. The compromise proposed by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA) gives the County a permit for a waste -to -energy facility that will burn an average of 510 tons per day instead of the 640 ton -per - day average the County had requested. The County Board approved the agreement 4-1 at a sp cial meeting Wednesday night. "Our concern today, as it has been for the last 10 years, is to manage the solid waste produced in Dakota County in the most environmentally respo;sible and cost-effective manner," said County Board Chairman Donald R. Chapdelaine. "The MPCA and the County have reached a reasonable Agreement which allows us to proceed with an environmentally sound'jplan for the garbage that is not recycled." Dakota County has one of the best recycling records in the state, and has a goal of rec cling 50 percent of the waste stream by the year 2000. The compromise lith the MPCA means that 90 percent of residents will need to recycle �0 percent of their recyclable items. ^pI rr I6,�I no0nnT1IN I'TV Cnn DI OVCq Last month, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the MPCA's earlier denial of a permit for the waste -to -energy incinerator. -The appeals court decision clearly supported the County's position that no realistic alternatives for the facility exist, and that the Metropolitan Council has jurisdiction for solid waste planning in the metropolitan region. The MPCA considered asking the Minnesota Supreme Court to review that decision but decided instead to issue a permit for a smaller facility. "Our urgent need is to stop burying raw garbage as soon as possible," Chapdelaine said "Repeated delays have prolonged the burial of 1,000 tons of garbage daily in Dakota County landfills. The smaller facility will require unprecedented levels of recycling and waste reduction. In the meantime, we will be able to stop burying our trash." The County's solid waste master plan, approved by the Metropolitan Council, includes a combination of waste reduction, recycling, composting, and waste -to -energy. "Recycling and incineration are both necessary," Chapdelaine said. "Even with the waste -to -energy facility, county residents will need to reduce and recycle everything possible so that we don't need to expand the facility." Chapdelaine said the agreed-upon size is appropriate for the level of waste being generated in Dakota County. The County has a contract with ABB Resource Recovery Systems of Windsor, Conn., to build and operate the facility. Officials estimate the facility will be completed in late 1995. Disposal fees paid by homeowners and businesses are not likely to be much different than with continued landfilling, County officials said. Preliminary estimates for construction costs are about $85 million. The facilitywillbe paid for with revenue bonds, which are repaid with fees charged haulers to dispose of garbage and by the sale of electricity produced. The facility will generate enough electricity for 15,000 to 17,000 homes. -30- News elease Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Printed 'on Recycled Paper For Release: September 23, 1992 Contact: Susan Brustman (612) 296-7769 The Minnesota PollutioControl Agency (MPCA) announced today that the state and Dakota Co. have resolved their dispute oncerning the Dakota Co. incinerator by agreeing to a reduced -size incinerator for the county. "After Dakota Co. won'ts appeal and the court directed the MPCA to issue a permit for the incinerator, we were ready to a�peal to the Supreme Court," said MPCA Commissioner Charles Williams: "Then we worked out this settlement that satisfies many of our objections to the original proposal. I feel that while this settlement may not satisfy the extremes at either end of the issue, it is a balanced settlement that is fundamentally a win for all sides, and the Appeals Court decision doesn't impair the MPCA's authority to act on future cases." The MPCA said that Dakota Co. permit has been amended to reflect the downsizing of the proposed incinerator. The actual capacity and annual amount of waste allowed to be burned have been reduced by 25 percent. The same type of incinerator and control technologies that would have been required for the original facility have been included, but reduced in size. Emissions will be less than for the larger incinerator because of the reduced size of the facility. The height of the stacks and other details of the stacks will remain equivalent while less waste will be burned. The Appeals Court orde 24, the MPCA, through Commi If no other party appeals the Al construction 30 days after the 1\ d the MPCA to issue the disputed permit to Dakota Co. On September ioner Williams, will approve issuing the permit for the smaller facility. ;als Court decision to the Supreme Court, Dakota Co. may begin approves the permit. R /� 1t � I , � • �l it t �� \Ij� �',�.�, 1 l jypt. ' r,��' t�flf'fy,ttnt��ft�+t�ta Cil + r d, r,d .1ufl .li Vii;' ''�tS't 7NURSnQY/September 24/1992�`f'If}`� 'r.: r' �' N <Ej W: -S ,P %.A" P. E R OF THE T W I' N C I T I E' S Pack reached for smasler incinerator in Dakota County; apeals planned By Dennis Cassano and Bob Von Sternberg Staff Writers The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Dakota County Board agreed Wednesday to a settle- ment that would permit a scaled- down version of a trash incinerator that would produce electricity, The settlement will pit the county and state against environmental r groups that oppose the construction of any plant. They hope their own appeals to the Minnesota Supreme Court will eventually derail Dakota County's plans. The MPCA refused in November to issue a permit for the plant, a• deci- sion the County Board appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. Tile court overruled the MPCA in Au- gust, calling the decision a political action that violated procedures and exceeded the agency's authority. Attorneys for the county, the MPCA and ABB Resource Recovery Sys- tcros Inc., which would build and operate the plant, have been ncgotiat- ing since the decision was issued. The MPCA board approved the terms of, the settlement after closed meetings that ended Tuesday. The County Board approved the terms last night by a 4-1 voter Incinerator continued on page 19A Star Tribune- Thursday/Septernbcr oncinorator/ Appeal is expected to be filed today Continued from page IA f' 4 "It's wsellout, pure and simple," laic LAIie.'.. Davis of Earth Protector, < Minneapolis-based environmenta group, "They're going to say a small- erburner will be good for everyone; but they're going to look outrageous- ly :stupid utrageous- ly:stupid when the Supreme Cour , rules." Davis' organization planned to file its`: appeal with the Minnesota Su- preme Court today, the deadline for acting. Earlier this week, two other groups said they will ask the court to review the decision. Those groups, Clean Water Action and Dakota County Citizens for Alternatives to i Burning, also were among the harsh - i esft—critics of the planned incinerator. The state and county agencies will t oppose the request for a Supreme Cdurt review of the case. "1 rfeel that while this settlement may ;:ot satisfy the extremes at either end i of : the issue, it is a balanced settle- ment that is fundamentally a win for .:ll sides," said MPCA Commissioner Charles Williams. "And the Appeals `ourt decision doesn't impair the NIPCA's authority to act on future cases_" The county had planned to build a plant that could incinerate 800 tons of;trash a day. In exchange for the MPCA's agreement not to appeal, the county agreed to build a plant with a capacity of 600 tons a day. Including shutdowns for maintenance and re- pairs, the original plant would have averaged 640 tons per day; the new one would have an annual average capacity of 510 tons per day. The smaller plant would produce 17 megawatts of electricity instead of 21 megawatts, enough for 17,000 homes. The original plant was to cost about S 12a million- the smaller one would cost $35 million to $40 million less, said. Louis Breimhurst, county plan- ni(ig director. He said the smaller plant would han- dl-the county's disposal needs for 10 -years instead of 20 years. If the county needs more incinerator capac- it)r in 10 years, he said, it will ask Z MPCA for a permit to expand the Plant. He said that the settlement does not address the question of expansion and that the plant will be designed so that it can be easily ex- panded. If 6onstruction started in the spring, the plant might be operating in 1996, he said. Breimhurst and County Administra- tor,Brandt Richardson said that if recycling rates. do rot change, the plant will be at capacity by 2005 - Dakota County residents recycle about one-third of all waste_ Resi- dents would have to increase recy- clipg to 50 percent of all waste to make the smaller plant last 20 years, they said. r- Th Metropolitan Council had decid- ed:ihat the larger plant was not need- ed'to handle only the waste generated by Dakota County, Breimhurst said. But, in approving the plant, it had ordered the county to incinerate waste materials from other counties as -.well. The smaller plant will be large enough to handle Dakota Coun- I V . waste and a small amount from other counties, Breimhurst said. Although opponents said their attor- neys had been told last week that the ` P.CA board planned to forgo an appeal, they hadn't been able to sgifeeze any details out of the agency _orf its itizen board. "We've really :an vn the dark side of the moon on this, -with no information flowing out of the MPCA," said Frank Hornstein of Clean Water Action. Until;'Iast night's County Board meeting, MPCA officials declined to comment on the proposed settle- ment--'. The agency's board met in closed -door session for most of the afternoon Tuesday to discuss the set- tlement, but took no formal action after. the meeting. 4 .l BreiThurst said the MPCA board did not have to meet in public to approve the settlement terms. He said that agency Commissioner Wil- liams`; has the authority to issue a rx ea permit for a smaller facility than the one approved by the board and that the board's formal approval was not required. The board apparently did approve in its private meetings, however, be- cause its chairman, Dr. Daniel Foley, signed the settlement agreement Tuesday. By doing so, the board is letting stand the Appeals Court's criticism that the board tried to overstep its authority by subverting the authority of the .Metropolitan Council to decide what waste management facilities are needed in the metropolitan area. The environmental groups plan to ask the Supreme -Court either to up- hold the MPCA's right to deny Dako- ta County the permit it needs to operate the burner, or to order the agency to hold formal :^.carings on the plan. The agency had chosen earlier not to do that. "This is just the latest proof that the aeencv's fob is to issue permits," Da- vis said. "They've lost a lot of ground with the public already, and nobody thinks they're there to protect the environment." Staff writer Suzanne Kelly contribut- ed to this report. SAINI.VAI 11.1'ur�r.r.r (� its S: •' [tj[.�y'�iii ���7 R�'�r� a.S+,tU""tt f�"J �•� �x .�j K STA J R4V TI I + x S - -NQBER 1992 THURSDAY h , , a antssize Da f ®tnty cu nf la inuines ato y . ;aid.`Dakota County spokeswoman Marie permit for the incinerator, but the AiPCA Coufu;A'bul this :was the last major hur- was reportedly considering taking the dle''Barring`>,further complications, she matter to the state Supreme Court for a ed those said;o�i struction'ould likely start in a plans innal lreu rnrfor the smallerpoperation. few rXio6ths t.`' Da0bt�, County_. had been planning to The incinerator is scheduled to be com- build-an?.800fon-per-day operation, but pleted by the end of 1995. optedpr:the'lsmaller facility to get the Before it can start construction, how- long-delayed;project back on track, offi- ever, the county must wait out a manda- cials saidafter the meeting. tory 30 -day delay after the permit is The agreement apparently also averts issued, and renegotiate a contract with_ at least one other court battle over the ABB Resource Recovery Systems, the " Connecticut firm planning to build and plant. The state` ,Court of Appeals in August overturned al previous MPCA denial of a 1, 1, 1'_ PAGES TIM NELSON STAFF WRITER ®akota County has scaled back by about a quarter plans for a solid waste incinerator after reaching an agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on a --permit for the proposed plant. The county board of commissioners voted 4-1 Wednesday night to approve the compromise, which calls for the MPCA to. permit an incinerator that will burn lip to::60Q.Jons of waste a day. "We -'still have some legal hoops left," Bu NNEW,-, V CONTINUEDFROM ID operate the $85 million incinera- tor. Also ahe d-rnay be a further appeal of t e August ruling to the Supreme Court by at least two citizens groups opposed to an in- cinerator Of any size. The Clean Water Actin Alliance and Dakota County Citizens for Alternatives to Burning sa d earlier this week that they will carry on the court battle where the MPCA left off. Another group, Earth: Protec- tors, said they were also consider - i ig'joining the effort. Dakota County Board Chairman Don Chap elaine said he would like to see the burner up and run- ning quick y. "Our u gent need is to stop burying raw garbage as soon as possible," Chapdelaine said in a prepared statement after the meeting. "Repeated delays have prolonged the burial of 1,000 tons of garbage daily in Dakota County landfills." Not all of that waste can lie diverted to the incinerator agreed to Wednesday, however. County officials said the compromise means that 90 percent of Dakota County residents will have to turn in 90 percent of their recyclable materials to cut the amount of solid waste to what the burner can handle. "The. smaller facility will re- quire unprecedented levels of re- cycling and waste reduction," Chapdelaine said. "County resi- dents will have to recycle every- thing possible so that we don't have to expand the facility." BURNER CONTINUED ON 3D 11- MINN STATE OF MINNESOTA 'A POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY In the Matter of the Application for Combined Air and Solid Waste Permit No. 2211 -91 -OT -1 for the Dakota County Mixed Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, on November 26, 1991, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) issued an order denying the permit application of Dakota County and ABB Resource Recovery Syst ms, Combustion Engineering, Inc. (ABB) for a mixed municipal solid waste incinerator; WHEREAS, on December 30, 1991 and January 2, 1992, Dakota County and ABB appealed the decision oft e MPCA to the Minnesota Court of Appeals; WHEREAS, on August 25, 1992, the Court of Appeals, in Appellate Court Case Numbers C8-92-9 and C7-91-2551, reversed the decision of the MPCA, remanded this matter to the MPCA and ordered issuance of the permit without further proceedings; WHEREAS, the MPCA had before it on November 26, 1991, a proposed permit for the incinerator, had responded to and resolved all public comments on the proposed permit, had heard the ora comments of all persons interested in appearing before it, and on or by November 2E, 1991, had denied all requests for a contested case hearing; WHEREAS, the MP A has until September 24, 1992 to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court for review Of the decision of the Court of Appeals; WHEREAS, the entry of the judgment of the Court*of Appeals will be stayed if the MPCA petitions the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals; WHEREAS, at its September 14, 1992 closed special meeting, the MPCA fully considered the Court of Appeals' decision and the options to appeal or to issue the proposed permit, and authorized the MPCA Commissioner to determine if a settlement option to reduce the size of the proposed incinerator might be possible, and authorized the MPCA Chair and the MPCA Commissioner, if such a settlement could be reached, to execute a settlement agreement to that effect; WHEREAS, at its September 14, 1992 closed special meeting, the MPCA recognized that, in light of the Court of Appeals' order to issue the permit without further proceedings, the MPCA Commissioner could, upon reaching such a settlement, issue a modified permit for a down -sized incinerator pursuant to existing delegations, which include Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0190, subp. 3(A),(C)(1991) and the October 22, 1991 delegation of authority from the MPCA to the MPCA Commissioner; WHEREAS, Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0190, subp.3(A),(C)(1991) allows the MPCA Commissioner, upon the consent of the permittee and without following the procedures of Minn. Rules pts. 7001.0100 to 7001.0130 (1991), to modify a permit to correct typographical errors and to: change a provision in the permit that will not result in allowing an actual or potential increase in the emission or discharge of a pollutant into the environment, or that will not result in a reduction of the agency's ability to monitor the permittee's compliance with applicable statutes and rules; WHEREAS, after considering the settlement proposal, Dakota County and ABB agree to accept a permit for a nominal 800 ton per day incinerator and consent to the -2- immediate modification of t proposed incinerator to permit to reduce the nominal incineration capacity of the tons per day, which would reduce the estimated annual average throughput of the Proposed incinerator from 640 tons per day to 510 tons per day; WHEREAS, a reduction in the capacity of the proposed incinerator will not change the permit emission limitations, but will reduce the total emissions from the proposed incinerator into the envi solid waste, and will mai utilizing equivalent stack WHEREAS, this SE vested in the MPCA and Minnesota by Minn. Stat. WHEREAS, the M of Minnesota, Dakota Cour good faith to avoid expens this action. NOW THEREFORE, the State of Minnesota, D 1. The MPCA Co existing delegated auth September 24, 1992, of mixed municipal solid by incinerating a reduced amount of mixed municipal the equivalent emission dispersion characteristics by ght and stack parameters; lent Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State of s. 8, 115, 116 (1990); and , the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State ty and ABB have entered into this Settlement Agreement in to and protracted litigation and to settle the claims raised in MPCA, the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and )ta County and ABB agree as follows: imissioner, pursuant to the Court of Appeals' order and shall approve issuance to Dakota County and ABB on attached permit for a nominal 800 ton per day capacity incinerator (Attachment 1). 2. The MPCA COmissioner, acting through existing delegated authority and Minn. Rules pt. 7001.0190, subp. 3(A), (C)(1991), shall then immediately approve -3- issuance to Dakota County and ABB on September 24, 1992, of the attached Modified Permit (Attachment 2) for the construction and operation of a nominal 600 ton per day capacity mixed municipal solid waste incinerator. The Modified Permit will wholly supersede and modify the permit issued under Paragraph 1 of this Settlement Agreement. The Modified Permit incorporates the following changes from the permit for the nominal 800 ton per day facility: a. Parts 1.1 and 2.3.6.1 have been amended to reflect the downsizing of the proposed incinerator. In Part 1.1, the nominal capacity of each incinerator unit is now 300 tons per day, rather than 400. Also in Part 1.1, the average annual throughput of each incinerator unit is now 255 tons per day, rather than 320. In Part 2.3.6.1, Fuel Limitations, the annual amount of mixed municipal solid waste allowed to be burned is now 219,000 tons, rather than 292,000 tons. Also in Part 2.3.6.1, annual incineration capacity of each incinerator unit is now 126,000 tons, rather than 168,000 tons. The allowable amount of natural gas will be adjusted to reflect the downsizing of the equipment. b. Parts 1.2, 3.2.5.1, and 5.2 require the same type of incinerator and control technologies that would have been required for the larger incinerator, but have been amended to reflect the need to change the size of the equipment to fit the smaller incinerator facility. These amendments also require that the stack height and other stack parameters of the smaller incinerator must be equivalent in emission dispersion characteristics to those of the larger incinerator. This IQ maintains the equivalent air emission dispersion characteristics already analyzed for the larger incinerator. Since the incinerator will now be smaller, and therefore incinerate less waste, the emission rates will be less than those analyzed for the larger incinerator. C. Parts 2.3.11.2 and 4.3.2 have been amended to add a required removal) efficiency for sulfur dioxide from the incinerator stack. This requirement does not change the emission limit for sulfur dioxide for the inci erator. This change was required by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in its review of the permit in November of 1991, and would have been added to the permit had a permit been issued at that time. d. Part 2.2 .7 has been amended to correct a typographical error in the permit by replacing minerals with Minn. Rules. e. Part 4.1 Test No. B.2 has been amended to correct a typographical error in the permit by relocating the number 1 under the column PoIIuta nts,, to its intended place under 'the column ,,Frequency/Emission Point.,, f. Exhibit H5, section II.A.12 has been amended to more precisely identify the physical location of the testing port, which is to be located at the breeching between the baghouse outlet and the stack. 3. Dakota County and ABB agree to accept, consent to, and not challenge in any way the Modified Permit described in Paragraph 2 of this Settlement Agreement. Dakota County and ABB also agree not to challenge in any way the modification and replacement of the permit escribed in Paragraph 1 of this Settlement Agreement. -5- 4. Dakota County, ABB, the MPCA and the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota agree to defend, in any legal challenge, including an appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, this Settlement Agreement and issuance of the Modified Permit as a reasonable compromise within the authorities of the MPCA. 5. The Attorney General, acting on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota, agrees not to petition the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals. If any parry to this appeal other than the MPCA and the State of Minnesota petitions the Minnesota Supreme Court for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota shall file a timely response opposing Minnesota Supreme Court review on the basis that this Settlement Agreement is a reasonable compromise within the authorities of the MPCA and that the Court of Appeals decision does not impair the authority of the MPCA to protect the environment. If the Minnesota Supreme Court decides to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota reserves the right to participate as a respondent or amicus, but will limit its argument to issues concerning MPCA authority to protect the environment, that the Court of Appeals decision does not impair the authority of the MPCA to protect the environment, and that Dakota County, ABB and the MPCA have reached a reasonable compromise within the authorities of the MPCA. The MPCA and the Attorney General on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota will not oppose any requests by Dakota County or ABB for any bond requested of parties who appeal this matter to the Minnesota Supreme Court. 6. The Modified Permit issued pursuant to Paragraph 2 shall be effective 30 days after the entry of the judgment in Appellate Court Case Nos. C8-92-9 and C7-91- 02 2551 if no party petitions the Minnesota Supreme Court for review, or if the Minnesota Supreme Court denies all petitions for review. If the Minnesota Supreme Court decides to review the Court of Appeals order, the parties to this Settlement Agreement agree to amend the issuance date of the Modified Permit to the date the Clerk of Appellate Courts enters a judgment affirming the Court of Appeals' order to issue a permit. If the Minnesota Supreme Cou reverses the order of the Court of Appeals to issue the permit, this Settlement Agreement terminates upon the date the Clerk of Appellate Courts enters a judgment reversing the Court of Appeals' order, and the Modified Permit issued pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement is thereby revoked. Dakota County and ABB agree to'not challenge in any way a revocation of the Modified Permit under these circumstances. 7. This Settleme t Agreement is effective upon execution by all of the following: the MPCA Commissioner and MPCA Chair, Dakota County, ABB Resource Recovery Systems, Combustion Engineering, Inc. and the Attorney General or his designee. 8. Dakota County and ABB reserve the right to oppose an appeal of the Court of Appeals' order or any other legal action to impair Dakota County's and ABB's interests in a permit for the Dakota County incinerator. 9. The MPCA an the Attorney General acting on behalf of the MPCA and the State of Minnesota reserve the right to: a) enforce the terms and conditions of the Modified Permit under any administrative, legal and equitable remedies available to the State; b) exercise its emer ency powers pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116.11 (1990) in the event that conditions warr nting such emergency action shall arise; and c) require the permittee to undertake act to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of -7- the Modified Permit. and any applicable federal or state statutes. rules. sLandards. orders, stipulation agreements, and schedules of compliance. Dakota Countv a.nd ABE retain the right to defend in accordance with applicable law against any sucn ac:,--�-. U the MPCA or the Attorney General acting on behalf of the MPCA and the State cf Minnesota. 10. Each party to this Settlement Agreement agrees to bear its own costs and attorney fees in all proceedings before the MPCA in this matter up to the date of this Settlement Agreement and in this appeal before the Minnesota Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court. 11. This Settlement Agreement terminates upon the expiration of the five year term of the Modified Permit. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement. For the State of Minnesota: /-zZ/ Z Da:.. — ?h'q-'k& Dat:. DR. DANIEL FOLEY % Chair Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette d St. P- N 5 55 ii 'y CHARLES W. WILLI Commissioner Minnesota Pollution, Control Agency 520 Lafavette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 Date For Dakota County: Date Date ELDON G. KAUL Assistant Attorney General 520 Lafayette Road Suite 200 St. Paul, MN 55155 DONALD CHAPDELAINE Chair Dakota County Board of Commissioners Dakota County Administrative Center 1550 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 JAMES C. BACKSTROM Dakota County Attorney Dakota County Judicial Center 1560 West Highway 55 Hastings, MN 55033 For ABB Resource Recovery Systems, Combustion Engineering, Inc.: Date Date THOMAS J. KEHOE Associate General Counsel ABB Resource Recovery Systems, Combustion Engineering, Inc. 7 Waterside Crossing Windsor, CT 06095 MA14Y R cCONNELL Lindquist & Vennum 4200 IDS Center Minneapolis, MN 55402 MINNESOTA Olmsted Build Ash 11 Receives MPCA Permit To The Citizens Board of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has approved a permit modification which will allow Olmsted County, to construct an ash -disposal cell at its land- fill. The 6.7 acre cell at the Olmsted -Kalmar Landfill will be used for the disposal of ash from the Olmsted County incinerator as well as coal ash from the Rochester Public Utilities power plant and medical waste ash from the Mayo Clinic incinerator. The per- mit will allow the county to dispose of 370,000 cubic yards of ash at the landfill, which is an estimated 10 years of operating capacity. In April, the MPCA Citizens Board approved the agency's environmental assessment of the ash cell area. The board concluded that with proper environmental safeguards and maintenance,the landfill would not pose a threat to the environment or public health. According to M CA reports,, Olmsted County's ash landfill design incorporates the most stringent bottorr liner system of any landfill currently operating in Minnesota, as required under the al ency's new statewide ash -disposal rules approved earlier this year. Under the ash dispos d area, a double -composite liner will be constructed, which will consist of two -and -a- alf feet of compacted clay with a 60 -millimeter synthetic liner over the clay, plus anothe two feet of clay covered by another 60 -millimeter synthetic liner. Incorporated into the liner system will be a leak -detection network. Any leachate from the landfill will be pumped into tanker trucks and hauled to Rochester's municipal waste- water treatment plant for treatment and disposal. Olmsted County will be removing ash from the Dodge/Olmsted ash landfill in Kasson to the new ash landfill this fall. The ash has been stored at the Dodge County site since Olmsted County's garbage incinerator began operation in 1987. According to Olmsted officials, the county decided to close the Dodge ash facility due to new incinera- torsdisposal rules and economic concerns over the capping and long-term maintenance of the facility. The ash from the Dodge County site will be needed to cover the Olmsted - Kalmar ash landfill's liner to protect it from freezing this winter. ■