HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.b. Recomp Informational MeetingCITY OF ROSEMOUNT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FOR ACTION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: MAY 7 1991
AGENDA ITEM: RECOMP PROJECT
AGENDA SECTION.
ADMINISTRATOR'S
REPORT
PREPARED BY: STEPHAN JILK, CITY ADMINISTRATOR
AGENDA
FCM
ATTACHMENTS: INFORMATION ON RECOMP
APPRAVED
MEMO
Z
On May 14th there will be two meetings in regard to the proposal by Recomp
to construct a composting facility on the property they now lease at the
University of Minnesota Research Center.
The first meeting will be with the Planning Commission; and this will be
just a introductory meeting for the Planning Commission. I would ask that
council members attend this meeting set for 7:00 p.m. on May 14, 1991.
The second meeting will be at 7:30 p.m. that night. This meeting will be-
held by the Metropolitan Council as a opportunity for public comment on the>
EAW for this project. Attachedfind copies of the notice of Public Hearing
and the Draft EAW.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Mayor Napper
Council Members Klassen, Oxborough, Willcox, Wippermann
Stephan Jilk, City
May 3, 1991
Recomp
Administrator
Recomp continues to process it's permitting for the compost. The
Metropolitan Council has approved the Draft EAW for the project and is
putting it on notice for public comment and will hold a public hearing on
May 14th at our Council Chambers for that purpose.
We have scheduled a presentation by Recomp at our Planning Commission
meeting of that same evening for purposes of formally introducing them to
the Planning Commission and you.
In addition to that they have provided us an information packet and a short
video on their company and the composting process that they use. We have
included that in your packet for your use.
Representatives from the company have met with staff several times to
discuss the project and the permitting process necessary to follow with the
City.
Since this project is proposed to be located on the University the whole
issue of land use control needs to be determined. The Met Council is
taking the position that the City has jurisdictional rights over land use
on the University. We have advised Recomp that they should proceed as if
this project was located anywhere else in the City and that a comprehensive
guide plan change and zoning change would be necessary.
They are, at the same time, aware that the University issue is before us
and the determination of land use control may take some time.
We have also discussed the "host community" benefits concept and they are
not adverse to those discussions and we will continue those as we proceed
along.
We have also had discussions about tours of their plants. I have suggested
that since the only plant they have not purchased from others but started
from scratch is the plant in Bellingham, Washington we should consider
visiting that site. It also is a facility which works in conjunction with
a small incinerator. Since this is a possibility here it would also be
more meaningful. They are starting to put together a plan for such a tour
and we will work with them on that.
At the time I would suggest that it is best that we continue to become as
knowledgeable as we can on this company and the process as we continue to
work with them and on the "Waste Management Campus" concept.
ij
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Alcon% York Centre. 230 riot Frrh Sino, St. hull. A11 ��5111-1/:'4 h1L =9; (::;" 14X W2 291-6>;n TTY hl= 291-OV)4
April 19, 1991
Greg Downing
Environmental Review Coordinator
Environmental Quality Board
300 Ccntennial Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Re: RECOMP Food Waste Composting Facility EANN' Release -- .£QB 111onilor
Dear Mr. Downing:
Enclosed is a copy of the draft EA«' for the proposed RECOI IP Food Waste Composting Facility
project, the notice of availability and the press notice as required by EQB rules. By copy of this
letter, the draft EAW and notice of availability are being sent to the EQB distribution list. A press
notice will be released in accordance with the requirements of Minn. Rules 4410.1500.
If there are any questions or comments, please call me.
Sincerely,
3 mes P. Uttley
r. Solid Waste Plan er
(612) 291-6361
cc: EQB Distribution List
Enc.
RECEIVED.
APR 3 0 1991
CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
NOTICE OF AVAH ABILITY
Draft EAW -- Comments Due by May 29, 1991
PROJECT TITLE; RECOMP, Inc. Food Waste Composting Facility
DESCRIPTION: An EAW is required for the proposed 400 ton per day RECOMP, Inc. Food Waste
Composting Facility. The $20 Million project is proposed to be built on a 30.37 acre tract of land
located in the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research Center in the City of Rosemount. The
proposer anticipates having the facility fully operational in 1992. The draft EAW is a brief document
which is designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an EIS is required for a
proposed action. The purpose of the EAW is to disclose information about potential environmental
impacts of the project and indicate how a project can be modified to lessen its environmental impacts.
RGU: Metropolitan Council
PUBLIC MEETING: Tuesday, May 14, 1991, beginning at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers
of Rosemount City Hall, 1367 - 145th Street, Rosemount, MN 55068. Contact Vivian Ramirez,
Secretary of the Solid Waste Division of the Metropolitan Council at 291-6468, if you would like to
speak at the meeting.
COMMENT PERIOD: Ends on May 29, 1991.
CONTACT PERSON: James Uttley, Solid Waste Division, Metropolitan Council, 230 East Fifth
Street, St. Paul, MN 55101-1634. Phone: (612) 291-6361.
COPIES OF DRAFT EAW HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES:
Dakota County Library System:
Burnsville Branch, 1101 West County Road 42, Burnsville
Eagan Library, 1340 Wescott Road, Eagan
Farmington Branch, 321 Oak Street, Farmington
Hastings Branch, 830 Vermillion Street, Hastings
West St. Paul Branch, 40 Emerson Avenue East, West St. Paul
Dakota County Technical Institute Library, 1300 - 145th Street East, Rosemount
Environmental Conservation Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Inver Hills Community College Library, 8445 East College Trail, Inver Grove Heights
Metropolitan Council Library, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul
NOTICE
OF
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
PUBLIC MEETING
RECOMP, INC. FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
The Metropolitan Council's Environmental Resources Committee will bold a public meeting to receive comments regarding
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) of the proposed RECOMP, Inc. Food Waste Composting Facility. The
purpose of the EAW is two fold: (1) it is used to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed
on the proposed project; and (2) it indicates how the proposed project can be modified to lessen its environmental impacts,
which modifications may be imposed as permit conditions by regulatory agencies. You are encouraged to participate in this
meeting.
RECOMP of Minnesota, Inc. has proposed to build and operate a $20 million 400 ton per day (ITD) food waste composting
facility on 30.37 acres of land at the northeast corner of Blaine Avenue and 160th Street in the City of Rosemount. The site
is located within the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research Center. It is located across the streets from the
proposed Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility, and bounded on the east by leased farmland and on the north by a
leased residence owned by the University. The facility is proposed to accept a dedicated organic fraction of the waste stream,
mainly food wastes, from pre -selected sources approved by counties as exclusions from their waste designation ordinances.
The facility will consist of six main interconnected buildings of approximately 417,000 square feet in gross floor area containing
an office, tipping floor, processing plant, curing building, and maturation area. An uncovered concrete pad of approximately
78,000 square feet in area will provide storage for finished compost. In addition, the project will include a vehicle storage
shed, a weigh -sale, and asphalt surface for parking and truck movement. The northern edge of the buildings is proposed
to be setback more than 375 feet from the nearest residential property. The next nearest residential property is located in
the city of Coates, located more than one-half mile east of the proposed facility. The public meeting will serve to inform the
community of the proposal, and provide an opportunity for public comment that can be considered in studying the proposed
facility's environmental impacts.
PUBLIC MEETING INFORMATION
When:
Tuesday, May 14, 1991, beginning at 7:30 P.M.
Where:
Rosemount City Hall, Council Chambers
Who will be notified:
Local officials, residences and businesses within 1 mile of the proposed
project site.
How to participate:
1. You may attend the meeting and offer oral or written comments.
Please call the Vivian Ramirez at 291-6468 if you wish to pre -
register to speak.
2. You may send a letter with comments to:
James Uttley, Solid Waste Division
Metropolitan Council
Mears Park Centre
230 East Fifth Street
St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
3. The comment period will remain open through May 29, 1991.
To receive a copy of the EAW: Call the Metropolitan Council's Data Center at 291-8140, and ask
for the "RECOMP Rosemount EAW".
Questions:
Call the Council's Solid Waste Division and speak to James Uttley at
291-6361.
OVERVIEW
RECOMP, INC. FOOD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
SUMMARY
o The proposed facility is expected to compost primarily food wastes from pre -selected sources approved
by individual counties as exclusions to their flow control regulations. The wastes received can be expected
to contain some other wastes (primarily paper and plastics) that are incidental to the food processing
and/or food preparation activities of the waste sources. Waste sources are expected to be school and
hospital kitchens, restaurants, prepared food manufacturers, grocery stores, produce and foodstuff
distributors, and similar businesses.
o In -coming waste will be off-loaded on a large concrete tipping floor located inside the processing plant.
The waste will be screened in the building to remove non-compostables and compostable waste will then
be placed in a large rotating tube (a digester) in the processing building where the composting process
begins. After 3 days the new compost leaves the digester and is conveyed to an automated trough -type
forced air compost curing system which is enclosed in an adjacent building. Here the composting material
closely monitored to achieve optimum curing, the composting material is mechanically turned on a regular
basis during the next 21 days. At the end of the curing process, the finished compost is stored in a
separate building to mature to finished compost. Once mature, the finished compost will be collected
for markets or moved onto an outside storage pad to await transportation to market.
o The buildings receiving and processing compost through full maturation will have controlled ventilation.
Air from these buildings will be vented through a wet -scrubber and a biofiltration system to remove
airborne particles and odors.
o The 30.37 acre site is located on the east side Blaine Avenue immediately north of 160th Street on
property leased from the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research Center. The site is planned by
the city of Rosemount as publiclinstitutional use and zoned for agricultural use.
o A portion of the proposed project site has been leased by the University for agricultural (cropland) use
in the past, but it also contains buildings from the old Gopher Ordinance Works from World War II.
The old buildings, used originally as the ballistics range, are in poor condition and are proposed to be
demolished. The area around the buildings is a small hard -wood woodland. The woodland will be
retained, and trees planted to fill in the old building site.
o Water will be provide by the University from an existing well field. The water will be used primarily as
process water for the facility in the amount of 30,000 gallons per day, which is reported by University
officials as within the capability of its system.
o The project proposes an on-site septic system and drain -field to handle domestic wastes. Soils on the site
are considered suitable for on-site systems, but care will need to be given to the placement of the drain -
field in order to assure adequate filtering.
o Air emissions from static or vehicle sources, noise and odors to not appear likely to be a problem. The
entire tipping and processing operation will be enclosed, with building air vented through a wet -scrubber
and biofiltration system located on the south side of the building complex. This system is expected to
completely control both odors and airborne particles (such as aspergillus fumigatus) which might cause
allergic reactions or infections in sensitive individuals.
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
NOTE TO PREPARERS
This worksheet is to be completed by the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) or its agents. The project proposer must supply
any reasonably accessible data necessary for the worksheet, but is not to complete the final worksheet itself. If a complete answer
does not fit in the space allotted, attach additional sheets as necessary.
For assistance with this worksheet contact the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) at (612)296-8253 or (toll-free)
1-800-652-9747 (ask operator for the EQB environmental review program) or consult 'EAW Guidelines,' a booklet available from EQB.
NOTE TO REVIEWERS
Comments must be submitted to the RGU (see item 3) during the 30 -day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB
Monitor. (Contact the RGU or the EQB to learn when the comment period ends.) Comments'should address the accuracy and
completeness of the information, potential impacts that may warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. If the EAW has
been prepared for the scoping of an EIS (see item 4), comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information
and suggest issues for investigation in the EIS.
1. Project Title RECOMP of Minnesota - Metro Facility
2. Proposer RECOMP, Inc. 3. RGU Metropolitan Council
Contact Person William P. Healey Contact Person James Uttley
Address 1500 E. 79th Street and Title Sr. Solid Waste Planner
Suite 103 Address 230 East Fifth Street
Bloomington, MN 55425 St. Paul, MN 55101-1634
Phone (612) 854-6211 Phone (612) 291-6361
4. Reason for EAW Preparation
0 EIS scoping ■ mandatory EAW 0 citizen petition 0 RGU discretion 0 Proposervolunteered
If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category number(s): 4410.4300, Subpart 17, paragraph E
5. Project Location
W 1145.5 ft of S 1155 ft SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 36 Township 115N Range 19W
County Dakota City/Twp Rosemount
Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW.
a. a county map showing the general location of the project; (see Figure 1)
b. copy(ies) of USGS 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map (photocopy is OK) indicating the project boundaries; (see Figure 2)
c. a site plan showing all significant project and natural features. (see Figures 3 and 9) -
6. Description Give a complete description of the proposed project and ancillary facilities (attach additional sheets as necessary).
Emphasize construction and operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or produce
wastes. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.
Abstract
RECOMP proposes to construct and operate a $20 million, 400 ton per day (TPD) mixed municipal
solid waste (MSW) composting facility on 30.37 acres of land leased from the University of
Minnesota at the Rosemount Research Center in Rosemount. The facility will accept source -
separated food wastes from pre -selected sources approved by counties.
Waste sources may include restaurants, grocery stores, produce and foodstuff distributors, caterers,
hotels, institutional sources with large kitchen facilities such as schools and hospitals and other
separation programs that generate substantial amounts of primarily food wastes. The wastes are
expected to come primarily from Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties. RECOMP is
applying to these counties exclusions from county waste flow designation plans and ordinances for its
waste supplies.
Provide a 50 or fewer word abstract for use in EQB Monitor notice:
Unacceptable Waste:
If the waste delivered by a hauler is not acceptable material, the truck will be refused permission to unload
and will be escorted off the premises. The controlling government unit will be notified with the appropriate
information (truck number, weight, type of waste and destination, if possible).
Unacceptable Waste Types - As a Solid Waste Management Facility, RECOMP's Metro Facility cannot
accept wastes as defined by Minnesota Rules, part 7035.2535, subpart 1, which lists the following
unacceptable wastes:
A. Hazardous wastes, classified according to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 115B and 116, and
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 7045, or wastes that have not been evaluated pursuant to parts 7045.0214
to 7045.0217;
B. Infectious wastes;
C. Waste oil;
D. Radioactive waste;
E. Wastes containing free liquids unless they are to be treated at the Metro Facility;
F. Free liquids unless they are to be treated at the Metro Facility.
Receiving:
The trucks will enter the property from Blaine Avenue, which is on the west side of the project site. They
will move to the truck weigh station, where the truck's gross weight will be established and recorded on
a reporting form. The truck will then move from the weigh station to the facility entrance, where the driver
will wait for permission to unload the truck. The tipping floor operator will identify and verify the source
of the material, and record it on the weight ticket to comply with the county flow designation ordinances.
Pre -Screening and In -vessel Composting Facility Operations:
The tipping floor operator will do the first sorting of the waste material. If the material is acceptable for
processing at the facility, the tipping floor operator will give the truck permission to unload. While the
truck is unloading, the tipping floor operator will inspect the load to determine if the load can be
processed.
Processible waste will be segregated from unprocessible waste. Unprocessible waste will either be
loaded back onto the truck on which it came or be processed with the other facility rejects as determined
by the tipping floor operator and sent to a resource recovery facility for further processing or to an
appropriate disposal location. Large unacceptable materials, if any, will be removed prior to the waste
being placed in the pre-process trommel. This rejected material will be sent with other reject material for
appropriate processing and/or disposal. The amount of material rejected at this point is expected to be
less than 5 percent of the waste flow by weight. These rejects may include such materials as film plastic,
and oversized items of fiber, metal or wood. Processible waste will be handled with other waste feed
materials and fed into the system. Using a front-end loader, the tipping floor operator will fill the feed
hoppers of the pre-process trommel screens.
After the truck is unloaded,. it will return to the weigh station to be weighed.a second time to determine
net truck weight. The weight station operator will collect all necessary forms and submit them to the office
for reporting to the appropriate government entities. Large signs will be posted to show exiting drivers
the preferred and prohibited routes. Route notices will also be included on the weight recording form that
is retained by the driver for the records of the hauling company.
The pre-process trommel screens are large rotary screens that separate the waste stream by size.
Smaller materials pass through the screen and drop onto a conveyor while larger materials pass out the
.side of the trommel onto a different conveyor system. This facilitates the removal of rejects in the materials
stream (i.e. plastics or illegal wastes) by one of the facility operators. The over - and undersize conveyors
feed the scale conveyor.
The scale conveyor passes through ferrous and aluminum separators. In the rare event that items such
as batteries, cans, metal banding and/or other unwanted metals are placed in the waste stream, they are
removed in these processes and stored in the ferrous and aluminum containers for recycling.
After the material has passed through these separators, the scale on the conveyor weighs the material
and keeps a running total to monitor the amount of material going into the digester so that the water and
nitrogen sources can be properly calibrated to maintain the desired carbon -to -nitrogen ratio. The
conveyor carrying compostable wastes and feed -lines carrying water, a nitrogen source (commercially
produced urea fertilizer) and inoculum empty into the digester screw conveyor. The inoculum is partially
cured compost that is added on an "as needed" basis. The screw conveyor feeds the five digesters in
progressive order. The digesters are 12 feet in diameter and 180 feet long. There will be two 50 to 60
ton capacity digesters and three 100 ton capacity digesters in this facility. Each digester will be loaded
each day. The material will be aerated by the turning action of the digester and it will stay in the digester
for a period of three days. All of the wastes received each day will be processed as compostables,
recyclables and rejects. No MSW will remain on the tipping floor overnight. All rejects will be processed
and transported daily. Recyclables will be placed in designated receptacles for pick-up as needed by
Super Cycle, Inc., RECOMP's subsidiary, which will market the recyclables.
Compost Curing and Maturation Operations:
After the three day retention in the digesters, the new compost is downloaded onto the compost transfer
conveyor and fed into the post -process trommel screen. This trommel screen is a 1.5 inch rotary screen
that removes additional reject material, potentially an additional 10 percent. The post -process trommel
drops the compost into the Royer "Enclosed Dynamic Composting System" where the compost is placed
into 7 foot high by 9 foot wide by 195 foot long concrete troughs. These troughs have forced aeration
outlets in the floor with temperature and moisture sensors imbedded in the walls. The compost placed
in the troughs will remain there for 21 days as part of RECOMP's process to further reduce pathogens
(PFRP) as required by MPCA Rules. The compost in the troughs will be turned by an automated turning
device that travels on tracks to each trough and turns the compost to maintain aerobic conditions. The
compost will be turned approximately 12 to 15 times during the 21 day period.
After the compost has completed the PFRP, it will be moved to the enclosed compost maturation area
where it will remain to further mature. The retention time in the maturation area is dependent upon market
specifications. Usual retention time is 30 days. After maturation, the compost will be moved to the final
screening area where it will be screened to market specifications and then either delivered to end user
or placed in the product storage area until distributed to markets.
Construction:
The site contains existing vacant concrete structures which will be demolished, with the debris removed
from the site to one of the nearby approved demolition landfills in Dakota County. Following removal of
the debris, the building and outside storage sites will be graded to remove top soil and prepared for
construction. Minimal grading is expected to be needed as the property is flat, and approximately 20
percent of the property was previously occupied by industrial buildings.
7. Project Magnitude Data
Total Project Area (acres) 30.37 or Length (miles) NA
Number of Residential Units
Unattached NA Attached NA
Commercial/IndustriaVinstitutional Building Area (gross floor space)
Total 417.000 square feet; includes 243,960 sq. ft. of building area and 173,040 sq. ft. of uncovered paved driveways,
parking and outside storage of finished compost.
Indicate area of specifig uses:
Office 10,925 sq. ft. Manufacturing 69,325 sq. ft (pre-screening & in -vessel composting)
Retail Other Industrial (inside curing & maturation operations) 163.710 sq. ft.
Warehouse Institutional
Light Industrial Agricultural
Other Commercial (specify) Driveways parking & outside storage of finished compost - 173,040 sq. ft.
Building Height(s) 46 feet
8. Permits and Approvals Required List all known local, state, and federal permits, approvals, and funding required:
Unit of Government
Type of Application
Status
Minnesota Pollution Solid Waste Facility Permit, Compost To be applied for
Control Agency (MPCA) Facility Permit, Transfer Station
Permit
Metropolitan Council Review & approval of MPCA solid To be applied for
waste facility permit
*As long as the property is included in the New Major Airport search area designation process, the Council must
approve any rezoning, conditional use permit, or variance for the project.
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the
compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental
matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage
tanks.
The 30.37 acre site is located within the confines of the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research
Center (UMRRC). Approximately 25.4 acres (84%) of the site was used for agricultural (cultivated crops)
in the recent past. The remainder of the site, approximately 5 acres (16%), is vacant but contains three
concrete buildings (one of which is used for storage) and two smaller concrete structures situated within
a small grove of trees. The buildings were constructed as part of the old Gopher Ordinance Works for
ballistics testing during World War ll.
There is a rental residence adjacent to the north boundary of the site. The residence, known as
"Ouroborus" was built by University students as an experimental passive solar house. The land to the:
west (across Blaine Avenue), southwest and south is the proposed site of the Dakota County incinerator.
To the east is agricultural (cultivated crop) land, and to the northeast an abandoned sewage oxidation
pond. The UMRRC sewer system crosses the northern end of the RECOMP site. Farther east
(approximately 1/4 mile) is the west boundary of the village of Coates. The developed portion of Coates
Review and approval of local plan
Automatic;
amendments, rezoning, variances
concurrent with
and permits *
local permits
noted below
Dakota County
Resource Recovery Facility Ucense
To be applied for
Dakota County,
County Waste Exclusion
Pending
Hennepin County,
County Waste Exclusion
Pending
Ramsey County,
County Waste Exclusion
Pending
Washington County
County Waste Exclusion
Pending
City of Rosemount
Guide Plan Amendment, Rezoning,
To be applied for
Site Plan Review, Grading Permit,
Interim Use Permit
University of Minnesota
Building Permit,
To be applied for
*As long as the property is included in the New Major Airport search area designation process, the Council must
approve any rezoning, conditional use permit, or variance for the project.
9. Land Use Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss the
compatibility of the project with adjacent and nearby land uses; indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental
matters. Identify any potential environmental hazard due to past land uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage
tanks.
The 30.37 acre site is located within the confines of the University of Minnesota Rosemount Research
Center (UMRRC). Approximately 25.4 acres (84%) of the site was used for agricultural (cultivated crops)
in the recent past. The remainder of the site, approximately 5 acres (16%), is vacant but contains three
concrete buildings (one of which is used for storage) and two smaller concrete structures situated within
a small grove of trees. The buildings were constructed as part of the old Gopher Ordinance Works for
ballistics testing during World War ll.
There is a rental residence adjacent to the north boundary of the site. The residence, known as
"Ouroborus" was built by University students as an experimental passive solar house. The land to the:
west (across Blaine Avenue), southwest and south is the proposed site of the Dakota County incinerator.
To the east is agricultural (cultivated crop) land, and to the northeast an abandoned sewage oxidation
pond. The UMRRC sewer system crosses the northern end of the RECOMP site. Farther east
(approximately 1/4 mile) is the west boundary of the village of Coates. The developed portion of Coates
is adjacent to US52/STH56, approximately 3/4 mile east of the RECOMP site. The land between the west
boundary and the developed portion of Coates is used mainly for agricultural purposes. (see Figures
4 and 6).
The use of the subject property for the manufacture of compost from a generator -separated portion of
the solid waste stream appears generally compatible with surrounding land uses. The product, compost,
may be viewed as an agricultural commodity (humus) having potential residential and agricultural
application. It is also a waste processing facility which is compatible with the proposed Dakota County
incinerator use planned across the street.
The UMRRC contains numerous sites of alleged or documented soil and water contamination that have
or potentially could impact the proposed facility, according to The Environmental Assessment Worksheet
for the Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility prepared for the Metropolitan Council by Weston in May
1989. Pages 9 and 10 identify 21 known and/or alleged areas of contamination within the UMRRC that
might impact the Dakota County project. None of the areas are located on the proposed RECOMP site.
Five sites of alleged or documented contamination were identified within a 'h mile of the RECOMP site.
1. George's Used Equipment
2. U. S. Transformer Site
3. Oxidation Pond and Rosemount Research Center Sewer System
4. U of M Hazardous Waste Facilities A and F
5. Tree Disposal Site
MPCA Site Response Section staff involved in the cleanup of the UMRRC sites report that three sites
(George's, U. S. Transformer, and Porter Electric which was not formerly identified) had sufficient lead and
PCB contamination to require cleanup. The lead clean up has already taken place, and the PCB cleanup
is expected to begin this year. Following cleanup, some PCB contamination (10-25 ppm) will still exist
at the three sites; and no residential or commercial activity that attracts large numbers of people will be
permitted within 100 meters of each of the sites. The proposed RECOMP facility is further than 100
meters from all three sites and is a permitted use in any case.
10. Cover Types Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development (before
and after totals should be equal):
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe
any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The site has no known unique or endangered species of plant or animal, and has no fish. The site
is presently 83 percent cropland with two small groves of trees in the east central portion. Some of
this wooded area may be used for habitat by small mammals and deer, as well as various types of
birds. RECOMP proposes to demolish and remove the existing buildings in the wooded portion of
the site, which may disrupt the wildlife during the work but should have no long-term impact.
Construction of the proposed facility is expected to disturb wildlife in the immediate area, but no
construction is planned for the woodland. Following removal of the buildings, RECOMP plans to
plant trees to fill in the woodland which should have the effect of improving wildlife habitat.
E
Before
After
Before
After
Types 2 to 8 Wetlands
0
0
Urban/Suburban fawn
0
3.1
Wooded/Forest
3.97
4.97
landscaping
Brush/Grassland
0
8_1
Impervious Surface
1_0
14.2
Cropland
25.4
0
Other (describe)
0
0
11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources on or near the site and discuss how they would be affected by the project. Describe
any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The site has no known unique or endangered species of plant or animal, and has no fish. The site
is presently 83 percent cropland with two small groves of trees in the east central portion. Some of
this wooded area may be used for habitat by small mammals and deer, as well as various types of
birds. RECOMP proposes to demolish and remove the existing buildings in the wooded portion of
the site, which may disrupt the wildlife during the work but should have no long-term impact.
Construction of the proposed facility is expected to disturb wildlife in the immediate area, but no
construction is planned for the woodland. Following removal of the buildings, RECOMP plans to
plant trees to fill in the woodland which should have the effect of improving wildlife habitat.
E
b. Are there any state -listed endangered, threatened, or special -concern species; rare plant communities; colonial waterbird
nesting colonies; native prairie or other rare habitat; or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? a Yes / No
If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project Indicate I a site survey of the resources was
conducted. Describe measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts.
The DNR Natural Heritage database identifies no known rare, endangered or otherwise significant
plant or animal species, plant communities, or otherwise significant natural features for the RECOMP
site. DNR identified four species of plant, ten species of animal, and six natural communities within
a 7 -mile radius of the . site as part of the environmental study of the Dakota County Resource
Recovery Facility (adjacent to the RECOMP site), but only one of the species ... the Loggerhead Shrike
(a threatened species of bird) was identified as a potential concern. A field investigation was
conducted as part of the EIS. Based on the results of that investigation, the DNR staff indicate that
there are no known nesting areas or breeding habitat of the Loggerhead Shrike on the RECOMP site.
12 Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream
diversion, outfall structure, diking, impoundment) of any surface water(lake, pond, wetland, stream, drainage ditch)? ❑ Yes ■ No
If yes, identify the water resource to be affected and describe: the alteration, including the construction process; volumes of
dredged or fill material; area affected; length of stream diversion; water surface area affected; timing and extent of fluctuations in
water surface elevations; spoils disposal sites; and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts.
There are no surface water bodies or wetlands on this site. There appears to be a drainage ditch on the
south side of the site, immediately north of and parallel to 160th street. Natural drainage of the site is
minimal due to the flat terrain and permeability of the soils, but to the extent it occurs it is generally
easterly towards an intermittent stream (southeast of Coates) which is tributary to the Vermillion River..
After construction, drainage for the site is expected to be 40 percent less than pre -construction normal,
because the portion of the site being developed will be modified so that flow is internal towards a
catchment basin. Fabric erosion control barriers will be used during construction to minimize runoff and
sedimentation into the drainage ditch. (see Figures 2 and 3)
13. Water Use
a. Will the project involve the installation or abandonment of any wells? ❑ Yes ■ No
For abandoned wells give the location and Unique well number. For new wells, or other previously unpermitted wells, give
the location and purpose of the well and the Unique well number (if known).
There are no known active or abandoned wells on the site. RECOMP proposes to connect to the
University's water system to provide it with process water.
b. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water (including dewatering)? ❑ Yes ■ No
If yes, indicate the source, quantity, duration, purpose of the appropriation, and DNR water appropriation permit number of
any existing appropriation. Discuss the impact of the appropriation on ground water levels.
c. Will the project require connection to a public water supply? ■ Yes 0 No
If yes, identify the supply, the DNR water appropriation permit number of the supply, and the quantity to be used.
Supply will be from the University of Minnesota. The total quantity to be used is approximately 30,000
gallons per day, 7 days per week, 52 weeks per year; a total of about 11 million gallons per year.
The composting process adds 72 gallons of water to each ton of waste to create proper moisture for
the microorganisms used to decompose organic wastes. The facility is designed to handle 400 tons
per day (TPD) of organic wastes and requires (400 x 72) = 28,800 gallons per day of water, plus
1,200 gallons per day for office, maintenance and miscellaneous uses. Assuming an 8 hour work
day, the facility will require an average of 3,750 gallons per hour or 63 gallons per minute.
14. Water -related Land Use Management Districts. Does any part of the project site involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated
100 -year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? ❑ Yea ■ No if yes, identify the
district and discuss the compatibility of the project with the land use restrictions of the district.
6
15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, indicate
the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other users or fish and wildlife
resources.
16. Soils. Approximate depth (in feet) to:
Ground water: minimum 50 average 65 Bedrock: minimum 50 average 70
Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS classifications, if known. (SCS interpretations and soil boring logs need not be attached.)
There are two types of soil types on site: Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slope (411 A) and Urban
Land -Waukegan Complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes (857A). These soils are typically 13 inches deep with
a 29 inch subsoil layer. They are high in organic matter, moderate to high permeability, moderate
available water retention, very slow runoff, and poor filters for removing pollutants. Poor filtration for on-
site septic systems can be minimized by installing distribution lines close to the surface. Most of the
RECOMP development will occur on the Waukegan silt loam, which is considered well suited for crops,
pasture and hay; and which is considered suitable for buildings. (see Figure 7)
17. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres 20 ;
cubic yards 32.637 . Describe the erosion and sedimentation measures to be used during and after construction of the project.
During construction, erosion control fabric barriers will be installed to stop erosion on the site. The site
plan (see Figures 3 and 9) provides for berms to be built along Blaine Avenue and 160th Street to screen
the facility and provide off-site noise buffering. The berms will have stabilization grids installed and will
be seeded or sodded and trees planted to prevent erosion.
18. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff.
a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe methods to be used to manage and/or
treat runoff.
The site should generate about 75 percent less runoff than before, as that portion (14 acres) of the
site with impervious surfaces will not generate surface or stormwater that will run off the site.
Stormwater falling on the impervious surfaces of the facility will be collected by the leachate collection
system, stored in a holding tank and used as process water. Removal of existing buildings and
impermeable surfaces on the east side of the site should also act to retard runoff. Because the soils
on the site are regarded as having "very low runoff', no treatment of runoff from the property is
considered necessary.
b. Identify the route(s) and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site. Estimate the impact of the runoff on the quality of
the receiving waters. (If the runoff may affect a lake consult 'EAW Guidelines' about whether a nutrient budget analysis is
needed.)
No runoff is expected from the facility under normal conditions. Storm events with magnitude greater
than once in 25 years would create runoff into the existing drainage system with most of the runoff
absorbed into the surrounding area due to the flatness of the site and the permeability of the soils.
There appears to be a drainage ditch on the south side of the site, adjacent to 160th street. Natural
drainage is generally easterly towards an intermittent stream that is tributary to the Vermillion River.
19. Water Quality - Wastewaters.
a. Describe sources, quantities, and composition (except for normal domestic sewage) of all sanitary and industrial wastewaters
produced or treated at the site.
The only wastewater generated by the operation of the facility will be the water used to clean the
facility and vehicles, which will be captured by the leachate collection system and re -used as process
water. Domestic sewage is estimated to be between 1,178 and 1,370 gallons per day.
b. Describe any waste treatment method to be used and give estimates of composition after treatment, or R the project involves
on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of the site conditions for such systems. Identify receiving waters (including
ground water) and estimate the impact of the discharge on the quality of the receiving waters. (if the discharge may affect
7
a lake consult 'EAW Guidelines' about whether a nutrient budget anatysis is needed.)
The cleaning water will be collected by the leachate collection system and used as process water in
composting. Domestic sewage will be handled by an approved on-site septic system. Given the
generally good absorption rate but poor filtering capability of the Waukegan soil type, itis anticipated
that the field will need to be modified according to local on-site septic system standards in order to
assure the necessary filtering capabilities.
c. If wastes will be discharged into a sewer system or pretreatment system, identify the system and discuss the ability of the
system to accept the volume and composition of the wastes. Identity any improvements which will be necessary.
Not applicable.
20. Ground Water - Potential for Contamination
a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: 50 minimum; 65 average.
b. Describe any of the following site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes; shallow
limestone formations/karst conditions; soils with high infiltration rates; abandoned or unused wells. Describe measures to
avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.
There are no known site hazards to groundwater. RECOMP proposes to use a clay base under a
drained concrete pad for its buildings and for outside storage of "finished" compost. Any leachate
generated from these areas will be collected and re -used in the composting process.
c. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or presented on the project site and identify measures to be used to
prevent them from contaminating ground water.
There are no known toxic materials that will be used or present on the project site. Any such
materials that get through the initial screening of all incoming loads will be segregated and properly
disposed of in a manner consistent with applicable state rules and county ordinances. Diesel fuel,
gasoline and degreasers will be present and used on the site for fueling and cleaning equipment.
All such material will be stored in approved, above ground storage containers and used on
impervious surfaces, that drain into the leachate collection system. No groundwater exposure or
contamination from these materials should occur with this system.
21. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks
a. Describe the types, amounts, and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes to.be generated, including animal manures,
sludges and ashes. Identify the method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste indicate
if there will be a source separation plan; list type(s) and how the project will be modified to allow recycling.
RECOMP's composting facility will not accept general mixed municipal solid wastes (mixed MSW) or
hazardous wastes. The facility will accept MSW, primarily the dedicated organic fraction, from pre-
selected sources approved by counties. Waste sources may include restaurants, grocery stores,
produce and foodstuff distributors, caterers, hotels, institutional sources with large kitchen facilities
such as schools and hospitals and other separation programs that generate substantial amounts of
primarily organic food wastes ("dedicated organic fraction"). The wastes are expected to come
primarily from Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties. As a result, non compostable
organic and inorganic wastes will be minimized. Of the 400 TPD of feed stock, RECOMP anticipates
generating no sludges, no ash, and no toxic or hazardous wastes. An estimated 10 TPD of
recyclables (glass, plastic, metal), 360 TPD of compostables and 30 TPD of process rejects and
residuals will be produced. Burnable residuals and rejects will be disposed of at massburn facilities
(in the metropolitan area, if acceptable) and/or landfilled along with inorganic residuals and rejects
at area landfills such as Pine Bend. The actual locations for disposing of rejects and residuals may
vary depending on agreements with individual counties.
b. Indicate the number, location, size, and use of any above or below ground tanks to be used for storage of petroleum
products or other materials (except water).
It is anticipated that there will be two 500 -gallon diesel fuel storage tanks above ground next to the
vehicle storage on the northwest side of the developed portion of the site. These tanks will contain
fuel for mobile machinery (front-end loaders) used on site.
22. Traffic Parking spaces added 50 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion) Not Applicable Estimated total Average
Daily Traffic (ADT) generated 200 Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: 23 7:00-
8:00 am.. For each affected road indicate the ADT and the directional distribution of traffic with and without the project. Provide
an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on the affected roads and describe any traffic improvements which will be
necessary.
Commercial, licensed haulers will deliver waste under contract to the RECOMP Metro Composting Facility.
This material will be transported predominately along either U.S. Highway 52/State Trunk Highway 56
(US52/STH56) or along STH 3 to County Road 42 (Co. Rd. 42). Then, along Co. Rd. 42 to Blaine Avenue,
and south on Blaine to the RECOMP facility. Use of other routes by haulers, particularly Blaine
Avenue/Rich Valley Blvd. north of Co. Rd. 42, will be discouraged. US52/STH56, STH 3 and Co. Rd. 42
have 10 -ton load limits. Blaine Avenue is scheduled to be graded by Dakota County to a 10 -ton load
limit in 1991 and paved in 1992 according to the Dakota County Highway Department.
An alternative to the use of Co. Rd. 42 and the upgrading of Blaine Avenue is discussed in the Dakota
County Resource Recovery Project (DCRRP) EIS. It discusses an upgrading of 160th Street between
US52/STH56 and 1-35 in western Dakota County as a two-lane 10 -ton county road designated Co. Rd.
46. Such a road would provide access to the south side of the RECOMP site. The EIS discussion
indicates that new Co. Rd. 46 would be connected to US52/STH56 by an at -grade intersection, and
suggests that such an intersection would experience delays for Co. Rd. 46 traffic regardless of whether
the DCRRP is built. The upgrading of 160th Street to become Co. Rd. 46 is scheduled to occur in 1994.
The following 1988 estimates of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for the roads noted are from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation 1988 Traffic Volume Street Series, produced in 1989. AADT on
Blaine Avenue north of Co. Rd. 42 is 2,100. No volume data is available for Blaine Avenue south of Co.
Rd. 42. On Co. Rd. 42 between Blaine Avenue and US52/STH56, the AADT is 7,200; and 7,700 AADT
west of Blaine Avenue. Traffic volumes on US52/STH56 are 16,000 AADT immediately north of Co. Rd.
42, and 15,400 AADT immediately south. It is expected that the RECOMP facility will increase traffic
volumes by less than 3 percent on Co. Rd. 42, and less than 2 percent on US52/STH56. MN/DOT has
not formally determined "level of service" for US52/STH56, but MN/DOT District 9 staff estimates Level C
or better. (see Figure 8)
RECOMP proposes to construct entrance and exit roads to and from Blaine Avenue (Resource Recovery
Road) that are rated for 10 -ton load limits. Haulers will be discouraged from using 160th Street (unless
it is upgraded); this route east of the RECOMP site is presently a dead-end at the Coates city limits. Most
of the other roads in this area are unpaved, but they have truck traffic from the Rosemount AVTI truck
driver training program.
23. Vehicle -related air emissions Provide an estimate of the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon
monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. (/f the project
involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult'EAW Guidelines, about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed.)
Traffic generation and parking at the site are far below the levels which would require an Indirect Source
Permit (ISP) according to MPCA Air Quality staff. The impact of traffic and parking on air quality, including
carbon dioxide, in the vicinity of the project site is expected to be minimal.
24. Stationary source air emissions. Will the project involve any stationary sources of air emissions (such a boilers or exhaust
stacks)? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the sources, quantities, and composition of the emissions; the proposed air pollution
control devices; the quantities and composition of the emissions after treatment; and the effects on air quality.
I
The primary stationary sources of air emissions will be the digesters (housed within the processing plant
building) and the bio -filtration system. Emissions will be primarily CO2 (the product of microbial
decomposition of the organic wastes) and water vapor (evaporation) with trace amounts of any volatile
organics that may be found in the process water and/or from the surface water containment system.
Aspergillus fumigatus which is considered the primary health risk associated with composting, should be
adequately controlled for off-site exposure by the controlled ventilation and filtration proposed by
RECOMP. It is recommended that plant workers be required to wear dust masks during operations in
the sorting, digestion, curing and maturation buildings and when operating all mechanical screens and
when loading finished compost into trucks.
25. Will the project generate dust, odors, or noise during construction and/or operation? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, describe the sources,
characteristics, duration, and quantities or intensity, and any proposed measure to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identfy the
locations of sensitive receptors in the vicinity and estimate the impacts of these receptors.
RECOMP expects no dust generation as a result of its operations. The portions of the site used by
vehicles and equipment will all be hard surfaced to prevent the generation of dust. The incoming
dedicated organic fraction will have a relatively high moisture content and process water will be injected
to further moisten the compostable materials. Product storage materials will continue to have high
moisture content and should not generate dust. Dust could be generated by the operation of trucks on
Blaine Avenue. Dust generation would be reduced if the road is upgraded and blacktopped as planned
before the RECOMP facility begins operation. (see Figures 3 and 9)
Noise generated at the facility will be from hauler trucks (generally commercial front-end and rear packers)
and equipment used to operate the facility. All RECOMP operations machinery will be equipped with
noise suppression devices. Most equipment noise will occur within buildings, and should not be noticed
outside. A mechanical screen to remove residuals and rejects of material between the in -vessel system
and Royer system is proposed to occur outside the main buildings and may generate some noise. It
should be located as far as possible from the adjacent residential property (possibly on the south side
of the buildings, which would also reduce the need for truck traffic on the north side of the building).
The outside product storage area on the east side of the site may also be a noise source from front-end
loaders and trucks used in loading and transporting the finished compost to market. RECOMP proposes
to put berms along Blaine Avenue and 160th Street to reduce the noise of the trucking operations from
the street. A berm or fence should be considered for the north side of the product storage area to
provide a noise buffer for property north of the site. The woods should provide adequate buffering to the
east. (see Figure 6)
Any operation, involving putrescible garbage, is capable of producing odors. Unlike its St. Cloud plant
which has experienced odor problems associated with outside curing and maturation of mixed MSW
compost. The Metro facility's digesters, compost curing system and the compost maturation area will all
be enclosed inside buildings, with the air collected and cleaned by passing through a wet -scrubber and
bio -filtration system to remove objectionable odors before being exhausted into the atmosphere. The
proposed bio -filtration system together with RECOMP's aerobic digester composting system and
automated turning with forced -aeration curing system should provide minimal opportunity for this facility
to generate problem odors.
RECOMP proposes to take the following measures to eliminate or mitigate possible odors.
1. Due to the relative remoteness of the proposed site in Rosemount, RECOMP anticipates no problem
with odor complaints. The closest residence is a rental property located 75 feet north of the north
boundary of the site; and 375 feet from the nearest building or outside storage area; and over 750
feet from the proposed bio -filter exhaust for the plant. The next closest inhabited residence is more
than one-half mile from the site.
in
2. All garbage will be unloaded inside the facility on to the tipping floor.. The tipping floor will be under
slight negative pressure to help contain any odors.
3. No waste will be allowed to remain on the tip floor overnight and will be processed as soon as
possible.
4. Cement floors, interior walls and all processing equipment will be cleaned daily or as needed.
5. The composting process will be managed, to prevent anaerobic conditions, through careful and
diligent monitoring of the temperature, moisture and oxygen levels to maximize the efficiency of the
thermophylic bacteria.
6. The tipping floor, processing building, curing area and maturation area are all enclosed and under
slight negative pressure. The air inside the curing and maturation areas is collected and then filtered
first through a wet -scrubber and then through a bio -filtration system to remove any objectionable
odors before exhausting to the atmosphere. The air collected from the tipping floor and processing
areas will be used to aerate the digesting vessels and the aeration system in the curing area.
7. Primary storage of finished compost for market will be inside the maturation building. Outside storage
will only be used when needed, and then only for fully -decomposed, finished compost.
26. Are there any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site:
a. archeological, historical, or architectural resources? ❑ Yes ■ No
b. prime or unique farmlands? ❑ Yes ■ No
c. designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? ❑ Yes ■ No
d. scenic views and vistas? ❑ Yes ■ No
e. other unique resources? ❑ Yes ■ No
If any items are answered Yes, describe the resource and identify any impacts on the resource due to the project. Describe any
measures to be taken to minimize or avoid adverse Impacts.
27. Will the project create adverse visual impacts? (Examples include: glare from intense lights; lights visible in wilderness areas;
and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks.) ❑ Yes ■ No If yes, explain.
28. Compatibility with pians. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive land use plan or any other applicable land
use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state, or federal agency? ■ Yes ❑ No If yes, identify the applicable
plan(s), discuss the compatibility of the project with the provisions of the plan(s), and explain how any conflicts between the
project and the plan(s) will be resolved. If no, explain.
The site proposed to be leased by RECOMP for its composting facility is on property owned by the
University of Minnesota. It is in an area of the old Gopher Ordinance Works, a site owned by the U.S.
Army during World War II and used for manufacturing munitions. The area is now called the Rosemount
Research Center, and contains the University's Agricultural Experiment Station as well as the Dakota
County AVTI, a U.S. Navy satellite station, and a number of other parcels leased by the University for
industrial, commercial and agricultural uses. The University is a constitutional corporation with the
authority to manage and control all land granted for the endowment of the University. This special
constitutional status has allowed the University to claim exemption from local planning, zoning and
permitting for development within the boundaries of the Rosemount Research Center; although leased
properties are required to pay county, school district and municipal property taxes. The city of
Rosemount provides fire protection under contract to the Research Center, but provides no other
municipal services. (see Figures 4 and 5)
The Research Center has its own water system, including a well, a 125 -foot tall 50,000 -gallon water tower,
distribution system and hydrants. The system was built as part of the Gopher Ordinance Works; and the
exact extent of the system and location of pipes and hydrants is unknown to University officials at the
Research Center. The Research Center provided sanitary sewer service until about three years ago using
11
a system of sanitary sewer pipes and combined sanitary/storm sewer "wood box" system that was built
to service the old.Gopher Ordinance Works. Development in the Research Center is now required to
install on-site septic systems.
The University issues its own building permits and conducts its own inspections. The City of Rosemount
has indicated that it should have the ultimate land use jurisdiction over the Research Center. It has a
Metropolitan Council approved Comprehensive Plan for the entire community, which includes the
University's property. The city indicates that the proposed RECOMP facility will require a guide pian
amendment, as the present plan identifies the University property as "public & institutional" use, which is
inconsistent with the proposed RECOMP composting facility use. However, the city would like to create
a "waste management" land use district that would encompass both RECOMP and the proposed Dakota
County Resource Recovery Facility located across the street. In addition, the city would require rezoning,
from "agriculture" to "general industrial"; and require an "interim use" permit and site plan review. The
RECOMP site, as well as all of the Research Center, is outside of the MUSA and not scheduled for urban
services within the foreseeable future. (see Figures 4 and 5).
The University's Rosemount Research Center is located within the "Dakota" candidate search area being
considered for the site of a new regional airport. If the airport decision does not involve the University's
property, there is speculation that the University will sell off major portions of the property for private
development. Such land would clearly fall within the jurisdiction of the city of Rosemount, which would
be expected to provide a full range of municipal services to any development. Development in this case
could be considered leap -frog type, with potentially very high service costs to the city, the county and
the region.
If the decision is made to designate the "Dakota" candidate search area as the final airport search area,
the UMRRC will be affected. The UMRRC could be within the potential new airport or a buffer zone
depending on where in the search area the airport is sited. Under 1990 legislation, the Metropolitan
Council is required to review and approve certain local land use decisions/projects so as to protect the
candidate search areas until January 1, 1992. Additional provisions apply for the final search area -and
last until one year after the final major airport report is submitted for legislative action.
The RECOMP facility will require the Metropolitan Council review in both instances. Airport development/
operation, at whatever new location is selected, is not anticipated for upwards of 15-20 years. It will be
important to know the life -span and financing schedule for the proposed RECOMP project, its future value
and potential future viability. This review information will be necessary to assess the long-term
implications of the RECOMP development on future airport development and the potential for co -location
with the airport.
In the short term, until an airport decision is made, it might be prudent for the University to avoid leasing
which would entail major building construction or kxQterm commitment of land for uses other than
agriculture crop and pasture land. This will reduce public acquisition costs, avoid costly demolition costs,
avoid costs associated with installing and removing infrastructure and the like. The University prepared
a plan for the Rosemount Research Center in 1977. The plan entitled, Long Range Planning Framework,
it shows the property intended for lease to RECOMP as "research center" in its "ten year plan" and as
"environmental research use" in its twenty year plan; which appears inconsistent with the proposed
RECOMP composting facility use. The University's plan has not been reviewed and approved by the city
of Rosemount, Dakota County or the Metropolitan Council.
Council staff believes that it is critically important to resolve land use planning, zoning and permitting
issues between the city of Rosemount and the University immediately. This will reduce the possibility of
leap -frog development, the premature installation of urban services and their attendant social and
institutional costs that may occur if these issues are not resolved. Until such an agreement is realized,
the University should consider a voluntarily cessation of leasing Rosemount Research Center property
for non -agriculture uses. This recommendation does not include RECOMP which has already signed a
lease agreement with the University.
29. impact on Infrastructure and Public Services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure, or public services be
required to serve the project? ■ Yes 0 No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure/services needed. (Any infrastructure
that is a 'connected action' with respect to the project must be assessed in this EAW, see TAW Guidelines' for details.)
University officials indicate that the Research Center's water system has service along the west side of
Blaine Avenue from County Road 42 to 160th Street, and then west along 160th Street. Although there
are three water hydrants located immediately adjacent to the old ballistics range building on the RECOMP
site, it is not known whether they are connected, in sanitary condition, and capable of providing water
to the site. It may be necessary to run a new water pipe across Blaine Avenue to service the site. The
University's water system is believed to have adequate capacity at 2,000 gallons per minute rated capacity
to service RECOMP and other water users on the system.
Blaine Avenue is expected to be upgraded to a 10 -ton load limit between County Road 42 and 160th
Street. Such upgrading is being proposed to serve the proposed Dakota County Resource Recovery
Facility. If the Dakota County facility is delayed or canceled, the County is unlikely to proceed with
upgrading of Blaine Avenue.
Fire service is provided to the Research Center under contract with the city of Rosemount. Police service
is provided by the city police on-call, but the city provides no regular patrol of the area. No sanitary or
storm sewer service is anticipated to be needed by the proposed RECOMP facility. Electrical and
telephone service is available in the immediate area. An in -ground telephone cable runs along the east
side of, and parallel to, Blaine Avenue at a distance of approximately 10 meters from the roadway. Care
will be needed in grading and site design to avoid damaging this cable.
30. Related Developments; Cumulative Impacts
a. Are future stages of this development planned or likely? 0 Yes ■ No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, their timing, and plans for environmental review.
b. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? 0 Yes ■ No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, its timing, and any past environmental review.
c. Is other development anticipated on adjacent lands or outlots? 0 Yes 0 No
If yes, briefly describe the development and its relationship to the present project.
d. if a, b, or c were marked Yes, discuss any cumulative environmental impacts resulting from this project and the other
development.
Across both Blaine Avenue (to the west) and 160th Street (to the south) is the proposed site of the
Dakota County Resource Recovery Project, an 800 -ton per day incinerator that will burn primarily
mixed MSW from Dakota County to generate electricity. The EIS prepared for the Dakota County
Resource Recovery Project by the Metropolitan Council indicated that the expected trip generation
by the Dakota facility would be 564 vehicles per day, peaking at 68 vehicles during the 7-8 a.m. hour.
The EIS describes the likely route for vehicles as a new Co. Rd. 46 along the alignment of existing
160th Street, south of the proposed RECOMP facRity. Co. Rd. 46 is proposed to intersect with
US52/STH56 south of Coates with an at -grade crossing. A preferred alternative route would have
traffic use Blaine Avenue north to Co. Rd. 42, turning easterly or westerly along this existing four -lane
divided highway which has a grade -separated intersection with US52/STH56.
The two projects together can be expected to generate 764 vehicles per day including all compactor
trucks, transfer trailers and employee trips. Peak hour cumulative generation of 91 trips would occur
in the 7-8 a.m. hour. According to the EIS, traffic on Co. Rd. 46 is likely to experience significant
delays at the at -grade intersection with US52/STH56 whether or not the Dakota County facility is built.
The cumulative impact of both facilities will exacerbate the problem slightly, if all traffic is required to
use the new road. It appears likely that delays at Co. Rd. 46 and US52/STH56 will cause traffic to
seek alternative routes, most likely Blaine Avenue to Co. Rd. 42.
13
31. Other Potential Environmental Impacts If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts which were not addressed
by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation.
Not applicable.
32. SUMMARY OF ISSUES (This section need not be completed If the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; Instead, address relevant
Issues In the draft Scoping Decision document which must accompany the EAW.) List any impacts and issues identified above
that may require further investigation before the project is commenced. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have
been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions.
The proposed project will be built on a 30 -acre site in the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Research
Center on land that has been leased for agricultural cropland use in recent years. The site is very flat and
open, but contains a small woodland in the east central portion of the site. Within the woodland, is a
partially demolished "ballistics range" complex of buildings constructed as part of the old Gopher
Ordinance Works built during World War Il. The remaining buildings, presently used for storage, will be
demolished and removed by RECOMP prior to construction of its facilities.
The RECOMP facility will be built primarily on existing farmland, with the woodland encouraged to fill-in
after the demolition of the existing structures. The project's impact on wildlife should be minimal, and
short-term during demolition and construction.
The site contains no surface water bodies or wetlands. Soils on the site are generally good for
construction of buildings and roads, with moderate permeability and very slow run-off. The project
proposes an on-site septic system and drain field to handle domestic wastes. Soils on the site are
suitable for on-site systems but special attention will need to be paid to drain fields to assure adequate
filtering. it is possible that appropriate soils will need to be brought in for this purpose.
Air emissions from static or vehicle sources do not appear to be problems. Dust is not expected to be
a problem at the site from vehicle movements (concrete or asphalt road surfaces) or composting
operations (all inside buildings). Dust off-site could be a problem unless Blaine Avenue is blacktopped,
which is expected to occur this summer. Odor problems are not anticipated because the entire tipping
and composting/maturation operation is inside buildings. An automated compost turning and aeration
system and the exhausting of air through a wet scrubber and bio -filtration system prior to discharge into
the atmosphere should control any odors generated. Noise problems from compost processing
operations off the site should be minimal because the operations are inside buildings. Noise generated
by auto and truck traffic will be controlled on the site by berms. The blacktopping of Blaine Avenue
should also help to control truck noise and truck traffic will be encouraged to use County Road 42 for
access to Blaine Avenue, and discouraged from using other local roads including Blaine Avenue/Rich
Valley Blvd. north of County Road 42.
CERTIFICATIONS BY THE RGU (all 3 certifications must be signed for EQB acceptance of the EAW
for publication of notice in the EQB Monitor)
A. I hereby certify that the Information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge.
Signature
B. I hereby certify that the project described in this EAW Is the complete project and there are no other projects, project stages, or
project components, other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as `connected actions• or
'phased actions,' as defined, respectively, at Minn. Rules, pts. 4410.0200, subp. 9b and subp. 60.
Signature
C.
I hereby certify that copies of the completed EAW are being sent to all points on the official EQB EAW distribution list.
Signature
Tdle of signer Date
4 A
Figure 1
Figure 2
PROJECT BOUNDARIES AND AREA TOPOGRAPHY
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
-22
--7 90°x`-- = i a X95^° CHJGACaQ t,CL_t
�� I - Rich
Vallee 860
•— 917 --— •926 — 78 I(••• - BM 859 •n IrOTN -aSTREE3t
a
1,27 ty Mall�`1 P'� — -�.•` n• -� ,—Ji� \„�-/._o :2� _� :”'
I 'T I!93t r _ !,ou-?`..'` .9 C../ _ _ ` ?f2Xi'—_. • __ _ � '
' • __ _ _=- =:xa a ._ -.. � -..:11881 ,,.-\ Bx-894 �.
i jn� \ II` CounW� onuonal II2'
e \�- `Sehi i 067
Ilk
G33 _ Gaxsar3ia�a - /�' �� �� �.1 r' �•�. / .. V^'� -
d 1 � �•�\ =zl � Ir�-r I/^�932b `?�"�`�� ." g00
! P936 In\f / �= � F� .���..� /,':_i�—���— �`"� i '1I9i6 � �'w� i•- �— 917
1 \
=r4/ � - -
Tower, :r
l �_�-^ r'•f .. \a -:_...i-; i1 ..... ,'
Il,`�` _•.-'�_ I\\`.{{•.-\ ..._t 1 • 'Water Tank 330• ./ IVI _ i\ w _
1 _ _ /.. p•. / O 1 all
II _ II � 1 '. q M
�,/ n r . • y �\i`1I I O, .923
fl1.34 �O n ,j 1 35 a .I I `' °36�; /',-------
Y , I II ° a 93t I 927 !� 1.
j .If
`\ . 1 n `( ✓ Wit=='� . a
/ n n I ,.,� `�i�\._� Vii• ��r.- - �;' � n 11-� "1 'j:
-
UN{I�VEI-SITir OF`�MINNaESOTA .
_ � .,�, , �__= i /n Il���r-\) �\ j' II
if
Z :1 — I i' ,COaLeS
�RECOMP ' t�
BOUNDkiiX ',
Of - - l 11 I! Gravel Pito •III .r r•:
a 1 93c -
_ 937 - �; 919 "92311--•
6 ;\ • -
'^li 7rj• ..-J 917
:--.-----:ter
- O Y,
a 1 \ 7J
3 �R-0-S.E-M0 NT RESEARCH GENTI�7R��� �; � � �-- 'r'� Z'
2 ,1,' i^ i— i II IIS:_ - 1 l �\•
Base Map: U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute 1:24,000 Coates, Minn. Quadrangle, 1974 lr
Figure 3
SITE PLAN
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
BLAINE AVENUE
i ® I
1 I
1 I
I
1I
1 CURING BUILDING 100,000 SD.FT. 380X264 FT.
1
I SERCEM ® I
1 nDa
sor7.
I
I
COMPOST MATURATION BUILDING ® I
I
I
I 80,000 SQ. FT.
I
I 1
COMPOST PRODUCT /
I i I STORAGE PAD ///
iI --------------- [) -------------- 13 I
78,000 SO. FT. ® i
I
I I 525 X 148 FT I
i ® �
00 000
i
t ® ® ® 000 000 0000000 0
I ® 0 O 0
I I
I
-- - -- - -- - — —- -- - -- --—IRQCRtt LINE
N _o r7O
RECOMP OF MINNESOTA SITE PLAN EXISTING TREES
° m y° loa zoe . )KNEW SHRUBS
METRO COMPOSTING FACILITY 3/23/91 NOTE 'BUILDINGS' HAVE FULL
ROOFS 8 FULL -HEIGHT WALLS NEW TREES
—
— — 7-T.—HIGH
1—
Li
—
ANDS AP D RN i f7; 779-0 FT. .-6
Uj
CD
I
TIP E PR`�r
OCESS PARKING
cb
I
BO'/
54000 SFT. ® FICE t L
0
0
I
I
MICLC�.
2I7x248 FT.
`CDUIPME
®
I
TENNAIL63ox 100 rT
- 7,000 TVD LEVEL
O i
/�
(`/1
I
I
II
Rurarr
A®
I
(� �CISTERM
i ® I
1 I
1 I
I
1I
1 CURING BUILDING 100,000 SD.FT. 380X264 FT.
1
I SERCEM ® I
1 nDa
sor7.
I
I
COMPOST MATURATION BUILDING ® I
I
I
I 80,000 SQ. FT.
I
I 1
COMPOST PRODUCT /
I i I STORAGE PAD ///
iI --------------- [) -------------- 13 I
78,000 SO. FT. ® i
I
I I 525 X 148 FT I
i ® �
00 000
i
t ® ® ® 000 000 0000000 0
I ® 0 O 0
I I
I
-- - -- - -- - — —- -- - -- --—IRQCRtt LINE
N _o r7O
RECOMP OF MINNESOTA SITE PLAN EXISTING TREES
° m y° loa zoe . )KNEW SHRUBS
METRO COMPOSTING FACILITY 3/23/91 NOTE 'BUILDINGS' HAVE FULL
ROOFS 8 FULL -HEIGHT WALLS NEW TREES
Figure 4
EXISTING LAND USE IN THE VICINnY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
I
N
_ zs�so
• �— }G SI
SOURCES: Rosemount Planning Department, March 1991; University of Minnesota Rosemount Research
Center Administration Office, March 1991; Metropolitan Council staff, March 1991.
Figure 5
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
AG P
25
25 w _ _M-
li' it ii
;;MINNESOTA ! a
XJNT r-----
�I !
6,
RESEARCH =! 35 11
CENTER
RECOMP �k
AGP
ZONING DISTRICTS SHOWN
AG - Agricultural AGP - Agricultural Preserve PUB - Public or Quasi -Public
N
Base Map: Zoning Map, City of Rosemount, Revised 9/90
SOURCE: City of Rosemount Planning Department, February, 1991
Figure 6
AERIAL PHOTO OF VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
+�
"%- -t ,r
.+y�...!�'• r •�..••--- 'w •7Eyh ".� h• r e lay
:"�i�.•y'�- ny wi7i1�1���tC��_ "-'" +a 3�_' �t7��+'��4K'ir +. _.1 ii
•�a'
i4--• Va a•-•.,, f
7 if
s _i«�..� ;��„s' r'i..... ��r F;a► i. vf+r►*.s «!`
�...,
��. �— .�•+•'�+«r Air. '"'" � •�' riij"� `;�,',--•�
-� � �_ � s� .-� ^. *: � � :, v .f � •: 3K� 4. .� �����wr� Vi=a.
fir'
s
_.e-e¢••r �... � '.i .. ' !.. :.� - � ��lW�� R •:R .-.e.+..v,. xn-r- �.s•:K ..t.�m..i7 a+F
._. �._,-*.��� z f.,-. .. � •r+C !� � • •L �"� • -tom r. .x -
40
_ •- tom,. - •.�_._•- ��' .,... �=� __- ''._
17� �^
.e- T ..yf k•� a..is�� ywZ- ,re
µM:... +`c. .e .�ti 7 - I� _a�..�t`•at ..`.`. i�.Tc r,iti'••. / ,« " i..i.�" •
-Jaen .•� r �rf`� - :N fgitlF'=-"r''y yG�`�`,!�'"�- ';'� '3S*�„''"' _ �,.,. w • a,�r+.� ,�, _
.7 a r►3 : d i �.,,,�3 !� � '"'s a a-�f::« •rbc S
-•!'+,,,� ~amt'- �. •` y �� � � '�`�'�'7� �!wt
INC-
,�. L��� �r� v._Pf acr..�.�'nY'•-„ M-••�...?s .3WFY +�'�- tyi3�����`$. �' *s• �Ta •i►�-«iii i1 ""#
„�_Jwt.-;.. ♦ __ �� �r �.�. ,.may 1Yt�t. � .r a"1_ah � .:.� �._ `�� ,... ,fie ,'�� _
-'_ �:"�-yi.•..�G Tem.. .a:«•rT T` .��r. .1�. J6 i
�r�!'c / ' - r f•► + }' +C`-�si�r-:.cL .^�. b� .x'4'r1� �' 3K�_fit _r �����a�� _ .S...t - �. �i i:�
3fr fir~„'i!_...s�J'i.. •;- S � ,�,., s�- �� j -' ."�;• - 1.. t� ''�1.
rw e
r. +. ' �- �,. �T. .�, ''ti•, .� a �,,,� «�,-.. � �� :� � �,t¢' rt" .. a•.� � 7 rt ' "moi .�+.
+ y
��.-Y� ��•1^- wry ._ � :
••:�. .:.:�'� a.>!_��. �Yy ate.•' --s. . ��+
la.7
Source: MARKHURD Corporation, Date of Photograph: April 30, 1990
Figure 7
SOULS MAP IN VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILITY
89581* -44!A
ctNrcw sauNowwr _2656 3958
a15B 816 ... _ 1548 4546
8658 " 1118 r: ♦i t.
j, � - '• � ���.�' ` •J. _ ,,R�a,�•., ` \3018 '•:' ,<...
89
4 11A,
« _t s.. w: 411C
- t11 -A ? 398 ' *MINNESOTA - _•
? . r �.. � ' .r'.J• '<• - �. 3fla� - 1118
A ` �.'_ � d ,� ' s>>0 , /'\ .y;w• � - - • �� 3018958 .•.v
1027 ` s •• 415 •01kC �� •
2
250 `F25 ~ 7A 398 57A W
Y.. 1027 ti: 'f ' `•�-�F V•
18 396 118
` • 678 . _ .s i y'f r'�^'h�' < - .�_ _ ••.<~ci •• 10a. is tt„ 8656 0
a �'• .. '•.i.� Ji=' -d < 418
12. "„i/Sl-:4 t ; ¢_ ".ta tr.!.i►: ". E`.
r e �{C
... �y - .4,\\,. •`� � � .� �� r ��� . -� r ems.•+-`+f��_� }��'�
'F 4IlA,. .mac 8658 ' ,.�, F,es* ,. AIIA:
-r.' ! Lam,. •}:c a 4 {.� _ .� �. 411A
,t _ -. J !X� .��.. i ' •...+'St ... 3► fir � �''«�""'" r:. �
36
JL
m4s• • I- ry' 'L's .x M •` r•.�� Y�' ;�..'K!1 �r�£` a! �•t '.l. y9 _
4116
"'••{w i.r :A. :5.�-'. • • .w.� »ywit 4118
dh
I IIA
IA
1027
r� 4r ,: Yi" Xii11" ..� •:r' H.
�� � k .3t1� 'F f 1 • �� X57 ��7'' _�. '+• i. ..,.. - 113A: r� 0.. '
57A , •z - a' ' � 857
RECOMP
v t
OF. MINNESOTA;FY.
i• ti .i+:•.�e a �:•
::f4 I I A �v 1
..-.. sr ROS MO� T' Q
Soils Indicated on site: 411A - Waukegan Silt Loam, 0 to 1 Percent Slope
857A - Urban Land -Waukegan Complex, 0 to 1 Percent Slope �T
Base Map: Composite of portions of sheets 29 and 37 1 r
SOURCE Soil Survey of Dakota County Minnesota, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, April 1983
Figure 8
HIGHWAY MAP IN VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
RECOMP, INC. MSW COMPOST METRO FACILM
SOURCE: 1998 Traffic Volume "Street Series" map published by MN/DOT in 1989
lr
E WOODED A � 2j
VI
I / WOOD AULTS O
I ( S WOOD VAULT I
/ MAN HOLE
I
WOOD BOX SEWER M) Yaw -t I
EDGE OF wkoODrAREA/ /
I /
o ` i 2 ' GRAVEL. DRIVEWAY 4
r � I
BENCH MARK BITTED CO
I I
TOP ►�IY'DRANt O ' I I
I/ CONCRE
/ BUILDING /�D �-
I
\4 92�
I
• s
Figure 9
SITE TOPOGRAPHY &
EXISTING CONDITIONS
RECOMP COMPOST METRO FACILITY
PROPERTY LIME
LIMITS Or AREA TO BE DEVELOPED
0 to so 100---2" (I.
RECOMP OF MINNESOTA
METRO COMPOSTING FACILITY
EXISTING CONDITIONS &
AREA TO BE DEVELOPED
3/26/91