The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.i. Authorize Purchase of Dump Box, Hydraulics & Hoist & Snowplow & Wing ITEM � � � *********��*******�****�*�**�*��*�MEMO*�*+t*��*****��,�*****�***,k�*��*� DATE: FEBRUARY 15� 1990 TO: MAYOR & COUNCILMEMBERS C/O ADMINISTRATOR JILR FROM: CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORRS DIRECTOR HEFTI RE: ITEMS FOR THE FEBRU,ARY 20� 1990 COUNCIL MEET (3 CONSENT AGENDA Authorize Purchase of Dumpbox. Hydraulics & Hoist and Snowplow and Wina At the February 6, 1990 Council meeting we recommended throwing out all the propasals for the above equipment because of some irregularities within the proposals and some of the equipment did not meet the specifications. We have received proposals from the same three vendors as we had before, that being Boyum Equipment, L-Z Company and Crysteel Equipment. Unfortunately, due to the snowfall we received Thursday night and Friday morning I did not have the opportunity to sit down and review these new proposals with my Staff. We will have, however, a recommendation for the meeting Tuesday night. �� '� � - CITY OF ROSEMOUNT DAROTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTI4N 1990- A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD INSURE CERTAIN ITEMS BE CONSIDERED IN THE ENVIRONMI3NTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR DAKOTA COIJNTY WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council is the designated responsible agency tor completing the Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota County Waste to Energy Facility; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council has employed the services of Roy F. Weston Co. and Malcolm-Pernie to complete the Environmental Impact Statement; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency provided the Metropolitan Council with comments for scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement on February 1 , 1989; and WHEREAS, these comments included recommendations to specifically review alternatives to the mass burn facility under Minnesota Rules Pt. 4470. 2300 for solid waste abatement including but not limited to recycling greater than fif ty percent of the waste strearn and maximized composting/co-composting, and recommendation to evaluate, through the health risk assessment for this project, data available on the chemicals which are part of the chlorabenzene and chlorophenai families, specifically, dichlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene, 2, 4 dichlorophenol and 2,4,6 trichlorophenol; and WHEREAS, the draft of the Envirorunental Impact Statement for this project is complete and public comment is being accepted for consideration by the Metropolitan Council to revise the draft Environmental Impact Statement and complete the final Environmental Impact Sta�ernent. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Rosemount hereby requests the Metropolitan Council to revise the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Dakota County Waste to Energy Facility to: (1 ) Broaden the study of alternatives to solid waste abatement under Minnesota Rules Pt. 4410.2300 to inciude maximizing recycling efforts, maximizing composting/co-composting and the effects of these on the sizA of the waste to energy ' facility needed to complete an integrated waste management plan; and (2) Include cost comparisons for these alternatives and the proposed waste to energy facility; and d ' : (3) The chemicals referenced in the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency letter of February 1 , 1989 to Metropolitan Council be reviewed as to all data available on them; and (4) To include a broader review on the health risk on the disposal of ash from the operation of the facility` and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Environmental Quality Board, the state agency which oversees the Metropolitan Council in permitting these facilities, insure that �these issues are addressed in the revised Environmental Impact Statement for this project. ADOPTED this 20th day of February, 1990. Vernon J. Napper, Mayor ATTEST: Susan M. Johnson, City Clerk Motion by: Seconded by: Voted in Favor- Voted against• � � " ��+�� - �- w� � ��-�S �9 3 � . J��L � �- .,�,� �� Nti�nesota Poliufiion Confirol Agency � � r"ebruary 1, 19fi9 t�lr. Paul Smith � ?roject Manager � � Dakota County Rssource Recove:-y Fac:lity EZS . i r �. t`_L;c^ rc� � `'�"_ ^t _�::s C�1:.^.C,� C_ !7? Tr11*? �__a ri 230+Soutn Fi`th Str�et '� St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 ; Dear Mr. Smith; I ��: The Draft Scoping Decision Do�:.�ent for the Dakota County R�sou�ce ! A�covery Facility Environ�ntal Im�act Statement , 'r'he Minnesota Poliutian Control Agency (MPCA? staff comm�nted .on the first dra=� of the scoc�ing environmentaz assessment worksheet (�) an� the scoping decision docurnent for the above referenced project in a letter to you datsd December 13, 1988. Our concern was exoressed about the need for a third , praject site located outside of the zone af significant imDact from Koch Refining Com�any air emissions and for the inclusion of six salid ;aaste management alternatives in the environmental imnact statsment (EIS) . To our satisfa�tion, Dakota County is currently in the process of looking for a third site tor the Resource Recovery Facility (RRF) , wnich wi].1 be evaluated in the EIS. However, certain solid waste management alternatives were not included in the second draft of the scoping EAw and t1'+e scoging decision for the p:oject. Notably absent werp Alternatives E and F, the mnximized recycling and maximized composting alternatives. We believe these alternatives must be evaluated in the EIS for the docvment to be declared adequate. The MPCA staff also has additional comments to offer �in the hsalth risk assessment area. SoTi3 waste Manaaement Alternatives we are conc�rned about the lack of specificity of the scooing decision with recatd �o the solid waste managem�nt alternatives to be evaluated in ��e E.S. Only general s�atem�nts are provided zegarding the alternativss to b� �overe-?. It is stat=d that the EIS will evaivate centra?ized proc�ssingosol�drwas�� raanaQem�nt alt�rnatives that are consis�ent with th� c�n__a_' �_.. �-c-..ssina objectives of the regional and county solid waste manaaem�nt plan. i� �s statsd, in addition, that the EIS will evaluate the full range of so?:d �aaste management alternatives in the context of the revision to tne Council's Solid Waste Management D�velooment Guide/Policy ?lan. S�cific o�rcentaQes are not given for solid waste abatem�nt methods nor are integrated abatement clans presented. Phone: 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Regio�al Ofiices • DuluthlBrainerdiDetroft lakesJMarshaUlRochester Equa!QQportunity Employer t9r. Paul Smi th Page Three �rther speci�ic justification for our position is provided beiow. A. Maximized Recycling AltQrnative ':'n� io1Tc-�rinQ in.".�rr�a�ion/data �.o•�ides su000rt for analyzinc a maximized recyciing alte_native consisting of fi£ty percent wast� reduction and r��clina of th� solid waste s�team. Disadvantages and di•`_��ralties wi`h t-��s solid was�� abatemsnt al��rnative are provided at the end of this section. l. M�troc�olitan Council Chair Stave Keefe has stated that "in th= Twin C:�_�S �r�� :1� P'!��?'�TM��_ti`.�Ci3 C�L.^.C1� �'1�S 5?t d QOd� ffJr �'il? V9�cr IOOQ �I to recycle sixte�n percent above an estimated twenty perc�nt re�ycied I� prior to 1985." He said the Council is looking at even moce recyciing '� for the 'r�ain Cities area, t� "oet up around fifty percent by 1995 or we ' will ne�d to build more incinerators or other big facilities here". it , is est�.^.�at�d in the "1988 abatement Progress Report for the T,�in Citi�s ' Metr000?itan Area" {the r�Dort of the Metropolitan Coi:ncil to the ' Minnesata Legistat?v= Commission on Waste Management, dated flctober 1988) tnat ur� to fi�Ly percent of the solid waste ger►erat�d could b� recycled. �As such, a fifty percent recycling alternative should not bc excluded from the EIS j 2. Fifty percent recycling of the solid waste stream has proven to be �,� at�ainai�le. .N �� o The Congressional Offic� of Technology Assessment has stated that � n eighty oercent of the .solid waste stream is reeyclable. ' 1 o During '�varld War II, the Unitpd States recycled forty gercent of i�s solid waste stream. o Machida, Japan, a city of 350,000 people, recycles more than sixty percent of its solid waste stream. o Ca..mden Cou:�, New Jersey, xecycies more than forty gercent o� its solid stream w�th a mandatory ctirbside pickup system. o New York and Oregon have'set goals of fifty percent r�cyclinv. o Seattle, Washington, began a program to rer-ycls and comnos� sixty �ercent its solid waste stream. o The East Hamnton Pilot Tes� indicated that int�nsive re c�cling is capable of converting eiahty-f�ur �rcent (by weight) of normal household trash into marketable or usable materials. s � Mr. Paul Smith Page cive o In California and Philadelohia, ?ennsylvania, i4Sw incinerators cannot be sited because of citizen opposition. These areas have re?ied on the compos�ing of wastes to re3ucs the bulk of their so1=d wast� streams. o A ccmoosting o�ration in the �as�ern Unit�3 States su�csssiuliy hand'_es 400 tons o�: day of so1=d waste whil� a ccm�osting system in i; Manchest=�, England, handies 600 tons per day. / 2. C�m.aestina/c�-compostinQ of the solid w�ste str�am is usua y more econ�r��al than t'(S�i inc:nera�ion or the landfill:ng e`. �hQ solid was�e str�am. � �� o When collection and transoortation cos�s are added in, co-comoos�ing � �'' is considerabiy cheaper than the laridfilling of r+.sw. � �, �p.�� o A co-composting oe�ration can be set u� for t-+�enty �rcent of the j�;,� caoital cos:.s of a similar-sized waste-Lc>-energy incin�rator. l.� 3. Compost�ng or co-comt�os�ing o= the solid waste stream results in a usable end prociuct. o The eomnosted/co-cemnosted end product has been used in specific instances for animal bedding, as a soi:. amendment, at mining reclamation sites, tree nurseries, tree iarms, roadsidss, and on agricultural fields. o Co-com�os�ing of Ms+� with sewage slud�e can helo reduce�the concenLra�ions of heavy metals presen= ir� sewage sludce t� obtain a marketable end product. The co-comeosLed produc� is used as fsrtilizer on certain crops. In some cases, concentrations of heavy metals in the finished compost are lower than the amount in commercial farm fertilizers. E`�ren com-�ost with higher concentrations of heavy metals may still be usable for growing ie�d • arains and vegetation, such as sod, tress, and shrubs. DisadJantages of the composting/co-comaostang alternative include �he difficulty of get�ing a homog�neous end aroduc'r. since ni�s o= glastic, g?ass, metal, and other wastes often remain in it. These mate:ials may make ths c�mpost undesirable for some uses. ProducinQ a hiaher-grade c�mnost r�quirss more ex�nsive screening to remove undecayed mat�rials. Successful co-comnos�ing projects require careLul planning and design sv that the wality �nd auznti�y e= c�m�s� o5tained is suitab3s �or available markets. In addition, the EIS should contain a section describing how the current So�id +�aste Master Plan for Dakota County fits in with the overall reaional t'I�-n Cities Metropolitan Area) goals for solid waste abatement con*ained in the Mstr000litan Council's Solid waste Manavement Developm�nt Guide,rPolicy �'lan. , � Mr. Paul Smith Page Seven � 3. The MPCA staff recommends inserting the term "health protective" in the sscond sentence of the first full paragraoh of page 12 of the scoping decision document. It wauld then read, "Th� approach when detailed iniormation is not available will be to make consarvative, nealth p_��ec�:ve, assumntions". 4. The las� sentence of the first full paragraon flf oaQe 12 of the scopina ciecision document states that "A trualitative dis�ussion of t;�ese conservatisms and limitations will b� includ�d in a d=scussion of the r8laLive uncertainty of the risk assessment". T'ne PLpCA stai� prefers that � a aiscussion of conservative assum}�tions and 1:tr.�Lations of the risk zssessm�nt Drocess � incorporatpd into ail s��'_�ns of the risk assessment. Th� ;:.~ri+ SLdii WUU1Cl I1'1C2 tl1B52 t1��=11SSi0i15 �O }� c�[1 1;1`?Cj:.�i oart of. each secticn, as aopropriate. As an ex��wle, the fish pathway section should include a discussion of how thO ��curacy of the exposure estimate is iimit�a by the quantity and quality �f data available on lake depth, f?ow rate c: `he water column, chemicai : �`ake by fish, intersnecies aif£erences in uo;.a:ce, fish migration and wat�; =�emistry. The kin3s of health protec�ive a�sumations mad� in the face . : �ese uncertainties should then also � nointed out. The rLD,^�► sta�: =ecoccanends that the s�ecific uncertair.�ies and health protective as:��nptions be pointed out throughout the tex_ of the EIS, rather than as � �ummary at the end. 5. The last paragrac^ of the health risk assessmer�: �ec�ion of the draft . decisian scoping ��cument, on page 12, states t::�� as monitoring ciata becomes available ;uring EIS preoaration, that ��La will be incoroorated into the risk ass�ssment. Without at least one .et of monitoring resu3ts incornorated into :.he EIS, it wouid be very dif':cult to fully evaluat� the background ievels �f contaminants. The staff e=_�ammends that either the 1989 sununer ambien� air monitoring results, adj�:stsd for "worst-case", or reasonable "worst-�ase" estimated background cor.',entrations, aooroved by the Division of Air Quality staff, b� included a� background concentrations in the EIS. We wculd prefer the inclusion of the actual monitoring data in the EIS. However, in order to consider the EIS a�equat�, either °worst-case" esti�rates or adjusted sum�ner monitorzng data must be used in tha air quali�y analysis and the health risk asssssm�n� €or the EIS. Zf you have any questions or conc�rns, ple��.se do not hesita�e to contac� . Marlene Voita of the Office af Planning an3 Review at 612,'295-7275. Sincerely, � l�f+ � �� , �..;:r�a;�� .G.J��f Gerald L. willet Commissioner GL�1•pnk cc: Lou Breimhurst, Dakota County Jim Walsh, Roy P. Weston, Inc. Chuck Michael, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. � PLpCA Dakota County Resource Recovery Facility Staff Team Members