HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Dakota County Resource Recovery Project� �i JUN 1�i '9� 11��1 DaKOTH CUUNTY AUMIP�IISTRNTIO'� P.2 ; .i2�o�
vA � oz � couxTY Bo �► � D o � coxxsss = oxa � s � :
�QvEsz �ox� ao� ��o� . f
DIYISIGDti Phgsica2 Development 84ARD MEETZNG DATE: Jube 19, 1990
DEPARTMENT: �esourc• ReCcvery Consetst: Budgeted X �
Cantaat Perso»: Lau Breimhurst Reqular:� Nc►n- Budqstea t
Prepared By: Norna 8chifarl In�drmatian: Other Fundinq E
Tele�phona �lumber: �31-t1S8 `
�
ITEM: Site Selection and Acquisition, Submittnl vf Pes�ti� Agglication €
to �PCA, and Solid 1P�tate Master plan AmQndmet�� �
�
�
xeview�d by: Management '�eam Board Committee Oth�r �
�
�
E
t
�
BITE 8EL8CTION '
. � � . . � � . � YC .
I
A�aO_� ►
On April 25, 1989 the Dakota County Ba�xd approved three f
patent�.al sites �or study in the EIS (Enviranmental Impact �
S�atement} for th� Dakbta Caunty Resouree Recovery Faci7.ity. F
These sites are: i
o Site C in Empire Tawnship; �
o Site D in VermilTion Township; and �
o Site E within the University' of Minnesota Researah
Center property. �
�
,
In }.989, prior to preparing the EYS, the Metropolitan Gouncil. �
�dopted the scopinq decision dacument, which identifies the �
issues to be examined in the EZS. Pursuant to State ,
ariministrative ruYes regardinq environmental review, the scvping ;
decision document identifies c�overnment agenci�s required to �
maintain a record of decision. These agencies are to provide �
records of how the infarmatian in the EIS was used in reaching �
their decisians concerning the project. These records are to be 4
submitted to the EQB (Environmenta2 Quality Board} and also to be �
made available to any person who requests them. Accordirig to the 4
EIS, Dakota Gounty is to ma�ntazn a record of d�cision for its ;
final �ite selection. t
t
On Jun� 14, 1990 the Metropolitan Council, th� Respan�ible �
Governmental Unit for preparing the EIS, declar�d that the final {
EIS was adequate. One purpose of the �IS is to provide . �
infarmation on each of the sites as an aid tv the Gounty Board in €
making its €inal s�lection of a site for the Resource Recavery E
Facil.ity. . _
�� }
�,riteria !or ^.omparina �3itas i
�
The three �andidate sites ha�re been evaluat�d wfth resp�ct to the �
fallowing cziteria: "
nnn� sn
�• Jl�l 18 '9[ 11�42 DAKOTA COUP�ITY flDMINISTRATION P.3
. ' 2
a Fotential, Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Measu�es � �
o ,Air quality impact� � � ;
: o Health risk �ssessmen� �
o Ecologica3 impacts !
0 8urf ace artd graund water impa��ts �
o Noise impacts �
�
o Potential Socio-Economzc Impacts and Mitigative Measures �
o Impacts on utilit3.es ;
o Impacts on cammun�.ty services �
a Traffic impacts ;
o Zmpacts on �and use �
o- Site Characteristics and Mi.tigative Measures �
� o Suitabili,ty f�►r build�ng �onstruction �
o Capability to provide buffer to su�raunding Iand uses :
�
�
f
Th+� 'attached repor� describes haw the three �ites compare I
according to the informa�ion developed in the EIS. These
cvmparisons are incorporated in the di�cussian below. �
,
�,�.�parat3va Evaivatio� af Sito� ;
�'he three potentia]. sztes have many locational �imilarities. Al1 �
are located in the nore rural areaB of �he County. Each is ;
located in re�.atively �lat to undulatir►g terrain. Each is ;
].ocated o�xly a few miles from the other twa �it�s. Becaus� of
these �imi].arities, potential intpacts from the Resaurce Recovery .
Facility are very similar for each of t'.he potential s�tes. �
�c���*��iai Environmenta]� Ymnacts and M^itiaat%ve Mea�u es ! �
�otential environmental impacta axa�ained in the EIS include sir �
quality impacts, health risk assessment, ecologica�. i�apacts, ;
�urfaae and ground wa�er impacts, and noi�e impacts. The =
proposed facility 3ocatec] �t any of the three candidate sites ± �
would h�ve only a minimai ef�ect on air Quality. Potent3al ► �
health imp�cts for eaeh of the sites are nearly identical, and �
al]. axe well below �stablished levals af conceru. With reqard to .
4coioqiG�il i.mpac�s, ths E25 does not indic3te significant impacts �
� to 'ac,�uatic or terrestrial life i.n connection w3.th any o� the 3
site�. Impacts to �ur�ace �nd groux�d water resources from the
cOnstruction and ogeration of '�he propo�ed fa�ility will likely �
be neg].igible, regardless af the site chasen. :
Th� potential for noise impacts due to the facility is similar � �
for al�. the sit+�s. The potential for ar► i.ncrease in noise l�vels ;
off-�ite during construction would likely b+� present only when '
construction activities occur near the site 2imits, �uch as
during sit� access roadway �onstruGti.on. Th� actual ].evel of '
ar�n�truction noi$e proauc�a wouza aePeria on many factors. The '
mosct potential �or construction noise to be detected aff-sits !
w►ould xaur at the vermi2lfan �ite. Th� least potential tor ;
rr rr rr s .••.
------- . - - -
� JUN 1�3 '90 11�43 I�KOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION P.4 � t
• , �
3
. �
�
construction noise to be de�ected of�-site wou2d occur at the ;�
Uni�ersity �ite. � �
The EIS acknowledges that tratfi� noise �mpacts were �alcu].ated �
assuming that all the traffic generated by the Resource Recc�very ;
Faciiity would cansti�ute addit�onal vehic3.es, even though ;
e.xisting traffic vo].umes include som� trucks destined for area ,
landfills. Using this conservative assumpt�on, which overstates �
the potential traffic noise impacts, some homes aJ.ang the haul �
routes to each of the sites could experxenae increases in noise �
levels f=om tra�fic. With regard to noise from c�perations of the
faeility, based on the Curr�nt Iand use a�ound each site, no �
�ignificant off-site noise impacts are indicated. Zf the zonirig ;
and land uses adjacent te the �ites change at a future date to
�
aZlow for x�esidential development, however, noise impact� could i
�
oacur. .
Pot�ntial Socio-EcQnomic Smpact� an Mi�,iaativ� easures E
f
Potential socio-ecanomic impacts examined in the EIS include �
imgacts on utilities, com�uunity services, traffic and 2and u�e. _
�
IIti�.iti�s inc�.ude water supply, wastewater management, and r
electrical and natural gas supplies. No signi�iaant impacts on t
. e
an
the facilit at Y
watez supplies are expected from location vf Y �
of the �ites. No impacts on wastewater treatment systems are �
anticipated because all wast+awater is e�tpected to be treated on- �
site. �
i�o signifiaant �mpacts are expected for interconneations with �
existing electrical antl natural gas lines. The results of a :
recent Caunty �urvey of th� location of residences along the �
proposed electrical int�rconnect ].ines for each site show no .
resid�naes within 204 feet for the University site, two
resid�nces for the Vermillion site, and 12 resid�nces for the � .
Empire site. `
i '
Gomzawnity services incluae fire protection, police and medical
en services. Each of the sit�s could be responded to �
emerg cy
within 17-20 minutes by local fire departments. Whether aurrent ?
fire service and equipment would be adequate or additional �
equipm�nt or s�rvice might be needed wauld have to be det�rmin�d t
durinq the local approval process for the sel�cted site. Fu21 �
police serviae wouid be av�iilable regardless of site location. F
With r�qa�rd ta �aedic�l sex��ices, local emergertcy response �
cagabiliti.es are excellent, and the facility would not be F
�nticipated to .place any unusual demands or �ecess�tate- �ny ;
changes in local 1�vels of inedical servi.ce. E
z
�
With regard t4 traffic, �raf��c impacta i�n the EIS were �
oalculat�d assuiaing that all. th� traffic qenerated by the �
Resource Recovery Facility would constitute aaditiona7. vehi#les, �
even thaugh existing traffic voluiaes inc}.ude some trucks destined ;
f4r area '_andfills. N�_netheless, even with this conserv'ative �
�� JUN 18 '90 11�43 I�KOTf� COUNTY ADMINISTRATION . . — — P.4 � t
• • f.
3
;
�
c
cons�ruction noise ta be de�ected off-site would occux' at the ,�
Ur�a.�rersity site. �
The EiS a�knowledges that traffic noise impacts were calcu].ated �
assuming that all the traffic generated by the Resource Recovery ;
Faci3:ity wauld caristi�ute addit�onal vehicles, �ven though ;
existing traffic vo].umes ino�ude some trucks destined far area ,
landfills. Using this conservative asstuapt�.on, which ov�rstates _
the potential traffic nc�ise impacts, some homes a].ang the haul ,
routes to each of the sites coul.d experienae increases in noise ;
levels fram traPfia. With regard to noise from opera�tions of the
facility, based on the Gurr�nt Iand use around each site, no .
significant aff-site noise impacts are' indicated. If the zoning �
and land uses adjacent to the sites change at a future date to
a].low for x�esidential development, however, noise impact� could �
oc�ur.
ot tia Soc'o-Ec nomi Im act an Mi at've s res i
�
Pvtential. sacia-econamic impacts examined in the EIS inalude E
impacts on utilities, commu.nity servic�s, traffic and ].and use. �
�
IIti�.ities incl.ud� water supply, wastewater man�gement, and 6
electrical and natural gas supp].ies. No signiticant imgacts on �
water supplies are expected from location of the faGility at anY ;
of the sites. No impacts on wastewater treat�nent systems are �
anticipated because al.l wastewater is expected to be treated on- ;
�ite. �
� No signifioant impacts are expected fcr interconnections with �
existing �lectrical and natural qas 1in�s. The results cf s ;
recent Caurity survey of the location of residences al.ong the �
proposed electrical intercannect ].ines far eacM site shaw no
residences within 20D feet for the University si.te, two
residences for the Verm�.11ion site, a.nd 12 residences fo�r the �
Empire site. `
j .
Comtttunity services include fire protection, police and mediGal y
emergency services. Each of ti.he sit�s could be =esponded to �
within 17-20 minutes by local. fire depa=tm@nts. Whether current �
fire service and �quipment wauld be adequate ar additional �
equipm�nt or serv'ice might be needed wcauld have to be det�=min�d F
durinq the local approval proaess for the selectad site. Fu21 �
police service wauld be availabl� regardless af sit� location. F
With regard to medical. sex^�ices, local emergency response �
capabilities are exc�llerit, and the facility would not be �
�nticipated to .p�ace any unusual demands or r�ecess�tate any �
changes f,n local levels of inedical s+ervice. �
,
With regard to traffic, traff�c impac�s in the EIS w�re �
calculated assuming that al]. the traffic g�n�ratsd by the �
Resource Recavery Facility would constitute ac�ditional vehicles,
even �hough existing traffic volum�s include seme trucks d�stined �
for area �.andfills. N�,netheless, even with thi� cozi�erv'ative �
, ; JUN 18 '90 11�45 DAKOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION P.8 �
! <
7
;
WHEREAS, potential environmsntal impacts from locatir�n of the
Resour�e Reoavery Facility wauld be ve�r similar at any of the �
potential candidate sites; and ;
�
WHEREAS, selection of the Univers.ity site i�aposes the least ;
d�,sxuption upan private farming and homesteads; and '
�
WHER�AS, se�.ection of the University site returns v�c,�nt land to �
productive use; and °
WHEREAS, selection of the` University site has the ].east impact on �
curxent adjacent Iandownexs and affects the least number of �
people; and
WHEREAS, selection of the University site enables the �
estab7.�shment o� tbe most effective bufPer area while allowing �
the most opportunity tv accommodate chaMges that could accur in }
the future; and �
wAEREAs, the boundaries of the site identified iri Attaohment A '•. �
within the University of Minnesota Research Center property' have �
been surveyed and the resulting site ha� b�en appraised; ar►d �
;
. ' . . , � . � f . .
WHEREAS, if negatiatians with th� `Univers�.ty of Minnesota are not' �
successful, it i.s necessary to initiate "quick take" c�ndemnation �
pr�eedings; and '
WrHEREAS, it is antioipated #.hat denitrification t�chnolagy may be •
required by the Environmental Pratectfan Agency for the Dakota E
,
Ccunty Resc�urce Recovery Project; :and }
WHEREAS, the Metrapolita�n Couxtci� has requested th�t the Gounty E
amencl its So1id waste Master Plan `to refle�t the site selectcd �
. �►nd ather issues concerniMg the Resource Recovery Faeility. �
NOW, THEREFaRE BE YT RESOLVED, That the dakota County 8oaxd of �
Commissioners hereby determines that the site in the Univer�ity '
af M�.nnesota Research Center property, described in Attachment A, �
is here}�y sel�cted as the rite for. �he pakota County Resoures ;
Recovezy Facility; � �
SE �T FCtRTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Board of �
Commissioners approves the appraisal of the surveyed Univer�ity �
af Minnesot� site snd author�.zes payment of the appraised value �
frcm the Solid Waste Enterpri'se Fund; and �
BE IT FIIRTHER RESOLVED, That the D�akota County �oard o� �
Commissioners authorizes th� County Attorney to initidta a "c�uick �
take" condemnati�n action as needed on thi� parcel; and �
BE IT FURTHER RESaLVED, That the Dakota County 8oard of ;
Commisioners authorizes the �ubmittal of the applicati4r. to th� �
MPCA for a �olid waste and air er..issivn fac�lity permit, tagether �
.►...ey,. .••�
. • . JUN 18 '90 11�46 I}AKOTA COUNTY ADMINISTRATION P.9 f
{
8
;
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . F. . .
with a transmittal 3ettier indiaating the County's wil2ingness to ;
aomply with final denitrifiaation requfreynents; and ��
BE ST FEJRTHER RESOLVED, That the Dakota County Boa�d of �
Cammissianers hereby approves the amendment to the Dakota County �
Solid Waste Master Plan addressing the site seleoted and other
issues concerninq the Resaurce Recavery Facility, and authorizes F
a.ts submittal to the Metropolitan Council for review and �
�PPr�ovaZ.
�
� .
� ' � :
L�auis J. B z rst, ni.r��tor Barry C. Sc e. Manager :
Physical Development Division Resource R covery Project ;
� � �
4 �
Lyl� . Wray, County A .�n�strator _ �
,
, , Jl�l 18 '30 11�47 DAKOTA COlJhJTY ADMINISTRATION P.10 �
. . . . . . . r . . . . . . � . t� ..
. .• . . . . . � . .� .. ' . ' .
i
. . � . . � . . � . .
}
COMPARISON OF SITES .
80R THE l�AKOTA CO�Y A8S4V&CB RECOVSEtY PROJECT �
BASED OI�T IDiFORMATION IN THB 8Ifl �
. �
Three patential sites for the Dakota County Resource Recovary `
Facility were studied in the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) �
prepared by the Metropolitan Council. These sites are: �
o S.ite C a.n Empire �ownship; �
o Site D in Vermillian Township; and
o Site E within the University of Minne�ota Research €
Center property.
Each of the three candidate site�s has been evaluated based on a �
number of criteria:
o Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigative Measures f
o Air c�ua7.ity impa�ts �
o Health risk ass�ssment
o Ecological impacts ;
o Su�fao� and ground water impaats �
o Nois� impacts �
i
o Po�ential Soaio-Ecana�nic Impacts and Mitigative Measures �
o Impacts on utilities � �
e Zmpacts on community aervices `
o Traffic impacts �
o Impacts on land use j
o Site Gharacteri�tics and Mi�igative Measures ;
o Suitability for building constructian �
o Capability to provide buffer to surrounding land uses E
Each of the si,tes was evaluated according to these criteria. The t
EIS �as used as the principal bas� of information. This paper �
dis�usses how the thr+�e sites compare based on infarmati.an E
developed in �khe E�S. ' �
Tb.e three potential sites have many locational similarities. A11 �
are located in the more rural area� of the County. Each is �
2ocat�d in r�latively flat to undulating terrain. Eaah i� � ,
].ocated only a few miles from the other two sites. Because of � �
these similarities, potentiaZ impacts �rom the Re�ource Recovery � �
Facility are vez� sin�ilar far eaah o€ the potential sites. - �
�
. Potential Snvisonmenta3 imcacts and Mitiaative Mc=asure$ E
�
Air Qua7.itv .
�icaording to the EIS, the .basis for site comparison in the a3.r �
quality analysis is the �iqnif�.cance of regu2atory requirements
at the cax�didate sites, the existinq �background ambi.�nt ai*- f
quality conditians at the candidate sites and the results ot the �
individua2 �ite air qual3ty modelinq. The air quality analysis �
` . . . . . . . � � � �. ....�r ._...+ .
. JUN 18 '9E� 11�4? UHKUTF� CVUNTY �DMINIST�ATIGN P.11
{
' , �� �
' �.
; in the EIS shaws that, based on each of these �actors, the �
proposed faci�3.ty lacated at a�iy o€ the three candidate sites �
would have only a minimal: a�.r quality impact.
'Health Risk Assessg�ent �
��A3.1 three' sites w�re modeled se aratel . However, sin�e these �
'sites are relativQly close to each other and the surrounding land �
uses are similar, the a�.x dispersion char�cte=istics are similar ?
and the process fox� determining key pathways and pollutants was
the same for a21 three sites. Therefare, it fol.7.ows tha� the '
risks are relativ�2y similar.
� �The EIS shows risk cal�u3ations Por the three sites. o �
F r all, the
sites, noncarcinagenic heaYth effects are not anticipated due to �
�the e�tissions from the faci].ity. For �atal carcinogenic risk, �
!the EIS shaws that the total risks for �ach of the propased sites �
�are practa.ca�.1y identical to eaah other under all _case�s ex�mined, k
�fncludinq wet (emissicns depasited by precipi�tatiQn) ar�d dry E
deposition and rur�2 and u�ban air mod�ling. In alI cases the t
total risk was far below the threshold established hy the State
af l0 chanaes in 1 million. ;
� �
col g�� Imbacts
; �
"�he �three proposed sites are a11. �:ocated in the verma.11ion River C
` waterahed and are surraunded by a simi3ar array of e�ological.
habitat types. The E2S does nbt indiaate significant impacts �o `
aquatic vr terrestria� life in connection with any of the sites. ?
�
Surface �Il��round Water �
. , . -- �
Accord�ing to the EYS, based on available data, impacts to �urface �
and c,�:ound water resources from the construction artd operation of � =
- the proposed facil:ity would likely be negligible, regardless af �
the site chosen. Ground water will probably not be significantly
affected by infiitration from the pxoposed septic tank and leach
field, iP they are properly designed. _ ;
; o'se ; � � �
� ,
� The priYaary existing noise source in the vicinity of eaah af the � `
proposed facility locations i� traffic. Qn the Vermill,ion and .
Empire s�ites, naise i� also generated from farm machinery. �he
distance from si'�e limits to the nearest residential receiver is
1,200 feet fcr th� Vermil�a.on sit�, 1,000 Peet for the Empire � .
�ite, axYd 2,300 �eet for the University site. 4
i
� �here ia some patential for nais.e impactc� from the �acili.ty: `The E
potential for an increase f.n nois� levels aff-site during � '
�aristruction would likely be preaent onl.y when construction �
E►ctivities occt�r near the �ite �imits, such as durinr� �ite access �
�eadway aonstx�u�tion. The actual level of construction noi�e �
produc�d would depend on many factors. T`he most potantia2 t'oz � I
E -
,,
�
,
,
, . JUM 18 '9� 11�45 L?AK��TA CuUNT1' �Dh1INISTRHTION F'.12 ;
�
11
'
;
construction noi�e to be detected of�--site wou].d occur at the �
Verm3.11ian site. The least potential far construction noise to �
be detected off-site wauld occur at the University site. E
r
The EIS acknowledges that traffic r�o�se l�ap3Cts Wer� C87.Cula�ed. �
assuming that alI the traffic generated by the Resource Recovery '
FaciZity wQu3d canstitute additional vehicles, even though `
existing traffic va3umes include some trucks destined for area �
landfills. Using this conservative assumption, which overs�ates
the potential traPfic noise imp�cts, some homes along the haul. �
routes to each of the sites coul.d experience inareases in noise i
levels fxom traffic. With xeqard to. noise fram aperations of the �
facil2ty, based on th� cur=�nt land use around each site, no �
significant off-site noise impacts are znda.cated. If the zaz�ing �
and land uses adjacent ta the site� change at a future date ta
allaw Po� re�idential development, hbwever, noise impacts could !
oacur.
tential s ' - aonamio Tm acts and Mit a ' ure �
M
Impacts on Utilities r
Water su�nly. Accordinq to the EIS, no impac�s on municipal �
water we11 supplies �re expected for the Empire or Vermi3.lion '
sites because their water supplies would be drawn from on-site �
we7.ls.' The Urtzversity site wouYd obtain water from an ex3.sting ;
water supply system for potab].e r�eeds and from wells fo= process `
water. Due to the law volumes vf water required by the �acility, �
na significant impacts on water suppZies to the Research Cent�r �
are expected.
t
r
��ewater. Alx WdSt�Wdt�r streams wi11. be managed on-site. '
Ground water is not expected to be affected by any industrial �
wastewaters generated by the preject. s
���rica3. and aas, The prop�►sed routes for both electrical - r
interconnectians and natural gas intercannectians would be ;
iocated along exist�.ng rraadways and are not expected ta affect �
current land use in the area. The re�ults of � reGent Cou»ty �
survey of the locatian of residsr�ces along the proposed �
clectrical intercannect lines for �ach �ite show no resid�nces �
within 200 f�et for the Univ�rsity site, two �residences for the
Vermillion site (bath between 50 and I.00 feet) , ar�d 12 residenaes �
for the Empire site (1 between 50 and 100 feet and 1S between 1b0 �
and 200 feet) .
I�ncts`an Community Seiwices ;
,
,
i
Fire nrotectian. Each o� the �ites could be respc►nded to s�ithin �
17-20 minutes by 2oca�. fire departments. Whether current fire �
�ervice and equipment would be adequate or additiona2 equipment �
ar service migh� be ne�ded would hav� to be dete.rmined durinq the
local �pproval process for th� selected site. i
Jt�l 18 '90 i1�49 I}AKOTA COI�iTY ADMINISTRATION P.13 ;
` , �
' ' 12 �
i
�
Poli�e �ro�ection. Full police serv�.oe would be avai2able � .
r�qardlsss of site locatfan. ;
►
,
�edir� emeraency. With regaxd to med3c�l. services� local
emergency response capak�.ilities are +�xcellent, a�nd the facility �
�ould not be anticipated to place any unusual demands or �
necessitate any �changes in local levels of inedical service. �
1'�'$� ��t�.� �
, �
With regard to traffic, traffic to be qe�erated by the tacfii�y �
would increase traffic volumes only slightly on �early al3 `
roadway s�gments. Al�o, none of the intersections are expected �
to be signit�.cantly affected by facility-qenerated traffic. � �
V�hicles using the facility could axperience d�lays �� a tew
intersections. No v�hic2s� servinq the Empire �ite and only a �
�ew vehicles per hour �rom the Vermillion �ite cauld be affeGted
when �aakinq left turns at these intersectionss: County State �lid ;
Hiqbway (CSAH} 9/CSAH 31, Highway 5Z/Vermillion eite driveway; �
a�nd County Rd. 46/iiighway 52. The E25 indiaates that vehicles �
lrom the Univer�ity site �ou2d be delay�d if they used the ;
inters�ction of Co. Rd. 46 anc� Hy. 5Z. Hawever, the County has E
indicated that if the University �ite� were �elscted, Blain� �
1►venue would be ugqraded so that hau�er� would use Blaine Av�nue �
to Co. Rd. 4x laadinq to the grade separated inter�ection �ith �
Hy. 52. l�is a result, potential tratfic impacts �rom the ;
University �ite would be sinimized. � �
I��acts Qn Land Use
Mith rsgard to land use, no significant impact was �.dantifie� on �
agricultttre. None of the sites are currently cov�nanted in '
�tgricultural preserves, although th� land in both the �pire and E
vermillion eites is sligible. According to the EIS, constructfon
of t2ie praposea facility at any of the site�s would represent a
chanqe from an sx3sting agriaultural land u�e to an industrial
us�, and the propos�cci fa►cl�ity would not appear ta qua].ify as a
p�rmitted use vithfn th� agricultural district �oning that `
appl3es to all three sit�s. No recr�ational or culturel �
facilities or s�ructures of historic, architectur�tl or cultural �
s�ijJ1�1`fCAT1G4 would be aftected by the projeG�. Zn ter�a ot
v3.sua1 fnpact, the stack would be visible from �ll dfrections
regardless ot the site �elected. Some woodl�tnd,� would provide �
aoae natura� screening for the IIniversity and Empi=a �ites, whfle �
littl• natural scre�ning cxist�s at the Vermillion site. �
;g,�,�� aracsterist�,Q� +rnd ltiticativ� �teasur�s !
�
i
�uitabilitv �or utlaina Co��truc�tion �
;
The EIs did tiot indicate �t any ot the sites i�c not suit�d for �
buildinq constructfon. �
nnn��1!
. _ ._. .. - -_ _ _
. ' JUN 18 '90 11�50 DAKOTA CCXJNTY ADMINISTRATI0�1 P.14 #
�
Z3 ;
;
i
f
. t
Ac�ardirig to the EiB, alleg�d, as we11 as dacumentQd, instan�es �
of soil or water contanti»ation have occurred due to activities on
or near the University of Minneso�a Reseaxch Center property. It F
does �ot appear that the�r existence neqative�.y afPe�cta the
abili�y to develap the si.t�s propoa�d for the County'� project.
No cases of allec�ed ar documente�l :oil or qround water �
contamination exist on the proposed aites themselves. P'urther, !
the MPCA (Minnesota Pa�lution Gontrol Agencyj and the IIn3ver�ity °
ot Minnesota are workinq toqe�her to investigate or remedi.ate the '
soi3 contamination problems on th� Resear�h C�nter property. '
E
�
The Burn Pit site on the Research Center property is the source €
vf a r,hloroform-contaminated plume in the ground �at�r. However,
according ta the ETS, it is not expected to affect faciYfty
development adversely for several reasons. First, the �
� con�aminated ground water 9.s presently being extracted and :
treated. S�cond, the contamination plume i: migrating to the ;
northeastt it is not expectad to be �ncountered beneath the ;
University �ite, and is well away from th� Empire and Vermfl].ion �
sites. Third, th� contaminated ground wat�r is belnw the MPCA's �
response action level. �
a
�a�abi itv �g ��ov d� Suf��r tc� Surroundir�g Land II�� �
�, �
,
7!t each site approximately 20 acres would be deve7.apee and the s
remaindtr used as a buffer. i�Yaps in the B=s showing the � '
approximate location of the facility witbin each candidate cit�
� �how that the buffer area for th� University �ite ia much iarger �
than that of e3ther of the other two site�. �
+
t
,
� �
;
r
x
�
. t
�
�
�
�
�
�
: �
t
�
�
.. .. , :. - _
,
. - , . _:�.,�,.:� ._. _. _.� _:� - :_ -_.r:� _..._ .: .�r _. ���_------ _-.,:�- --�.-.... -_...._ __�.�
.y JUN 18 "� l i�50 DAKOTA COI.INTY AI�tINISTRATI�i P.15 f
�
r
\.i 14 �
� �
�
i �
, �
I.BGlII� D�SCRIPTIO'i ?OR T88 �ITB �'OR '�'HR
DAEOTA C4V�ITY �BOIIRCB itECQVBRY *7lC=LITY '
t
The South �.032 feet af the South Half o€ the Southeast Quart�r, �
except the �Test b20 feet, 3ection 35, Townahip 11S North, Range
19 �est, Dakota County, Minn�sota. Containing 48.0 acres, mare �
or 3ess. �
�
and . '
r
�
The North�a�t Quarter, except the West 620 feet, and th� North �
Half of ttae North Half of the Southeast Quarter, except the West �
620 feet, Sectivn 2, Townsh3.p 114 North, Range 19 Westf Dakota :
Ca�nty, Minnesota. Gontaining 154.2 acxes, sor� or less. �
E
�
�
�nd �
�
;
The South Halt' of the Northwest Quarter, except the East 400 f
ieet, and the North Half of the North Half of the Southwest �
; Quarter, �xcept t,2�� Last 400 feet, Section 1, Township lI4 Northr �
Range 19 West, Dakota Ccunty, Minriesota. Cantaining 102.3 acre�, €
nore or l�ss. ,
,
,
k
�
f
�
E
�
. i
�
i .
i
i
F
,
�
i
j
. . � . � � � � - < <� �irw. ..
� ' JLI`fN 18 '90 11�43 DAkOTA COUNTY AUMINISTRATIC�i P.5 E
4
�
�
r
E
assun�ption, on almost all roadway segments near the facility, �
traffic tc� be generated by the faci].ity would increase traffic �
volumes only slightly. Also, none of, the intersection� are `
expected to be significant�.y affected by facility-qenerated
traffic. �f the Vermillion si�e .is seleCted, a few vehicle� per
hour could e�cperience some delays when making left tuzns at a few
i.ntersections. If the University site is selected, it is the ;
County's intention that Blaine Avenue would be upgraded sa that ;
haulers would use Slaine Avenue to Co. Rd. 42 leading ta the
grade separated intersect�on with Hy. 52• This routing of
vehicl�s would minimi2e traffic impacts due to the facility.
I
With regard �o land use, the Vermillian dn�l �mpire si�es a�e on K
private land that is pr�sently utilized for farming. Th� ;
University site �s owned by the University of Minnesota. The �
Univer�ity site is in part unused and in part leased for farming. E
No significan� imgact was identified on agriculture. None of the `
site� are currently covenanted in �gricultural presez'ves, E
althaugh the 2and in both the L�snpire and vermillian sites �s
�ligible. No recreational. or cultural faciiities or structures ' ;
of historic, 'architectural or cultural significance would be :
affected by th� project. In terms of visual impact, tlie stack �
would be visible from a11 directiona reqardless af the site �
�e].ected. Some woodlands would provide same natural screeninq y
fqr the University and Empire sites, while little natural ;
�creening exists at the Vermillion site. �
' e Ch raat rist'es a d Mi f t ve Measu es �
t
Suit�bility for Build�.na on�t ct'an �
Th� EIS did not ind�cate that any af the sites is nat suited �or �
building �anstructia». While some areas af the Unlversity of �
Mitinesota Research Center h�ve experi.enced contamination due to i
various previous activities, in.the potential site area.being �
considered by the County there is no evidence of contamznation. `
In addition, the plume of aontaminated ground water that has been t
identified west of that candidate site is not expected to a�fect '
ground water beneath that site. �
,
, .
S�pabi y t ProYide Buffer to S��rots„c�;nc� Land Us�_s l
At �ach site approxzmately 20 acres would be developed �and the 4
remainder used as a bu�fer area. The Emp�.re and Vermi12�o�n �ite� �
would have relatively sma�l buffer areas. The University site
would have a much larger buffe= area. Cangequently, at 'the ;
University site there is �ub�tantially more capabili.ty to buffe�r �
the fac�lity �rom surrounding land uses, particularly reside�ntial �
u�e�s, than at the other two sites. �
r
�
�.'�iR1�ry �
The detailed information base deveioped in the EIS does not `
support c�iffexentiation amonc� the three potential sit�s on the
• JUN 18 '9C 11�44 DAKOTA C�UMTY FiUMINISiR�TI4N P.6 t
5 ;
�
basis o£ environmental impacts. In genera2, t�he EYS supports the �
con�lusion that the environmental impaots predicted for the i
propo�ed facility ocour within ranges th�t make it acceptable for ;
the County to proceed with the facility. The EIS also supports �
the conclusion that the environ�►ental impacts are substantially f
equiva2ent at each o� the three pc�tential ai�es. Accordingly,
the selection of a site from among the potential. sites must be i
based upon sound public policy, rat.her than technical reasans. �
Several factors support selection of the University si.te: �
�
o The select�.on of this sxte imposes the least disruption �
upon private �arming and hamesteads. Land at the '
University site is either leased ar vaoant whi].e the :
Empire and Vermillion sites are in pra.vate ownership }
�►rid used exc3.usively far agricultur�. `
�
o Selection of this site returns vacant land tv t
�roductive use. �
o Selection of this site has the Ieast impact on current
adjacent landowners and a,ffects the least number of �
people, E
o Selection of this �ite enables the egtablishment of the �
most eftective buffer area while allowing for the most E
opportunity tQ accommodate changes that may c�ccur in �
the future. �
� j
A].l af the sites have been appraised. �
f
. �
;
$IIBMITT�lL OI� PERMZT APPLICA�ION TO MPCA �
(
Dakota County needs to submit an application to the Minnesota ;
Pollution Cantrol Agency {MPCA) far a solid waste and air �
emissic�n facility penait for the Resou=ce Itecovezy Faci].ity. �
MalcoZm Pirnis Inc. , the County'� cansultant for the Resource �
Recowery Facility, has prepared the �inal application tor the E
permit, in consultation with County staff and Combustion '
Engineering {now known as A�B Resaurca Recove=y Systems) . ,
E
There bave been recent changes in f�der�l requirements for mixed �
municipal waste aombustars. One of the new requirements rel�tes � �
to control of e�tissions of nitrogen oxides ("denitrification") . �-
Our under.tanding is that selective non-catalytic reduction �
teehna3ogy may be required by the En�vironiaental Protec:.ion Agenvy �
(EPA) for the Resource Recovery Facility. The project specific �
raquirements, 3.f any, however, have not been identifi�d by E1'A at ,
this time. Tn its permit transraittal letter to MPCA, how�v�r, �
the County �hould indiaate its willingness to comply with the s
final d+enitrificat�on requ�.rements. Yf denitrification k
technology is required, the County's Serv�ice Agreement with s
Combu�tion Engineerinq may ne�d to be amended. E
.-....,. r-.
• Jl�l 18 '�0 11�45 UaKOTA COUMTY ADMINISTRATI4N P.7
. . � `
,
6 �
r
. . . � . . . . j . � ..
. . � � � � . . . � � .. i ' . �.
f
SOLID 11A9TE I�ABT�R PLA2+t �iM.ENDMENT E
In reviewing Dakota County's Designation Plan ai�d Sexvice �
Agreement with Combustion Engineering Ina. �n 1988, the `
Metropolitan Council noted various issues that should be `
addressed in a future amendment t� the Dakota County Solid Was�e �
Master Plan. These issue� are primar�.ly related to the location, :
�
sexvice needs, costs and financing of the Resource Recovery
Facility. The Council has indicated that this plan amendment '
could be submitted concurrently with the Cou3lty's applicat�.on ta �
the MPGA for a pE�x�nit. �.
�
At its May 15� I990 meeting the Dakata Caunty Solid Waste �
Management Adv3.sory Gommittee approved the submittal of a plan `
amendment to the Metropolitan Council. The Amendment to the �
Dakota County Solid W�ste Master Plan is attached.
,
. 4
. � � � � -. . . � f . .
8DM11�iRY A�TD RECOl�ENDATIODIB
With regard to site selection, it is recomiaended that the County �
Board select the site within �he University of Minnesata Research �
Center, described i.n Attachment A, for the Dakota County Resouzce ;
Recovery Facility. Furthermore, the County should commence s
appropriate aotions to acquire the site. E
With regard to submittal of the application for permit to the `s
MPCA, it is reaomzaended that the County �ubmit the application
with a transmittal letter i�dzcating the County�s wil.lingness to ,
comply with the final denitrific�ti.on requirements.
�
With regard to the Dakota County Solid Waste Master Plan,
it is C
recommended that the County Board approve the Amendment ta the �
Dakata County Master Flan and submit the amendment to the �
�Ietropalitan Gaunai�. for its review and approval. E
� �va�gsT$n a�ssoLu�ioxs �
WHEREAS, the Dakota County 8aard of comm�issianers on April 25, ;:
1R89 approved t.hree potential sites for �study in the `
envi=onmental impact :tatement (EIS) for the Dak+�ta Caunty ;
Resource Recovery Faeility; and �
;
WHEREAS, on Jui7e �4, 1990 the Me�ropolitan Counci2, the '
Responsible Govern�cnental Unit for pr�paring the EIS, made a �
det�rmination that the EIS was adequate; and �
G
WHEREAS, the Dakota County Board of Commissi.on�rs has evaluated �
the three candidate sites, uszng the EYS as the principal base of �
information: and ;
.�,.,.,,. ....-.
. � � Jli�l 18 '90 11�51 I�KOTA CC�ITY ADMINISTRATI�I P.16 � �
;
15
� ;
,
�ME�iD�DI'1' '1'O '1'SE DA1�OT21 GOII�ITY :
�OLID �iEtTB It71BT8R FL1�T .
�
�EGROIII�ID � . �
Counti+�s in the metropo].itan area ar� =equired by Minnesota � �
Statutes Sec. 473.803 to prepare solid waBte ma�t�r plans. These �
plans must be agproved by t�2�e Metropolitan Council. �
The Dakota County So�id Waste Mas�er Pla� s�as approved by the �
Dakota County Board of Commisrioners a�nd by th� Ketrapali�an ;
Council in 1987. The County's �olid wa�te De�ignation Plan was k
approvecl by t.he Soard of Com�aissioners in J�►pri1 1988 �nd �pproved �
by the Metropolitan Couneil in August 1988. In July 1988 the c
Gounty comp7.et�d its pracurement prc�cess for a resource r�covery �
facility when it exeauted an �greement a�ith Combustion ;
8ngineering Znc. (now known as ABB Resourae Re�overy Systems) !or �
the bakota County Resource Recov�ry Project. In November 1988 �
the Metropalitan Council reviewed and approved t2i� SeY'vice ;
Agreem�nt betwsen the County and Combustion Engineeri�g Znc. �
�
In its �eview and approval. of the Master Plan, Desiqnation Plan �
artd S�rvice Aqreement, the Council notsd variou� issues that
shouia � aaar��:ea in future am�ndments to the Caunty Master �
Plan. Thsse items include: fa�ility l+�cationg and relateed �
service needs as a basis �c�r �valuatinq aonsistency with the �
regional plans !or aviation, parks, �ewers nnd land ; €
transportation or other chapters af the 1�etropoYitan Council's t
a n
n � : any tranafer ; '
station�, if needed; details on processinq capacitias� r.apitai �
costs, rdtaa and charges, annu�l operatinq and mafntenance oosts F
and annual gross revenues; a»d finanoi.nq arranqement�:
�hi
: l�mend�eaent to the Dakota County Sal f d Waste l�ast�� Plan �
�ddreases these issuag. xuch o� the intonaati.on yras eveloped in E
th� 8nvironmenta2 =mpact Stateanent (EIS} !or tbe Dako�a Gounty �
Resource ReCovery Praject. Tl�� ErS was prepared by the
I�etropolitan Council and was declarsd �tdequate by the CounCil on
June 34, 1990. The EI3 consists o! the Draft EZS p1u� the Final �
$IS. .
,
;�ocsessi�9�P�Y , .
Dakota County's Serviae �qreement with Combustion Engineerinq �
Inc. providas tor Combustion Engineering to desiqn, construCt, �
operate arid Awintr�in tha Dakota County Re�ource �ecovery �
Facility, � mas�s-burn faa�lity that will burn municipal solid �
�aste (MSWj to pradue� eletstxicity. T13e 41�ctriaity w�12 be so�d �
to Northern 8tat�s Power Co�pany. ,
�
The faCility will include two indep�ndent process trAins, e�t�csh E . .
rated at 400 tons per day �hils firing a refar�nc� fuel with a �
.�nn� ��
-�-------__ _ __ . .:.__,� . ._- _ .,.... ___- . __. �_ �-��_ �.--- --=--
, . � Jl�i 1B ,''� 11�52 I�KOTA COL�ITY AI1htINISTRATIOtV � P.1? _ �
�
k .
16
hiqh�r heating vaZue of 5000 BTU/lb, giving the lacility a ;
nominal desiqn capacity of 800 tons per day of municipal solid �
waste.
Loa�t�on o� ��� esource Reaoverv �,����,�y and Be].ated ���� ,
� �
Cn Apr#I 25, 1989 the Dakota County Soard approved thxee
potential. sites for rtudy in the BIS. T'he�e site�� fncluded Sit�
C in Empire Tawnship, Site D in Varmillion Township, and Site E �
within the IIn�v�rsity of Minnesota R�s�arch Cente�r property. �
E
On Jun� I9, 1990 the Dakota County Bosrd, after �valuatinq �
i.nformation i.n the EIS conaerning each of the sites and other �
relevant information, �elected a site with3.n th� Univer�sity of �
Minneaota property as the site for the Re�t�urae R�cov+�ry �
FaCility. �
�
With regard to rela�.ed �ervic� ne�ds, the EIS (pages 6-65 �nd 6- �
b? of th� Dra�t EIS) indicates that none of the thre� site� �
appears to require the exten�ion af urban servic�s. Tbe propo�ed `
facility will be �erv�d by �n on-site sewer. The 8IS statess that �
the traffia analysi� app�ars ta indicats minin►al ;potential tor �
#.mpact on tbe xegional tran�portatfon �y�tam, and that none ot '
the potential sites �r� in arsas identiff�a !or �cquisition as �
part of the r�qional park sy�te�n. Ths SIS �ot�s !that while th+ere
has be�n some consideration of a portion of the University site
as a po�sible locatian fot a major new commercial; airport, it is �
not now within an airport search ar�a. , €
,
. E
�raasler ��ati�►�s �
4
8ecauae th� site for the Resource Recovery Facility is aentraliy �
located to �raste ge»erators in Dakota Cou�ty, no �tran�fer �
stations are neaessary or proposed fn connection with the {
ft►cility, or�e of the factor� ths County considered fn examininq
potentia�l lacations tor the proj�at was proxi�ity' to the cent�r �
o! wastd generatfon i�n the County. ! ' .
Some private lira�s have deve].oped or are developinq lac3litits in �
ths County far recyclinq and transferrinq waste generated in �
Dakota or other counties. Th�$e taG3.liti+a� ar� nat directl.y �
�onnected to the R�saurce Recovery Proj�ct. �
k
r�st ana '��a�,gial s�ues �
;
I�fot�aaation on capital Coste, rat�s and vhargss, annual ap�rating t
' and main�eni►ncse coste, annual gro�s arav�nues and l�i.nancinq
arranqement� are described on pages 6-53 to 6-56 of the Draft LIS
and paq� II-126 v! the Final SIS.
.- . ..
.. . . ' . . � � . . � �A/\.y\� A�� � ..