Loading...
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�� � ..