The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.c. Resource Recovery Facility � : ` • � � P O, BOX 510 - �j�jl Q �Fi75-1A5TN ST W `� R(.)SfMC)l.fNfi. MINNF.5Q'TA 55iN;(? �� 612-423-4411 March 3, 1989 ITEM 5. c T0: Mayor Hoke Councilmembers: Napper Oxborough Walsh Wippermann FROM: Stephan Jilk, Administra�or/Clerk RE: Oxbaw Power Corporation Cogeneration Project Attached find two doeuments relating to the above referenced projeet. These two documents are : 1 . A draft EIS (Environmental Tmpact Statement) . This document , as presented to the Metropoli�an Council, was drafted by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Review • Board. The EQB is the designated "responsible Governmental Unit" on this project. As you know Councilmember Napper serves on the Site Evaluat3on Committee for the EQB on the project . 2. The second document is a notice, from the EQB, of several meetings regarding the siting selection of the project and for purpases of hearing comments on the draft EIS for the project . Councilmember Napper and staff will present verbal comments regardin� the notices, the meetings and the project at the Tuesday council meeting. lj � � t = METROPOLITAN CQUNCIL �trears Park cenrre, 230 F.ctsi�fth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359 1TL�L., ! Y L.� February 28, 1989 h�� CLERK'� E�FFtCE CITY OF R�SEMOUNT To Whom It May Concern: RE: Oxbow Power Corporation Draft Environmental Impaet Statement Power Plant Siting Program Rosemount Gongeneration Projeet Rosemount, Minnesota Received 02/24/89 Metropolitan Couneil Referral File No. 14771-1 The Nyetropalitan Couneil has received the above Dra:Ft Environmental Ic�aat St�tBYD@Mt. The Council will be reviewing this in the nex� few weelts and wauld weloome any oammente yau may wiah to make. Any aotaments should be �ent witMin one week for input Qn the Councsil's response to the Draft Environmental Imp�et Stat�ment. A separate opportunity to eomment direetly to the preparer of' the DraPt Environmental Impaet Statement is also provided as a requirement of Environmental Quality Board Rules. Thank you. Sineerely, METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ,, -- C�-�C�t! John Rutford Referral Coordinator JR:eh ec: Patrick Seu11y� Metropolitan Couneii Distriet 16 • � METR�POLtTAN COUl�1C11. REFERRAL . I. r � � � . � . FI�.E NO..[ -�,l�=t---- ,��h;resor 1 � '� 5c �/ ► ► �� ►� �il�.►li l ►�� l � �� •+��i t x� ;m, -' '� 300 Cenfennia!Building•658 Cedar Street•St.Paul,Mir�►esota 55155 "` -` 6)2-296-2603 �,� E.Q.��;.- . 2.. V .�Nt.1t•UU�` . . . � . . � . • . . . . .�. ..v� �....�tin 4v��nw.. . February 22, 1989 , � rS h:({�J��.i;. . �: i'1i;C. For Your Information: Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Rosemount Cogeneratian Project, MEQB - Docket # OPB-P-1. A meeting to receive comments will be held sometime after March i5, 1989. Written comments will be received until the close of the oral portion of the public hearing required by the Power Plant Siting Act. Notice of the comment meeting and the hearing will be forthcoming. For additional infarmation please contact Bob Cupit (612) 296-2096. , .;. . :;��:��- ,;E `�'� An Equai O�anortuniry Emp�ov�r f � ' 'Y . i � . � � . . . . . • , � . DRA�'T ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMEN� ROSEMOUNT COGENERATION PROJECT MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD POWER PLANT SITING PROGRAM February 1989 � � � _._.�� . .� � � �� '� � DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ;� M��-��`AN CQUNCIL .�' � REFERfZAL � FILE N0. '" RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT: - Minnesota Environmental Quality Hoard CONTACT: Bob Cupit 300 Centennial Office Hldg. 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, rIIJ 55155 Telephone - 296-2096 , PRQJECT TITLE: Rosemount Coqeneration Project Rosemount, Dakota County Minnesota . PROPOSER: Joint Venture (1) Oxbow Power Corporation 200 South Virginia Street Suite 450 Reno, Nevada 89501 . Contact: Lori Orser (702) 322-1300 (2) Biosyn Chemical Corporation P.O. Hox 9950 Minneapolis, I�T 55440 Contact: Luther Towner� (612) 3�4-5771 ABSTRA�,�: The Rosemount Cogeneration Project is proposed for construction in the Pine Bend area of Dakota County. The facility will use natural gas as a fuel to generate �lec�ricity as a p�imary output and produce either steam tor sale or food qrade C�2 as a byproduct. Three sitea have been proposed for the facility. The two northernmost sites, the CNR alternate site and the preterred ait� have similar environmental impacts, which are less than at th� southern alternate site. � � � • .0 • �, .° ,.. l.0 SUI�SARY � The Rosemount Cogeneration Project is being developed through a joint venture formed by Biosyn Chemical Corporation and Oxbow Power Corporation. The Project will use natural gas to fire a combustion turbine to produce electricity for sale to Ncrthern 5tates Power Company (NSP) and steam for sale o� for use in a carbon dioxida (CO2) recovery and processing plant (CO2 plant) which will be . constructed adjacent to the cogeneration facility. Approximately 50 megawatts (MW) of electricity will be sold to NSP. If the steam sales option is chosen, the likely buyer is Continental Nitrogen and Resources, Inc (CNR) . The CO2 plant, if built, will produce approximately 50,000 tons/year of food-grade liquid Co2. Commercial operation of the project is expected in late 1990. oxbow Power Corporation (oxbow) , as the lead entity in the jaint venture, applied to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Bo�rd (MEQH) for a Certificate of Site Compatibility (�iting permit) . The MEQS's � siting process requires the preparation o� a draft and final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) . The initial application included Oxbow's Applicant's preferred site and. an alternative site, and proposed only the CO2 plant an an , auxillary component of tha cogeneration facility. After the sitinq process and EIs preparation were initiated, the Applicant became aware of the pos$ibility ot a ,steam salee aqreement with CNR. Because a steam sales would require lesa capital inveatment than a CO2 auxiliary plant, and beeause likaly Co2 buyers have not yet been identified, the Applicant amended their apglicaticn to include as a third possible site the existing CNR plant site. o�ow and CNR indicated they are neqotiating both a ateam sal�s contract and an agreement to build the facility within CNR's existinq plant site, The Applicant is continuinq to consider their oriqinal Applieant's preferred site as such in the amended application, allowinq that if ' negotiations with CNR are succesaful, they would likely changa their preference before the siting process concluded. This EIS r�tains the Applicant's initial site labelinq ot the Applicant's preferred site _. to be consistent with the application. Th� site referred to as the alternate site in the application is labeled the south�rn alternata i-1 � site in this EIS, � the third site added in � application " 'amendment is labeled the CNR alternate site. The use of the Applicant's preferred site wiil require the removal of a single family dwelling, which is a rental unit and unoccupied as of January, 1989. It is owned by a willing seller, whQ has optioned the property to Oxbow/Biosyn. While no actual dweiling will be displaced at the southern alternate site, the project will be located closer to several residences at the southern alternate site which increases the potential tor impaets. The CNR alternate site would have the least impact of the three sites on residences. The impact on local communities and institutions will be similar in magnitude for all three sites. They are all located in the same community of Rosemount and wi11 have minimal impact on community � services. The poten�ial health impact associated with the pro�ect will be the same for all sites. The project will not have an impact on health since the preject will be emitting regulated pollutants at levels below state and federal standards which are designed to protect the public health and welfare. Emission rates for some pollutants such as SOZ and ammonia are less than the most restrictive regulationa. The southern alternate site will result in the removal of tall grass prairie which is a unique vegetation type. The prior farming activities at the Applicant's preferred site have removed the native vegetation and preclude any potential impacts on rare/unique vegetation. The CNR alternate site is an existinq chemical plant and supports very limited vegetation. The potential for visual and audible impingements on public areas will be less at the CNR alternate site than at the Appiicant's preferred site or the southern alternate site. The locatior� ot the CNR alternate site in a previously developed ir�dustrial area will allow the pro�ect to blend in with the existing landscape. The Appiicant's preferred site is within sight of the CNR alternate site and has only slightly more impact potential. The southern alternate site being located within an agricultural area will result in a project which contrasts with the existing adjacent landscape and wili be observable from a large area. 1-2 �,.....-�__ _ �i �' j . he Applicant's �eferred site, while curre�y under �ivation, is not considered to be a siqnificant resource due to ,��limited size and location Wl'tY11A an industriaily zoned area. The . outhern alternate site, while not a siqnificant agricultural r8source because of its erodible soils and �teep slopes, is located within a significant agricultural area. The introduction oP ��industrial activities within this area has the potential to remov� ` ��valuable farmland from cultivation by encouraginq industrial growth �, of the area. There wili be no removal of valuable €armland at the �.:....- �.: "="' CNR alternate site. The volume and source of water used by the pro�ect will be . similar at all sites. The project will use ground water for prolect needs and then discharge the treated water to the Mississippi River, The quality of the discharge will be monitored and regu�ated by conditions imposed by the project's Nationai Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The impact to geological resou=ces will be greater at the southern alternate site. Potential extraction of sand and gravel � will be eliminated if the facility is constructed over the exi�ting deposits. The slope of the southern alternate site will requir�s more earthwork and excavation which increases the potential impact tv the geology of the site. � Opportunities for significant conservation of energy, cogeneration, and development of waste-to-energy systems are similar for all sites. The project is a cogeneration facility which will generate steam for sale or liquid Co2 in addition to electricity. None of the sites contains a currently operatinq industrial facility. However, the CNR alternate site is an existinq industrial facility which will restart in the near future. The Applicant's preferred site is located within a larger industrially zoned area. The existing tranBportation and utility systems ars .better at the CNR alternate site and the Applicant's preferred site than at the southern alternat� site. This allows the project a� these two sites to better utiliz� existing �acilities thereby reducing ita overall impact on the environment. The cost of eonstruction and operation at the CNR alternate site and Applicant's preferred site is expected to be similar and less than at the southern alternative site. The significant factors which 1-3 � � reduce the cost of t�project at these two sitc�re an existinq . wastewater discharge pipeline and less excavation and earthwork. , The ro ect at the A licant's t P � pp preferred or CNR alternat� site t maximizes the o 4 pportunities for community benefits whil� minimizing adverse community impacts. The Applicant's preferred site is zoned for the project, which minimizes adverse impacts while providinq tax ; revenue to Rosemount and increasinq its economic diversity. � Overall, the CNR alternate sita would have 7.ess environmental impact than the Applicant's preferred site if the staam sale� option , is chosen by the Applicant, and the Applicant's preferred site would have less environmental impact than the southern siternate site if the CO2 plant option is chosen. 1-4 r � • 2. 4 PROJECT DESCRIP:ION � 9 � . � .. � . . .. . . / This section describes the facilities which have been proposed by the Applicant. The primary facility for whieh a Certificnte of site Compatibiliy is required from the EQB is a 50-60 megawatt (MW) power plant. Because the project is proposed to be a cogeneratoz, -�-- excess thermal energy from the power plant will be used as a byproduct, requiring auxillary gacilities which would be construct�d in proximity to the electric power plant. The Applicant has two options on the type of byproduct it may pursue. The original intent was to produce food grade carbon dioxide. After filing of the application which described the auxillary facilities needed to produce CO2, the Applicant was appreached by Continental Nitrogen and Resourcea Corporation with an interest in purchasing steam from the App3icant, to be used in producing a fertilizer product at its existing plant in Roaemount. The sale of steam to CNR is an option which the Applicant will continue tc discuss with CNR as the EQB'a sitinq proce�� conti�u+�s. Both option� for production of a byproduct will be de�cribed in this 5eetion. 2. 1 PROJECT IACATION The three sites which are be�,ng considered are in the northeastern portion of the City of RoBemount, near the Kach Refinery/Pine Bend area. They are shown in Figure 2. 1-1. The Applicant's greferred and southexn alternate sites were deseri.}aed in the original agplication, The second alterndte �ite, r�ferXed �o as the "CNR" alternate, was added in an amendment to the agplicatfon. The design of the primary facility, the electric generator, will be the same at each oP the three sites proposed. Because of the uncertainty ot aueceBaful negotiations for sale of steam to CNR, the Applicant haB proposed variations of auxillary facility design for the three sites. 2-1 �... i ti Eai�inp CNR Corp. � -.;,---- �huDePi�line(t�83) �gtake . Propoced ' . C3�? � T�mir�ion � J AL7fAJ�GITE � ;' StTE � �r,► � ' ; Koc�ii�ilrwy � : . ,� . . .•'•• PREfERRED � � ,g�'E p��... ; , ��i �� ,, ��i ��,.. Ci�nvt�a ♦ ��i� . . `� ,•,��t� I • ��. �` ��.' � ♦ ••' •�*+i��•••IIM$ItM ,•�I♦., � ' 111��Ul��YW � ,+�i�j, ' ,t�� bd ��*i� ProPcwd Propoced ��u��uu�uu�1 � 52 T�arwn(wfon Wa4tewafe� � �--P�pe�e �1� Nlauusl Gac , �� Sr+�rr . SOUTNEAN ROSEYOtlM � � AtTERNATE = � SRE • r - � j. 2t�00 ttli)0 0 21� � F: �,� - �u�un � �# s,t- >�"• �� - xi a.....<� � � �` wi p��!_: Still�M Fiy1 "i' s,eg ; ��.i� n� �� .. � �, -� ,. -: ..., ,. ` .-sA�� ~ • 1 A CO2 auxilla�lant would be constructe�►nly if the � �� ►Applicant's preferred or the southern alternate site is designated by � the ERB. A steam-for-sale auxillary option would be construct�d or�ly if the Applicant's preferred or CNR alternate sita is designated. Thus either option is available for the Applicant's preferred site, � the southern alternate site would involve only a CO2 suxillary plant, and the CNR alternate site would involve only a steam-for-sals byproduct. This situation exists becaus� a COZ plant could be anyw�ere except on the CNR alternate site, and the southern alternate is too far away from the potentiai steam buyer to be feasible. The centrally located Applicant's preferred site is close enouqh to pipe the steam to the potential buyer. 2 .2 DESCRIPTION OF THE COGENERATION FACILITY � 2.2.1 Description of the Electric Generator � The electric generator will consist ot a single combustfot� turbine generator (CT) , a supglementary-fired heat recevery �team generator (HRSG) , and a steam turbine generator �ST) . The flow diagram showing the ma�or equipment and flow paths far the facility is shown on Figure 2,2-1, A site arrangemenfi for the Applieant's preferred site is shown on Fiqure 2.2-3. It includes the CflZ option. Th� CT will burn natural qas or propane (backup fuel� to driv+� a q�nerator to produce electricity. The hat exhaust gases from the CT will flow fnto a FiRSG whieh producQs hiqh-pre�sure and infiermediate-prea�ure �steam, Thie ateam wil,�. be used by the ST �o drive a generator to produce electricity. A portior► of the steam will be extracted from the ST and used by the CO� plant for procesa needs or tor steam sales to CNR. The remain�ng steam wili be exhausted from the ST to a condenser. The circulatinq we�er passing through the condenser will absorb the waste h�at of the steam. A cooling tower wili be used to diasipate the heat absorbed by the circulating water. 2-3 I t ' ,.__ tl .�,:r ` � ,;,;, � � . , � __ , � . • 1�,i- ��.Y�. • � � w� �.•.. " . � . � �; _ 7. 0 ALTERNATIVES �� y�;�,. , , The alternatives which have potentially significant env,ironmental impacts that were evaluated during conceptual design of the pro�ect are discussed below. 7.1 ALTERNATIVE SITES The two alternative sites selected by the applicant are discussed in Sections 4.2/5.2 and 4.3j5.3. No additional sites were proposed by the MEQB's Siting Evaivation Committee, a group of citizens appointed to review the applicant's proposals and recommend other sites if they so chose. Staff of the MEQB's Power Plant sitinq Program identified no compelling reasons to add additional sites to the site selection process. No proposals of other sites were received by the MEQB during the 70 day period after acceptance of the application, which is provided by statute for additional site proposals by the general public and state agencies. 7.2 ALTERNATIVE FUEIS AND METHODS OF GENERATION Alternate Euels were evaluated far the projaet. Biosyn originally propoeed the uae ot procesaad orgmn.ic mdterial as n tu*l. The use oE this Puel was determined not to be economicaily fsaeible at this time. Fuel oil which is commonly a backup tuel tor natural gas fired combuation turbinea was not selected due tv environmental impacts, sinee the project ar�a is a S02 nonattainment nre�t. Coal was also not selected as a fuel by the Applicant due to qreater environmental impacts as compared to natural gas. The requirement for process steam limited the alternative methods of generation which could be us�d by the project. Since coal was excluded as a fuel source, the Apglicant determined tha� th� only environmentally and economically feasible method of generation was combustion turbines. . 7-1 1 ? . 3 THE NO-HUILD AL'�NATIVE � ' � , � . • The alternative of not constructing the cogeneration plant has only direct impacts on the applicant in the lose of potential revenues which may be realized. Further, a decision now to not build would involve direct loss of investments made to date ir� planning and preliminary engineering. Not building the cogeneration may have indirect effects in that by nat selling the 50 megawatt output implies that NSP would' be seeking other means of providing that 5Q megawatt increment as� needed. It becomes very difficult to identify speaific impacts to NSP, its customers, or to the environment if the applicant did not or could nat build the plant. NSP, or any other potential buyer, would obtain the capacity in a manner which may have much fewer impacts, such as conservation, or much greater impacts, such as a coal�fired plant. Not building the auxiliary C0� plant would have minimal effect on the availability of food grade carbon dioxid�a, but the small level of waste generated by the facility would not have to enter the environment. If the option of steam sales to CNR was nct seleeted or implemented, CNR has indicated that they would have to generate their own proceas steam, posaibly uaing oil as a fuel. Though they have existing permits to do Bo, the use of oil to fire boilers wQuld produce dirtier emissiona than natural gas proposed for use by the applicant. ?-2 , � , � � � � .��NNESpr�. . . � : � � . � � a, 1/ � ► 11_ ►/ �t�,► ir ►i_ w .�. �.�:C1 `- '� 300 Centenniai Building•658 Cedar Street�St Paul,Min�►esota 55�55 °� E.(�.B.�m 612-296-2603 F � Page 1 of 2 NT�L a�� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMMENT MEETTNG BEFORE THE MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD ON THE PROPOSED ROSEMOUNT COGENERATION PROJECT The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board {ME�B) will hold an information meeting, a draft environmental impact statement comment meeting, and a public hearing regarding the application by Q�tbow Power Corporation and Biosyn Chemieal Corporation for a Certificate of Site Compatibility for a 50-60 megawatt electric generating plant. (Minnesota Statutes 116C.51 to 116C.69 and Minnesota Rule � Chapter 4400) The pro�ect will produce electricity for sale to Northern States Power Company. In addition, it will produce steam for use in either a new liquid carbon dioxide plant to be constructed ad�acent to the generating plant or for sale to an �xisting industry. The three sites being considered are located in Rosemount, MN, east and south of Highways 52 and 55. Pubiic Information Meeting - 7s00 PM, Wednesday, March 22, -1989 Rosemaunt City Council Chambers, 2875 i45th St. West, Rosemount, NIN The information meeting is to explain the site designation process, to present major issues and alternatives under consideration by the MEQB and to respond to questions by the publie. Draft EIS Comment Meetinq - 8: 00 PM, Wednesday, March 22, 1989 Rosemount City Council Chambers, 2875 145th St. West, Rosemount, MN The draft EIS comment meeting is to receive oral comm�nts regarding the draft EIS prepared by the MEQH staff. Written comments will be received at the MEQB office thrflugh Mareh 29, 1989. Public Hearing - 7 :00 PM, Wednesday, March 29, 1989 Rosemount City Council Chambers, 28?5 345th St. West, Rosemount, MN The public hearing is to collect and verify data and establi�h a complete and accurate reeord upon which the MEQB will select a site and issue a Certificate of Site Compatibility. Th�a Board�s authority to hold the hearing is found in Minn. Stat. 116C.58 and to take the action is found in Minn. Stat. 116C.53 and Minn. Stat. 116C.57. The hearing will be presided over by Allan W. Kline, Administrative Law Judge (ALT) of the Office of Administrative Hearings, 5th Floor, Flour Exchange Bldg. , Minneapolis, MN 55415. (612) 341-7609. An Equa/Caraoc�rttmity Employer � . � � , � �age 2 of 2 The hearing may be recessed and reset by the hearing examiner pursuant to Minn. Rule 1405. 1400 to 1405.2300. The conduct and procedures of the hearing will be in accordanee with Minn. Rule Chapter 1405 and contested case procedures of Minn, Sfiat. ChaptQr 14 . The issues to be �onsiaerea at the publ.ic hearing ineiude wh�th�r the proposed site� meet the crit�ria� establ�.shed undex Minn. Rule 44(30. 3304 and Minn. Stat. 116G.57(1988) , and comply with Minn. Stat. 116D. 04, subd. 6 (1988) . Th� applicant, as prc�posear of the sites under consideration, wil�. prefile its direct te�timony by March 15, 1989. (Minn. Rule 1405. 1900) All persons may present testimon�r, question witnesses, and present exhibits. Al1 persons may be represented by legal counsel but such representation is nat raquired. Al1 persons have the right ta petition to intervene as a party through the procedures in Minn. Rule 1405.0900. Parties are guaranteed the right to present argument based solely on the hearing r�card to the MEQB after it receives the AL7�s report. As of February 28, 1989, the parties to this proceeding are: l. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Staff, John P. Hynes, 300 Centennial Office Bldg. , 658 Cedar St. , St. Paul, MN 55155, 2 . MEQB Site Evaluation Committee, Vernon Napper, Chairman,' 3405 145th St. , Rosemount, MN 55Q68 3 . Oxbow Power Corporation and Biosyn Chemical Corporation, I,cYri Orser, 200 South Virginia St. , Suite 450, Reno, Nevada 89541 The Application and the Draft EIS are available for review at the Dakota County Library system, Hastings Cammunity Library, Inver Gxove Community College Library, Rosemount City Ha11, Dakota County O€�ices in Hastings, and the MEQB affice in St. Paul. Copies of the Applicant's prefiled testimony will be available for review after March 15 at the MEQB office and at Rosemaunt City Hall. The MEQB has designated Bob Cupit as Public Advisor (296-2096) to assist and advise citizens on how to effectively participate in the siting process. Eldon Kaul, Assistant Attorney General may also be contacted on matters of MEQB procedures at 520 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55i55 or by ealling 296-7341. For more information about this project or copies af the procedural rules, please contact Bob Cupit, Public Advisor, 296-2096 or John Hynes, Project Manager, 296-2871, at the MEQB offiee. MINNESOTA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD 300 CENTENNTAL OFFICE BUILDING 658 GEDAR STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55155 � . � . . . . . . . . . . e � � � . . . . � � . � � � � � � � . ��. � �Ml��CrOfp. . �� liQ<81t8 i i t�IR � t� ; ALTERNATE line ; . 57'fE ;;> � '�r ; Kocit FiN'InwY `" ' . : �, . � . 0 .• FRFF�RRfD �� SrTE ' �i�� .♦ _ ��.,t �� i��+, _ - ' � �''�i� :.�� ♦` ji�.'t �� `� ,��`j, � ♦ ••'• •'•+•'��••'1�l�'M •tr��I�� '�QU{��lii � ,�•il�i ' ,,�� J�6 •��I�, �P� �P� uituu�n�ua� 5? T�ion Waatawater Li�w -�--�� Propxed 6'�(3as � r�s�w ,,� SOUTNERM ROSE##OUM {�y,� �ILTERIVATE .--, � 2�0 1000 0 2i100 �� ; •ui�n,� � � � Sc�w Faat d , �� ;��+Nts�r �. y' � a �� ► � �� il�i��1/ �1� � � ��i� ` ` 300 Centennial Quildi fi58 Cedar Street•St.Paui, ''�, c 612-296-2603 n9• Minnesota 55155 :� E.Q.B , . .yTq u * INFORMATI�N RELEASE For Immediate Release: F�bruary 6, 1989 From: John P. Hynes 296-2871 The Environmental Quality Board�s Site Evaluation Committe� w9,11 mee� on Thursday, March 9, 1989 at 7:00 PM in the Rosemount Fire Hall meeting roam, 14425 Brazil Ave. West. The Committee will be recommending a site for the Rosemount Cogeneration Project proposed by Oxbow Power Corporation and Biosyn Chemical Corporation. The Committee will also be drafting their report to the Environmental Quality Board. The Report will be presented at the Public Hearing scheduled for 7t00 PM, March 29 at the Rosemount City Council Chambers. The pro�ect includes a natural gas fueled 50-60 megawatt electric generating plant and either a 120 ton per day liquid carbon dioxide production plant or steam sales to Continental Nitrogen. Three sites are currently being studied. The first is on th�e south side of r Highway 55 about one mile east of Highway 52, the second is on ths south side of new County 42 about one and a half miles east of Highway 52, and the third is on the praperty of Continental Nitragen & Resources Corporat3,on at the southeast side of the �unction of Highways 55 and 52. **** An Eqtfal O�partur�ty Em�Oy�r