HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.d. USPCI Scoping EAW - April 24, 1989 Public Meeting . t , r . . � . �• � .. .
a:. . . . � . . .
� ,� ._. . .__ ` . . . � . . ..
._ x � . � � . . � � . . .
� . � � � . . . . . • . . . . . � � .� � . � .
.. . . ��� � . . . . . . . . . . � � � . . � .
� .. . . � . � . � . . � � � � . � � . � � . . . .
�F��' � T'/c� �'c�',��'...
..�...
� T --
� •J .�
�
• �
�G� �/,� .
,
...-------
� , • .-�-��,� .�.�.
. � �
,
METROPOLTTAN C0�3NCIL
Mears Park Centre, 23� East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
612-291-6359
DATE: Mareh 10� 1989
TOs Interested Parties - Minn. Industrial Containment Faciltty
FR�Mt Wayne Nelson, EiS Pro�eet Manager E291-6�#06)
SUBJECTt Scoping EAW Release
Attached are the back round materials re ardi.n the seo in EAW. The matter II
8 B 8 A B ,
�- will be considered before meetings at the Metropolitan Council as follows: '
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee - Tues., 3/14, 2:00 p.m.�
Couneil Chambers. �
Environmental Resources Committee - Wed., 3/15, 3.�0 p.m., Room A.
Metropolitan Couneil - Thurs. , 3/23, 4e00 p.m., Co�ancil Chambers.
Participation is weleomed at the committee meetings. Pressntations befar� the
Council should be arranged in advance by phoning me at 291-b4Q6.
WN6200
.,. � �'� �. 1 � � � � ��� � � � � . � � • . � � � � .� � . ..
3
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Mears Park Centre, 23� East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55;141
612-29t-6359
DATE; Mareh 6, 1989
T0: Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee
FROM: Sqlid Waste Division (Wayne Nelson 291-64p6)
i
SUBJECT: Minnesota Industrial Containment Faci2ity Scoping EAW i
Release & Meeting '
INTRpDUCTION
Attaehed is the seaping environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) including a�,
preliminary draft seoping decision document for the propoaed Minnesota
Industrial Containment Faeility. United States Pollution Contr�al In�. fs
proposing this land disposal facility in Rosemount for nonhazardous industrial
waste.
Environmental Quality Board E�QB) regulations for scoping are as folloWss
1) publieatfon of a notice of availability of the EAW in the EQB nitor;
2) 30-day comment period following publiaation of the availability notice;
3) at least one public meeting to solicit comment more than 15 day� into
the eo�ent period; and
4) issuanee of a final seaping decision within 15 days of ttae elose of the
eomment period.
The following sehedule has tentatively been set:
1) notice of availability pu6lication in the MQNITOR - Apr11 3, 19$9;
2) public meeting
Monday, April 24, 1989, 7:00 p.m.
Rosemount Senior High Sehool
Student Center
3335 142nd St. W. , Rosemount
3) co�ent period eloses - May 3, 1989; and
u3 seoping decision of the M�tropolitan Couneil - May 25, i98q.
RECOMI�NDATION
That the Metropolitan Council release the Minnesota Industrial Cantaitaipent
Facility Scoping EAW for purposes of public review and hold a publio meeting on
or about April 24, 1989, to solieit coa�ent.
0 -
620P 4
WN ROT 6
X @
�
� . ., .. . 1 � . � . . . • � �. . . .
SCOPING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET I
I
,
1. Pro3eet Name: Minnesota Industrial Containment Faeility �,
2. Propoaer: United States Pollution Control, Ine. I
Contact Person: Cary Perket, President
Environmental Engineering and Management
Address: 7404 Metro Blvd., Suite 400 �
Minneapolis, hII�1 55435
Phone: (612) 831-248� or (6t2) 423-b626
3. Responsibie Governmental Units Metropolitan Council
Gontaet Person: Wayne Nelson
Address: Metropolitan Cc�uneil '�
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth Street'
S t. Paul, MN 55�i 3
Phone: {612) 291-6406
_ 4. Pro�ect Location: A traet of land lying in Seetions 19, 2p and 29,
Township 115N, Range 18W, a11 in the City of Rosemount,
Dakota Caunty, Minnesota, comm�neing at the SW corner
of the Ea�t 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of safd Seetion
19; thenee Eas� and SoutheasterTy along the centerline
of County Road 38 to its interseetion �rith the Ncrth
and South quarter seetion line af Seetion 29; thenee
North along said North South guart�r seetian line of
Section 29 and the North and South quarter sectian line
of Section 2� to the southwesterly right-of way line of
� State Trunk Highway 55; thence Northwesterly along the
Southwesterly right-of-way 2ine of said Highway 55 to
its interseetion with the centerline of the Chie�go and
• Northwestern Transportation Com�pany right-of-way;
thenee Southwesterly along the centerline of said right-
of-way to its interseQtion with the West line of the
East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of said 8�ction 19;
thenee South along said West line to tha point of
eommeneement.
County Name: Dakota
� City/Town9hip Name: Rosemount
Attachments: 4a. Caunty Maps
�Ib. USGS I�p
4c. Site Plan
�d. Floodplain, Wetlands
4e. Current Land Use
� 4f. Current Zoning
-1-
_ _ __
� ' At �achment �a. � �
,
COUNTY MAP SHQWING PROPOSED
SITE LOGATION
. . . . . � � � AN�OKA . . ...
. � �. � � � 1 . � . . � . . �. .
� � . . � � .• � WM . . � . . . . . .
. . . �. �� . ft. ul � . � . . . � . . . �
. � 3euth � � . pAMBEY� � � . . �
� . � ndbt � � 8t.Ii. . . .. .. . . . I
. . �dQ�� �� � �FIE�NPlEPIN � Ytii4$HIN.C3t(3N� .
� . . . � � � �'���KunFs� . . . .. .. . ''��
CMFIVER
. . � � . r. Lak . � . � � �. . � ..
1 i
� •
u /
Inwr Crov�
� . H�i�hb � .
f Pr4oq�ed i#Q
/ " i�ocati,..�n
` 3COT7
. ,� DAK�lTA �
�
�/
. . . . .. k . . . . . � . . .
� , � Yf IIN � . � aOMTOY/1� � �. .. � . . .
f va ar . IN�NGER
PROPC)SED SITE LOCATICJN ~�"�
�.,
�' DAKOTA
� vERµ��i�o ,�
�+ �u. EMPfRE i���.,, MAR AN RAYENNA
Farmieytoe
M
r
a�pte !Ih'
�
EU KA CASTLE ROCK AMPTON
GU1S
� '
�.�ao� ti RANDOIPN
�
TERFORD SCIOT
GREENVAIE
� 0 5 �o
. .._...._._ N
;� METROPOIITAN COUNCiI i M i I 8S
Meera Perk Centre,230 E.5th Stroet
St.Peul,M�nnesote 5510i
'2_
. ' , � �
�
At tachment 4b.
AREA TOPOGRAPHIC MAP SHQWING
SlTE LOCATION
�. . . i. . . „�„�� � � , f� :..�`� . �� _ _ . . . .. . . .. . . .
�, f
.. ` '�� � ;�• `'-, ,1 � - ) � � N � . ,�
` ' ; , ��,�`.. `�, - "- - .� � J�
� � � . \� �_ " �� _4 � , � � .
� . � ._--� .� , . .�
�.
° i`���; �' .�` _ - __��--'' ,�-- s p r i n y t r �', �
:,�-��� �, '—.� a __ _ Lake �
�; e_sa� � ? 17 .,
� Y..� ' ^ - J / , ./� 1... � ,�„� � .
v� .j y '�i�/� .:�� ( � �.�� \ � �
f, R ' � � � ". ��� . . . � �
� �� � ! �'• ?6 � ,p . ✓"i�� .., . .
. . � � i �� � � . � �� �.. � � .'� .� . . .
7 ..,/�. 7 90� �, � i � � r ��Q� �-... �
� � • ^-- . _-r • _ A .^ � "b'=-�,/ O
% �. °�; � r r. i• ��1,\ "�c. '� .�. � ,., �� l
,- ��- - -�- -�-=-_ — __ _... , ' - —`I - •�:.
. + ;�.;, o ;,� - �,�, ' � , .� � \ , �: � ; ,W
;
w �' � 4- �•^� J•° � � �.� ✓: � ` � o, ��'"�W6s �avosa�- . *,
(` • • .�, �.l J �G � , �f✓� - � / °e�T a �� ��Qnn t./� . .
l ,~ v L N
�, s � \ �"€'• �. .
+ ^ � . .� \ L .� ` �a � d .i
� i e. � ��.. , • 1 � '
�y i � /! • . ^�,�, b -. .-,.. $ �', '"... .
_�' w•� � � �f:�,,-�n; � r.,��� �.� %�1 .c � ^'�. , , �.-"-°`
•Y,_� = �tl��` 0 G , ' :^'' � t ;r(���-- � ��+ r ' �'��
.a;� •�sl.' �� (/ 'V ir't�a� ��.-�'' �-�1�J ( , �� J� '',�8sa �o,ti
����;y. � C !p �f N O � /�i1�� ' \..�� e ^�„ � �i'�,�15• . � �r., .
0.v
-'C'
.. ",�-� � 9� a a� 19 , - - �` � �,� 20 � � eftio - �t
�� � � � `�
� -, -�-' r� ��_ �; � � ' , ��', . �,
. \� � 1 \ � g .�i � � � �. (� �t .
_� •1;�, z' �;����( p �` • J.� : /'�
- -- - �•-- - - ?_-:� _�'�� <�\ __� _ �/ "'. ,-^i
HICAGQ_ r- �(� NORTN WESTERN' 0. • �5! iS. r�-_ \ `') i
� ��--� � '�; �z9 :,,-; �� # '�,, �2a� `;, � ��
. � o �<�.�` � � ��.``� _
. . 860 8M '�.�� $��ti�`' �''.,1; v � . . .
. - . : � .�. . ' �
� H '_ ?�STREE ''�848 „` j, BM 828. � !``y� � J , .905� . � � � .
� / � � .� � ` / � ` tc•Qs �`� � 4, •�.�
. � ) I /. .) � . BM�854 ,o,'.�. �,) � �'� y � .
' � \`. J/ �t� �, _f� �, E�E,9 /`8 �j
=�- � ,._j,.J `f • . S M PAiM_ _...�-
j //( .../'__'';v,f�'' ti f-`t -- � �/--�._. ,d�� � i� 847
L�, �+I �1�� _ . 850 �^����i— l�' . - . � � � . . �
.. . i � ��..;-.,f`v �I� -- -- � '_ - , � . �
n ! J� � �
� i /
/ '' B . �� / /�r�`• '\�: � .�l�.-, ' � � � .
.i�. n / . fAb'fH �� �� � � �
a ��ir� - _-8N 894_- d<eSTREET ' Z9 - J15TH ST dts
�p' —=-� , ``�a� „ . ,, ,29
- � _.. � �,_�'�p, ���- n • ��' •
�< - - t_ ; � �
"� o�. ''�� � 1.�� oo�� p "'sROSEhIQU ,
K
Base Map Source: U.S.G.S. Coates, Inver Grove Heigfits,
St. Paul Park and Vermillion 7.5-minute
quadrang les.
SCALE 1;240Q0
� ? a t �a�F
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 e000 5000 6q00 700p fEET
1 5 0 1 KItOMETEf1
CONTOUR INTERVA� 1Q FEET
-3-
, ,! . �
�
Att�Chm�nt �G,
PROPOSE� S1TE PLAN
� . ��'.,1,
�'�, \�,
_---�' � � ,
�.. ' •� ,
�� � �� �� � �
.. ♦ c_;,�'^�,; `�.._
.�"" , �""'" �
y � .�' i�-''' !,,,,,.-.._..�
SlTE BOUNDARY �' '`��. �, ....,�;,.� ----..�'
. f �---''�,:, �,��
�-��Y � , �, .
r ,.� �
� � � . 4. ��.� / � . . . .
.. � . . � . . '. . . �ii. ���:. �Fti . .
. . . �,,,..i . i� �f,. �! � \y . I,, . �
. . . . ,� +�v� .� � `I . . . . .
. . � ���� �». � j� �.� `�„�..� : .
\ � ��• �.'� ,...
� i �• � �- ' • �, (�
/, i , ao , "'-,,�� � �p.
i�..• `��,'�---�_' �` ` .' .... #
� 5 '``. ti�
. .�r-`�. �,� . , `� ��,a �„� � .
�._� i � � 1
/ �'� � � �1 '
��9���� �-� sr�aa�i.�� ' I � •i�� � ' ��. � � .
�_ i • �
� ---- �-_�-----.;,, C O N TA I N M E N T C E L L S ��.i-[j � ; ; '
� �i��w���� . \\� 1 /' � . .
''� ANQ BERM i�
. �__�..��.�_ _-_.�`` ```` .. � l �4��� '�� i�� �� . � .
r �
I V �� ``` �`` '-'""'� S 1 l ' '
� � � . � `� �,r� � �
� � � � ��, ,..""'....","`......i , �
� � �� ,.�.��`` �� � „"""�r�..,,i' j �
\ I �� �� ��-.'���. %� � � �
.
`�� � �� � . ` � •,�`�_� �
j �^ `� � • • \
� ,
f � �� o `.� ��, � '
i � • �. • , ii `i. . ,
. � ± s'"u"t�1`� w�,,.,_•./~---�---'. �`'-1 �`. .�r"�z. � � / , , , ---.` . . `�,' '� � . .
♦ ♦.
f � �t� / � / :
� , Surface Water �''��� '� .. ) � ' ' , -..._`� ,-" � ; , _
' c ,
� ... �
� Re ten tion Pond ',. ''.. .,. �.,1 ; ��� � `='
. `. • ,��'.� � '� \�'^y `�•_.._ �
._.., '^�-- ��`� % 'w, —. � �
: . . . �^:`,=_`"'```��.��^�-...---.. r. � . .
1/ � �� ��/, / `` �� `"�"� '� `
� -.,,\ � � _ �
. . . . . � . � . . . � � � � . _ . "".n . .
Map Source: Environmentai Engineering and
Management Ltd.
Scaie:�—_..� �
� �
I
-4-
,
. �, � •
,
At tachmen t 4d
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE FEATURES
.. � � . . . :• `. ( 'Jt �� 7'+::i'�''�ii:,�� �r a �.�:o. � � . .
.. ���; _ "�; y ::i�.�:�::::
j�"'_ �,;.•. ., �1'��, 1�� ':,";,. � t r �
. �
. � �!,�, ."'�� _ � !4;::�:;{{� ..i�.!►,•:�::•�. ► • :}'r,`:SI . . .
�w S:�N;:.•,W,•i; . ..:.u:v.
� � � •i:�i': }}'r,:•:; .;r:•'r:;:��'::v:'•:i:}• . . .. .
i r - »:iw:;+::�'• r•r?:•::•
�°�M
r
- :`ai:''
..,...:
"t
�
..#..
J!.::'`: '
� �
�
�a�
�.�
r,
�
�3�
. r:
:+��...'..+''.'..:•
� . �;: ,
�....-+ • y r .
�
� J
. i :•+i� r�c.e• ::�,.
i' � - 't .� ..?{•:v:.
1 -
:�
i` i �.+ ?�J�:s�:�?7?t�::•.::v:i`�i .
. ..4......• .
\••• 4.l::::.
• .!.h•��
i��•�'
�x 1 JJJ
✓��
�
. • • k?i`i J{ti•�:'<:' � .
�
•i 1 4
L��...
�
\(
�
``\ 1
��:
+k�.
��;$};:
..%:.:.•.
r:ti:�'�:>�~:�i�:
l �� �':;:ti{?}.... :i:•;.ir,�i:•4:{�:,'v,::....r. .
' : � � � :.�r.f...:t,l�,v,.,�..: ...i{'r'�i:r;{ .
. i -�. � ..G� � � '`5' �' f r{�. rilL ;r.{fiYrr �
� � _ .'t .�\;�^ ( ��.w .1� G F{.� i 1 •ry�•fi:;�= r!$•L 4, � ..
• � � ' � ..
'�'��, • . �. i
• •�'• O
' � + • ' � - ../ ,,,�:;,,� ,J� �
� 1 :: '�•:
�.� ( • t. 0 . `. " ' i' •. f / ..� 1 w sooss� t��
� c� � ;=��- �� �°� To Mississip pi Ri ver� °: --- - ` •
� 'C'_'7r;� i:r.j;` �. ^ � �•-�� . .. _ -.:�R � � Xr;:= � . . .
S� "7'f. rJ �. t1 _� • � ' -,:•,� C - w �~r-�
�� �' �`�l � '� 1/' � ^� . .�/ ' '�'_� %k / \ i"n%
� . � .�.� � `� � i p • � �,q ^ � . :�,l t,���4�y�� �wp,� �r..,,_ � ..
� . L 3 `� � O( 1 V �� ��' � t � :�'� ;i' 1��1. . ��4�.�`y�,L' i._„� . . ..
�� To Ve�million River � � ` `
. .� � -.,.
. ,
�,� I � �20,�,� `�� '`�-./�`���5 2I
;t.'' ��• M�"`,,�' j�?',� •����`yr,,,� .,'�"`'
-�^v:-•- � ���a 0 � %� ,I� `_r { ;�j
— ��''_-,4� `•� ,.. `�i/ "a."'��n.
r�— -
� H/CA�2� N -�n •,�nppTN`WESTERN' O/�� M/ �� I ;`� J� � . . � . .
�'`--. \
�
1 1 � 9 �� � .
tl O � `_.i �� � /� � �. �20 \
� � �
"� ° � ' \.. ` �!
� � .��STREt • 8��� . . �/��• . . .. . . �
� eM ua, ',� c .
1 i �t..�'r1f,�1,. '.\\ ' . � i. . �'°e� � 4K
1J�-.� SITE O NDARY �f'', •�. 's,. � �' � �,4
• , i� :.t�..�M�s..� � � ,..,r,'r'� �
Sources:'U.S.G.S. Coates, Inver Grove Heights, '�s � • °'' ��MAlM/ \
SE. Paut Park and Vermillion 7.5-minute �9 - ._
Quadranglesc ""`- •� �
Vermillipn River Wat9rshed Management Pign `1 '� `� • _-'� '� �
(A.E. HiCkok and nssociatesl; 9"�•• �'•• �'e�r� r ,... ___ . - -
U.S.O.A. Soi►s Survey of Dakota Gounty; 'a� �'•29 - ; . r
Federai tnsurance Admin., Fiood tnsurence Study , ''�RQSEMOU,
'� On-si te pooriy drained areas subject to
occassional flooding or ponding
(soil series 250 and 252)
'�••� Major watershed divide
`�:� 50Q-year floodplain
� ; o � � ,
�aoo o �aoo �aoo a000 +000• woo e000 r000 rctr
� s o t �oMtts�
CONTOUR INTERYAL !0 FEET
-5-
�� : ' � ,, .; �:;::>:::: �•^,
- :+. <+. .:. ::�.: .., I �i :l I I I �------' : KEY
. . . � _
� '�"` �`� At�achment 4e.
` � �:��:�::�:,�:�• . . ' i I I i I Woodiot �
� :•;�: �:::.:•. . �
�Y. �:::�=;! : Crop
� �'� EXISTING GENERALIZED LAND USE ,
. , � � � •`\� � ttl /l�:.' � � .
,`. ��.'.�..�.'��•';'� . ti .
..ti ��..�::1 � � � , , .r. ..,y ����� Pasture
� ` ' ,�.: - _' +�a�ie �` -. . . . . Pasture;Wood Lot
'�;r n; .w. L�t:•. •:;h: ,(7 . . • . .
- t'r ,��u.~ � ;.� � ; � i ......... Industrial
•.;•. ..,.. ..,�.. .-•: ::: �' ���::; ��1` Idle Cro land
. ��;; .;: ::�:'�::���::;: :��.:� P
�•• ";::::::::::�.�:���:�::: .�. `'�: .:c�->�. .:�:::�
•'��� �.: :�: .�::�::�.: ��::::::.:::�..::.: �:�::::. '�;�;.:;�
�_ ''"�• �:ti•: .�.::�;�:;�.. ::�, .�� ....... Sewage Treatment Plant
• i �:�:::�i+:a:�:�::•::: , �•;�,;�' ::�;.;. :•..
':j:: :::� ..�•::., •• :�`•` •�i:- •'{
� '::�: ....�:.::�::=:�:::`� ,•::::.�. �:: �:; Goif Course
� _ -_ _ :t'.' ••�• �Y.'::':..: W.Y .
n:- '• ' '��'�'�':;;' �?'�� •'�:•••• �.....,
:;. .�.�;:;�:;;:.:; •� �, . •.,�.�.�:::::;y:� � :. Site Boundary
t,.. ., :� :;:•:�:•-.�;:�: ,: .
� �y .� ••� � ~ .
� • � :�lt �:;:: i:•:v, {�...
f ��V'Y�.�.� �A. .•s:� '.�:.:•:i J +L1 1 '��• .
♦ ,r •.�•:.•.
� � � f
�:�:
},�;
t-. •:ti;:;::; ::'�d,i: i•:i:4; �'.. � . ;��::}:
�
�� `�'- �� y � � .
' � '• �• i •
. . � t.'... . \ I.4..�.:::.. � Y. ��� .\•..'. '. • t • � • •
t•:.' I 1� � t .�. • ~ � y " • • • • • • ..
' \ . T.
. � ` ..� . . • • �• • • • � � .
..w�.ti�a � \�� • •�• • s� • (I�. • • • • .
.�4.. , . . . .
y ♦ • • • •
� � . ^ . . e ? • • e� • � . .
� �. 6E, �\�., „ �4.'�. .56� � • � � ` �
' �p�.!"'_- •`..'�.�' � .� /^�'1y4;, �
�' �so CN(C�2" .J-�fvORTM . �_. � ._.,.�' �
. \ �•,�_ � . �� • \ \ `
� • _ � ' •� ,,�� ; 20 � T
, W �
xich - � b'6 ' : � � '�' � ��f�,
Vdle. . ,� �M �. .
�
Ewe57 ��fiTrr _ .srREE . 3M 8ZB . � � � —�--
.. 1 � � � . .. � ..y � � ' � t;r-~\..f�' 1�. --+�.�.� .•� ���... � . � .
� ` . . 'y, �� ~ ,j \� � T-- � •
��,v._3y� -'� ; . ��..8�1 q5a �.� � `� �
- 1 l _ ;�L.�'d' At ��� �i �,n .�
� . . i^��. ✓ . . . �"� ,. _ - � � � " . � '�e�,. � � ..� �54: . �` � 'a" .
, ` '.• '�r J`, , . —' v' �� ' �� .. ,� ` `,
J. � �.� ./ '�� ' �- . � ' .� �� _f . .g�aEET � c� � t13IN ��_.�„ � .` � � .
'�'�•-�► , se.> j tw aea . __ a.s " _�„ , . _ 2g 1�
, � � + �.:-,. .. ' � • • q �.._.-„ y` �
_ _ : + � � �o � . . " °''ROSEMt)UN't'
Saurce; Environmenta�Engineering � . . , �r,���
�,
8 Mana ement . - , d�.�� �..�_—� Y
9 t'. r� � . � �"'_ '_�`,�`/�".., .:
� t�, ,.,,,
Scale: 1"' -- ��' . '�r.., � °r. ` �--� �� _ . . ., . �, .
.. .... K
. EY
A� �8 C h f71�'fl t 4 f. . .. Genera�mdustna� �
......... Industnai Park
E
XI
STI
N
G
Z
O
NI
N
G
P
ub6 r
c
o �u i•
as P i�
(.�.�... ub
�
I'I.I c
- ... . A r
i i
C t r
U U I
9
a
.
A
n
c I r I
ut
� u a Pr rv
►�� es
e e
9
�:�s:�:�='
.
/
i
nk
S e-F mii
a R i ni I
es t
���
9
Y
de a
i
t
S e8 n
• • ou d r
• a
Y
��
:;j;
;ti.,
::z:
:..N
'��•::..
:�:z:
•:1,A
'r�•..
�'+
;:*;i�� y�
1
{i�•..
V �y��
:3
'A
{•�•�
1
. T ���.�•: . .
titi':.
:'i �
;;�;+I�!::
•
ti
�
�
;i�►;
y
ti
•
S
_
��-#::
S
�E
Q .
� . .
� : :
CSAH 38 .��� �:�:�:•�:•�•:' '�
�
. �
��
CSAti 90
N
Source: Rosernount Comprehe�sive � -
GUide Plan �r�','rr-a'
Latest Revision 8�87 � ,�.�..,..�,,.,
: . . � . . .. � . . rf��� Iti..����.�. . � . �
wa�til���l�il..
Scale: 1" 200Q' ..�..... .. , ...
. ' � � •
5. Pro�ect Description:
USPCI is proposing to build a containment facility for n�-hazardou� industrial
wastes, The facility wili be located in the city of Roseazount and will
initially aecept between 30,0�0 and 40,000 eubie yards af waste per year. The
company anticipates that it may eventually receiv� up to SO,OOQ cubic yards per
year. Eaeh cell is expected to receive waste for approximately three to five
years at the proposed reeeiving rate. flnly wastes certified as non-hazardous
and consistent with the MPCA permit will be eiigible to be deposited at the
facility. No hazardous wastes and no munieipal solid waste xill be aeeepted.
The facility will be developed sequentially as ten six-aere ceZls. Generally
speaking, only ane cell will be open at ar�r given time. When one eell i�
reaching capacity and being closed, the next cell will be started. Eaah cell
will be reetangular in shape, with earthen berms forming the walls of the
celJ.. The berms will either be constructed with fill or utilize existing
contours on the site. The cells will be primarily above ground. The interior
surface of the berms will be overlain by a series of three higM-density '�
polyethylene liners (HDPE liners) and three leachate eolleetion �yatems (Figure
1). While a eell is aetive, these line rs and leaehate collection sy�tems will
capture anq precipitation falling within the cell and any i�eaehate generated.
The captured leachate will be removed and diseharged� after aceeptance testing, ,
into the Rosemount wastewater treatment plant. When a cell is eomgleted it
will be capped with two feet of low permeability soils, an HDPE lin�r, a
drainage net layer, and eighteen inehes of top soil capable of supporting
vegetation. This cap system will minimize infiltration and subsequent leaehate
generation over the iong term.
The Minnesota Industrial Containment Facility will only aceept nc7n-hazardous
industrial waste. The wastes must qualify as non-hazardous throc�gh test� .
required by eounty, state or federal regulations. Sc�me typieal examples of
wastes that could be aceeptable are:
The shredding of automabi3e components creates a fluff
containing very small amounts of inetai.
Eyeglass lenses are hardened by using sroall amounts of
metal. Grinding the lenses ereates a waste cpwprised af
glass, metal and the abrasives.
Some printing inks are non-reeyelable. 1Y�e�e iniss kould be
eonverted ir�to a salid before heing ahipped to the site. ,
Foundries use sand to make mo2ds for metal castings. The
sand is reeyeled until it is no l.anger reu�able. As a
reault, small amounts of inetal beeome mixed with the foundry
sand s.
Scrap eomputer cireuit boards eontain smnll amaunt� of
metal. Some of these can be reeycled, others eannat.
The melting of serap aluminum produces a slag whieh i� not
reeyelable.
-8-
Figure 1.
COMPLETED CONTAINMENT CELL CROSS-SECTION
'�;'..;. ' • _
.� : •�'
:.' '�.
� Top Cover
�
,
_...----
. _. _._
.. . _
, . .. . �_
� , .
� . --- _ _
� _ ' " y`���_. . �''"a._
_ ` ��� �
�Fill Area / �;�: �:,; ���=����z
`�a 3���
� . . ... ' . � .�/!'hi� �, KZ-�_q zµ ������,.4°yys.r�r�:i.`y_ . � . . .. . . .
. . T . yf R M 'M�:�4iR'yszj7'Hraa��r. .
� . �,?�"+f ♦s� i � _�tk a�+'* �,T � _ . .
"t• . . ' � / h3y'�.�� ,��.^Sy�., . .B e r m ��" +(:'�K x���J . � .
. � .' ��� ' ' :�� ' :.i�'Y, �^ �°wi'' �'x,'x, ��ty»G. . . . . .
a .,, ♦ ; � � 3.�'a i�fi .,.s'�'. �� �
� 1"^c y-� a t!.
. � .�v%16.n'1�,.4� � y! �t'��t:+.�{�'�.i.:���'�'-�' ?i,E,,,,r� r`��.� . . Y S.YL����.���.��^CY�I�y{R3�b��,{°�'�y,4. ytl�tit;�w �yt�4.�,ii �� ?r i o . .
. . y ^�'�' �y a�,�'Ir Rw�'`".��r«1 r�r �r ?!.,x,.S`,,.�.'�•,•�+4�•�.�,i:�s.��. .. . �t ���»-•{� ��=y.�;��=f'`-'4.{...��`'�':.� .,..'�'#''''ty�' � .�,;,�",f� �+..'f�,' .`"-�-..5�: ��*
���Q�k0.��3p��ir�'.S �<•� � f ,fc f+t'"+ '4 ry°�.—.`"3. . v�,+.C�Y;�>1'fii�`'�,#�i�"� ����' `.�'.�. w� Y,'�i .�sn:� `��`�''' .4 .�,,�y •#„'�s:. �
1b r��"►�'r'�,�t''��'�isA.��'si�'J�'i•p., �-.�j=�u ..t_'?��K _ ;y y, ilY N�c±�.l 1�.� �s.j�' . .._. A���i'�' i:���„�� �.e��.
^:�i'ha''�r,7�1• '�'�'-�=-4.�s l.w+^w.�...{-n--f.�z+�-.c.ae�n- %,,, �,�.y.. .s.. +..,:..::�'w.:.�iS��,7'q�'F�`r'Yc .'�, s'�--r, 3.r= �'uc..
Liner
6S�'J Non wovrn grote�ulc filtrr(abnc , , . .
. . . � . �HDPE dra�nage nrl � .. � � .
. . . � � . .�NOPE�imer� � � . . . � .. . . � . .
�7 PrWect�ve swl cover .
E�tnw prtmeab�lity so+1
�Topsoil
Grapnic Source: U.S. Po��ution Contro�. tnc.:
A Unian Pacific Campany �
_ . � �
�
Many types of magnetic tapes contain meta].s that are nat
recyclable.
Although industry is moving away from using soivents and
toxie metal pigments i,n paint, some non-taxie paints sti21
require metals in pi�nents. ,
The melting of recyeled iron and aluminum in furnaces
requires an insulating briek. This kiln brfck must be
repiaced periodically arni of'ten contains a l.ow caneentration
of inetal.
INTAKE CONTROLS
The proposer will require potential users to comp2ete an app],ication before any
waste is brought to the facility. The application will require test resuits
from an indeQendent labaratory demonstrating that the waste is nari-
hazardous. The proposer will require potential elisnta to submit waste samp3es
for further analysis by USPCI. -
Shipping papers must accoa�any each delivery to the fae3lity. All shi�nents
will be carefully inspected. A limited sehedule of arrivala will allow the
facility laboratory to test each load. Trueks are h�ld i;n the facility's
"holding area" until on-sfte laboratory tests are compl�ted. If on-site
inspection or testing determines that waste is diff�rent than what wa� expected
from the applieation ar the shipping papers, it will not be aeeept�d.
The proposer will require eaeh user company to sign a certification that
gvarantees all delivered waste is non-hazardous. Reeords of ali delivex^ed
waste wi11 be maintained. These records are available for government
inspeetion. Sereening proeedures are designed to assure that the
charaeteristias and properties of the waste aecepted are solely industrial and
compatible with other wastes at the faeility as well as with the faciii,ty's
design. Material delivered in containe rs will be a�ened in the eontainer
management facility. Thoae containing liquids that have aeQarated Prom sludges
or other material will be opened in a diked area where free liquid will be
absorbed or solidified for disposal. Cantainera that esnnot be reeyeled w111
be crushed and disposed with the waste materials. The administrative,
monitoring and eell area perimeter will be feneed to prevent unautYior#.zed
aceess.
6. Reason for EAW Preparation:
The proposer and the Metropolitan Council have agreed that a scoping EAW and an
EIS should be prepared. EQB rule part 4410.4300 requires an EAW for
eonstruction of a mixed munieipal solid waste disposal faeility for up to
100,000 cubic yards of waste fill per year. Land disposal af industrial wastes
is not specifically addresaed.
7. Estimated Construction Cost:
The first cell and support faeilities are estimated to cost approximately
$5,000,000. The cost oP future cells, whieh will be neacled everp three ta five
years, is approxfmately three to four million dollars t1988 dollars?•
-10- .
• ' , � �
.
8. Total Pro�ject Area:
Area of ten cells: 60 aeres
Administrative Building Area: 3 acres
Borrow area: 4 acrea
Buffer area; 164 aores
Entir� site: 23S acr�s
9. Number of Residential Units: Not Applicable
Commercial, Industrial, or Institutiona� Spaces
administrative building - 1500 ft. ,
container management building - 80d0 ft.�,
two leaehate storage tanks
10. Number of Proposed Parking Spaces: 15
11. List all known local, state, and fed�ral permitslapprovaZslfunding needed=
MINNESOTA INDUSTRIAL CONTAINMENT FACILITX t
GOVERNMENT APPROVALS
Government
LQvei A� PerffitlApprovai
Federal Army Corp of Seetion 404 permit for
Engineers madifieation of wetland
State Minnesota Pollution Solid Waste Permi.t
Control Agency
Minnesota Department Ground Water Apprapriation
of Natural Resources Permit for well
Regional Metropolitan Couneil Preparation of Environmentai
Impaet Statement; Agproval of
MPCA solid wa�te psr�nit appli-
cation; RosemounE eompre-
hensive guide plan amendment
Metrapolitan Wa�te Iridustrial Diseharge
Control Commission Permit
Vermillion Watershed Storm Water Management
District
County County Solid Waste Faeility Lic�nse
Highway Aecess
Locai City Zoning Changes
T�velopment Contract
Building Permit
HighWay Aecess
Sewer Connection
Compreh�nsive Guide Plan
Amendment
-11-
� � �
12• Is the proposed pro,jeet ineonsistent with the local adopted cornprehensive
land use plan or any other adopted plans?
The Comprehensive Guide Plan for the City of Rosemount identifies that the t990
and year 2�00 proposed land use for the ma,jarity of the site is General
Industrial with the remainder of the site proposed to remain in agrieultura2
land use. The eurrent zoning ordinanee for Rosemount fndieates that Sanitary
Landfills (similar to the containment cells in terms o�' land use} are permitted
uses in both GeneraZ Industrial and Industrial Park districts. The current
zoning of the site is Ir�dustrial Park anc! Agrieultural. The area zoned
Agrieultural would have to be rezoned to General Industrial or Industri3l park
where sanitary landfills are permitted uses. This requested zoning ehange
wouid also re quire amending the city's Canprehensive Guide Plan fram
agricultural uses to a General Industrial land use.
In 1981 , the proposed site was selected by Dakota County for inelusion into its
landfill site inventory. It was subsequently deelared intrirtsi:eally suitable
as a sanitary landfill site by the MPCA. This approval meant it appeared to be
permittable under the t�II'GA rules. The Metropolitan Couneil approved its •
inelusion in tMe county landfill site inventory as w�e11.
The Metropolitan Council Solid Waste Management Development Guide/Poliey Plan
requires the termination of landfilling mixed munieipal sa lid waste �fter
1990. Segregation of non-hazardous iridustrial waate from the �nfx�cl municipal
waste stream is cc�aistent with this policy. Soures separated indus�rial
• materials that cannot be cost-effeetively reeycled are be�t managed
separately. The aQidic conditions of mix�d waste deQomposition dissolve metals
and other substanees in industrial waste. Non-aeidia canditions wiii �aini�nize
metal contamination in leaehate generated from the operation.
13. D�seribe eurrent and reesnt past land use and develapment on and near the
site.
The vast ma�ority of the site is currently used as pastureland. One older
home, whfeh the pro3eet proposer will buy, is lxated on the site.
The Rosemount wastewater treatment plant is i4eated to the southwest of the
site and a golf course is in development aeross County Road 3a• Mueh of the
land to the south is agrieultural. Land uses to the north and we�t are
primarily industrial in nature and include Rosemount Die Casting, St. Paul
Ammonia Products, Koeh Refinery, and others. Some of the land to the north of
the site is eropland and woodlots. Four residenees ar<! within 1,OQ0 feet of
the site boundary.
-1Z-
�• . � � ,� . � � . . � � .. .. . � . ... . A .
14. Approximate ly how many aeres of the site are in each of the following
categories? (Aereages should add up to total pro,ject area befare and �fter
construction.)
LAND USE CATEGORY BEFORE AFTER
Forest/wooded ... .... .... . . . . . . ........ .. 5.4 . ... ... . .. ,. . 8.0
Cropland ... .. ....... .. .. .. .. .. ... ........ .0 .. .. .... . .... .0
Brush/grassland ........ .. . .. .......... .. . 219.2 . ....... .. .. . 121.0
Wetland (types 3-8) ....... . . . ..... .. .. .. . .0 .. . ...... ... . 10.0
Impervious surface ..... .... . . .. ... ...... . .0 ............ . 2.Q
Other: disturbed borrow areas ....... ..... 9.0 . .. .......... 9,0
rural residential ... . . . ... ....... . 2.4 .. .......... . .0
active containment ..... ........... .0 .. ..... .. .. .. fi.0
administrative & support bldg. . .. . .0 ... .... ...... 1.0
starm water retention areas ....... .0 .. ........ . .. 25.0
nonaetive containment (grass-
land) ..... .. .. . ...... . ..... . .... .0 . ........ . .. 54.4
•
Tota 1 23b.0 236.0
15. Deaeribe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types,
if known.
The soi]s on the proposed site range from silty clay loams to aandy loams,
however, the sandier aoils predominate (Figure 2) . The speeifie soil series
found on the site are Wadena loam, Hawiek course sandy ioam, Ma�shan silty clay
loam, Estherville sand loam, Kennebee silt loam� and i{ato silty clay loam.
Textures of the materia2s on the site range from silts to coarse pebbles, as
well as cobbles. The coarser grained fraetion� tend to be more co�on olos� to
the surfaee, whereas the fine grained materials tend to pred aninate with
depth. Lenses of silty clay underlie the site. Field informaton indieates
that the surficial glacial till and weathered materials range in thicImess from
about forty to over 170 feet thick.
16. Does the site contain peat soils, highlq erodible soils, steep slopes,
sinkholes, shallow limestone formation, abandoned wells, ar at�y geologie
hazards? If yes, show on-site aiap ar� explain.
The site does not conta3n geat soils, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
or abandoned wells. It does e�tain some �lapes oP over 12x (Figure 3)•
17. What is the approximate depth (j.n feet) ta:
a. ground water 30'min. 45'-50� avg. b. bedrock 40� min. 100' avg.
The ground-water gradient is toward the north. Tn the area of th e faeility,
the minimum depth to ground water is 3� feet With average depth� ta ground
water of 45 to 54 feet. The minimum depth oceurs in the southern seetions,
with the depth notieeably inereasing to the nor�th.
-13-
. , ! •
F����P �.
. ON-SITE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
�
SITE BOUNDARY N
:<:::�::
� .
,
::ti�::::.
Graphic Source; Environmenkat Engineering and � .+.
Management �td.
Legend
IIIIIII Loam
. .... Sandy Loams
.......... Sift Loams
. \\\�' Silty Clay Loams
-14-
' ' • • • � ' • , � � � �
1��♦
, `
.� �
9e� �
� • � � �
���I
t .� • » � .
/�j��,�
l w� ���� �
%,`�'os.
��„�►��I�►�i-'�/�/�
,-- �
;� ,� ♦. .. .,;;���;,�,/�%� . '
; � , , �► � � ;�,, ,��//�' .�/.%�"��
� d '�/.� �?,, fi .�/� . >-;
-. , . '� ,. �i�,� �' ;-���
�
� ��j;:•'yii�.,,�!j%� ,`ii,�/1 ,,,e ;
• � +����►,,-ii;:.:�,,�/�i�,-�\,�� f��,.�,,
• � � ,���� //J `���Y�' .%h..����� \�\.��' � •
. . ,�1►j ��.,�,� �`� ,�,��
" /�t �'�/, ,/s�!''s, % � '��/�
� ��•� ��� r...,
'�'►i._'�i !j'j��.�%%�-�/'//'//,���'�` ��f � %
� '- �,//�`/'�,,�.
��✓�t�► �;i;;�:�"�'��i/��i,,,�'�;;';�,�` ',�,, �;
�,,�,r,,•;;,� ,%l',�,7.� %j "%,,/%, i;;i �
�� i,•.�,/�:;••. '%/.i�� `�////�,./�,. � .�,�/�%" ,
%� -.;.. .��1%�,�'-1'��';��ii��=j!��!%� �• %i�j/� / '�f'j�,�j�rj:
//////�%/� i� � �� vii":/���;'///�///i�, ��%� �./1 � ��,/�J���;
����'��/.� �� ,������.�,, .+,. �'�;j�j��.��,,%�r�� '//� /
- � �,�-� i'' ���iry.'���i/i .. •i►�%.;�j�,�,. .ra ���,� �//, `
��// — �%//.//����j�r � �r�j/�,C/�r� ��!�i/�����"i� � /',�/���,
J ., '-�i:ii- � :;ri�i�/r�� `.��f i�;r//iii/f�/I% ���.�f i�� �f�;
i�/ ,% i�% Ii/�� %/.;�j��.�� .��j/l/�,/,,��/ � ���
I"i / % , '� i .�:/ ///�f/%� /b ,��
���/� ,,j/�/ � �►�,//. /=� �:/j��.,./�i,.,//%l//jj`" ��/f� �/' �%'/%.
� /� / /.�•. %�..'�i.,;/�%/i, r, ���,
��,��/ �� �'~ ` � .�. ,./,�' '/j/'/ �%►� /� //i.--.,.,. �.
!��� ���� ��� '� i•%// f/� ��;i��'/� .r����;
�� /�i.�, ��� ri;;i' .�j/.�/f%/��.,,��;��/////l//%/%/'///��
����,%� � ���'�/// ����i`i j�r//j�,� ''�j�,�ii,,,,,,.... ,r�/�,�i
� � •► �'�,;��/;;;<,�j� �%
h�j i a,. /i�,/,�%�!�
� \�����% /�� • �'� /��''-, ������" ''� ��%
..� . , � /��% �,j��''���i�%; �%/,/�j��%
l'��%�'/ji;�,�'��% /�
-�/��.y;�-,►'/ /j���
=••� '%�::./,�� � %����
.�� .-,,. / �/��
ii,,i:�//�� //,�
. ... .
-�► i%�,
i�,-,-,
�� ��,, ,,,,,,,,
���"�/�///f�//J///
--------=. �,%l//:,,�i..,,f��i/l�,,.
��i �/i
:`��%���'�.., / �:
��%/f///�/1!//��
:.:�.:�r%//`�`/�s
f' ��
i. s i • • � . • •
. • s • s • �
• i
i � i • f •
. � �
. � ,
21 . Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during
and after construction of the pro�ect.
The majority of the site will remain under vegetative cover at all times.
Initial eon struetion wi12 inelude the access road, an adminis�rative buildfng,
a containe r management building, a rail siding, and a containment cell. The
two wetlands will be upgraded and berms for sereening south af High�ay 55 wi11
-- be eonstructed. When soils are exposed during construetion, the propo�er will
implement normal ero�ion control praetices, such as silt feneing and mulehing.
As soon as is praetical, the proposer will revegetate the expased areas with
quick-growing grasses and/or trees.
As eaeh eontainment eell is elosed, it will be eapped with low permeability
soils, a synth�tic liner, and soils suitable for vegetative growth. 4�asses
will be planted promptly over e�aah capped ee ll.
The pro�eet is not expeeted to affect the quality of ofP-site surFaee waters
because all storm water wiil be managed on sfte. The storm water wiil not be
allowed to come in contaet with the waste a nd erosion contral praetices wi11�
minimize siltation. Site runoff w#.11 be direeted to �w� wetland area�, where
it will be retained until it infiltrates or evaporates.
22. a. Will the pro�ect generate:
1. surface and storm water runaff no _ x _yes
2. sanitary wastewater na _ x _yes
3. industrial wastewater no x _yes
�1. eooling water feontaet and
noneontaet) �no _ x _yes
If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other thaa normal doenestie
sewage) , and treatment methods. ' Give the basis or mathodology of estimates.
1. Questions 19 d� 21 addresses runoff generation and manage,ment.
2. Personnel facilities, the laboratory and the containe r management building
will exert a demand for wastewater treatment. It is antieipat�d that tl�e
average daily wastewater generation from the�e saurae� will be about 1,000
gallons per day. This reflects usage based on a daily average oP 113 people
on the site. This amount of wastewater can be readily handied at Lhe
nearby Rosemount wastewater treatment plant. A pipeline or pi.pelines
approximately 4,400 feet in length will be eonstructed to eonvey waster�ater
and leachate to the treatment p],ant. ,
3• Industrial wastewater, in the form of leaehate� will be generated a�t' the
faciiity when preeipitation falling Within a aeli ocunes in contaat �rith the
waste. The leachata will be colleoted from the ac�ive aantainment aell and
' stored in either of two on-aite tanks (approximaLely 1b0,000 g�llor�a eaeh}
until it ean be disehazped to the Rose�aunt wastewater treatmen� p�.ant.
Beaause of the inert nature of the wastes� the leaehate ia not �xpected to
require pretreatment before it is diseharged. In the event it does requ3.re
pretreatment, a mobile unit will perform this tLnetion.
-17-
. ' � �
22. b. IdentiPy receiving waters, including ground water, and evaluate the
impaats of the diseharges listed above, If dischaz�ges to graund water are
antic�.pated, provide pereolation/permeability an�i other hydi^c>gea}.ogical
test data, if available.
The topography oP the site is sueh that most runoff will coliect in local
depressions and infiltrate or evaporate. The peroolatiqn rate of the sands
lxated in the northern area of the site is quite fast (2.5 mint�tes p�r inch),
The runoff that does reaeh the �torm water retention ponda in th`� �outhKest�r�n
portion of the site will eventually evaporate or infiltrate. The pereolation
rate of. the near surfaee soiis in the southwestern portion of th� aite is
substantially slower (10 to 3� minutes per ineh). These pereolation rates are
indicatfve of the near surface soils and could ehange if th e soila are rer�rorked
during construetion. Information coneerning the horizontal ar� vertieal
permeability of the soi2s at depth will be gathered during tlature �ubsurfaee
investigations.
The portion of the pereipitation that infittrates could travel as ground water
in the drift aquifer, or it eauld reaeh the Prairie du Chien. In either eas�t�
no noticeable impaet is expeeted. In the early stages of the pro�ect, very
little will be done to disturb the naturally oceurring drainage patterns.
Leaehate that is colleeted from within the containment eells wi11 be stored,
tested and diseharged to the Rosemaunt wastewater treatment plant. Sanitary
wastewater from the administrative building and lab will also be direeted to
the treatment plant. The outfall for the treatment plant is the Mf�sissippi
River. The facility is not expe�ted to alter the impact of the autfali on the
river.
23• Will the pro�ect generats (either durin$ construetf,on or after
construction):
a. air pollution no x_yes
b. dust no --x___�res
c. noise no +�_y$$
d. odors x.�no _,_�►es
a. Facility equi,pment and incoming delivery trueks will generate aome air
pallution due to their exhau�t. The amount of pollution they generate is
expected to be minimal, however. Only one to twn pieees of facility
equipment will be operating at any one time. At the highest anti�ipated
receiving rate� only twenty to twenty-five truekioads of �raste will be
delivered in any one day.
b. Disturbed areas co�ald become dust sources during aonstruetion. The
praposer will minimize thi� potential problem by using stamiard erosie�n
eontrol measures and by promptly revegeta�ing. During on-going operatians,
the unpaved aceess road l�ding from the administrative area � the aetive
eantainment eell may sometimes need watering to prevent dust generation.
Wind erosion oF inaterials in the cell is expected ta be minimized by the
buffering effect of the berm walls.
-1$-
.
• •
c. Some noise will be generated by the equipment used at the faeility and by
trucks delivering waste. The impaet associated with this noise is �xpected
to be minimal, however, due to the low volumes of vehicles and the distance
separating the facility from the nearest noise-sensitive receptors. Four
residences are within 1 ,000 feet of the site boundari�s. However, proposed
industrial development on an ad�aeent parcel will eliminate one o�' these
residences.
d. No odors from wastes will be emitted at the facility. The nonhazardous
wastes accepted at the faefl.fty will not be affected by the bfologfc
decomposition of organie material typically present in mixed wa�te. The
inert �aaterial will not generate the odors assoeiated with biQlogieal
decomposition. Wastes that would cause odor probl�ms beeause of their
particular ahemieal characteristies will not be ae�egted.
24. Describe the type and amount of solid and/or hazardous Waste, ine luding
sl.udges and ashes, tt�at will be generated and the methoct and lacation of
disposal:
�
The employees and aetivities in the administrative building and laboratory wi2].
generate a small amount af solid waste. This waste wiil be ealleeted by a
commercial waste hauling firm and delivered to a resource recovery faof,lity
or landfill. No hazardous waste will be generated:
25. Will the pro�ect affeet:
a. fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? x�no yes
b. any native species that are officialiy list.ed a� �
state endangered, threatened, or of sgeeial coneae�ri
fanimals arxi/or plants)? _x�,no yes
The site is eurrently used as pastureland and aome portions hav�a been d istur�ed
to re move aggregate mater3al. Overall, the vegetatian is eharacteristia of
disturbed area� and lacks diversity. The Iaek of veget�tive d�.veraity lim�ts
the diver�ity of wildlife of the site. Abandonment ot' pasturing �s the sits
develaps and upgrading of the twa wetlands on the site should improve the �
suitability of the habitat For wild life.
26. Do any historical, arehasologieal, or arehiteetural
resources exist on or near the pro�eet site? x_no ye�
The Minnesota Hist4rical Society was eonsulted eoncerning historieal or
archeological sitea on the property. Tt�eir review indieate� the site and the
immediate vicinity contain no historical or areheolagical propertie� listed on
�he National Register of Hi�torio plaess. Fur�her� the SaQiety found that the
probability of finding sueh sites is low.
27. Will the pro�eet eause the impairment of destruetion oP:
a. designated park or reareation areas x no ___`_yes
b. prime or unique farmlands T� �o ,y��
c. ecological2y sensitive areas x na �yes
d. scenie views and vistas x no Yes
e. other unique resources �xwna ye�
-19-
. .
� � �
2$. For each affeeted road indicate the current average daily traffie {ADT) ,
increase in ADT contributed by the pro,ject and the direotional
distributions of traffic.
The facility will generate approximateiy twenty to tw�nty-fiue waste transport
vehicle tripe per day. These vehieles will h� loaded at the point of waste
generation and will progress to the containment facility primarily via Highway
52 and then Highway S5. In addition, about thirty-six vehiele trips per day
wi31 be generated by employees, periodic services, delivery of materials to the
faeility, and visitors. It i.s likely that the non-waste transport vehicles
will utilize, to $ome degree, all routes serving the faeflity, rather than
primarily Highway 52 to Highway 55. Highway 52 carries a daily tota2 of 18,500
vehieles (north and south) narth of its intersection with Highway 55, and
13,500 vehicles south of that intersection. Highway 55, the direet aocess
route to the site, carries approximately 5,u00 vehicles (east and we�t) every
day.
29. Are adequate utilities an public services naa available to servioe the
pro�ect? If not, what additicx►al utilities and/or services will be �'
required?
Electrical service will be needed for structures sueh as the administrative
building, as well as for equipment fineluding the leachate storage tank pump�,
area lighting, arul overhead security iighting).
A sanitary sewer line will be needed for structures sueh as the a�ninistrativ�
building, as well as for equipment Eineluding the leachate storage tank pumps�
area lighting, and overhead security lighting).
A sanitary sewer line will be needed from the site to the Rosemount wa�tewater
treatment facility. Th e pro�eet proposer will aonstruct this pipe at its own
expense.
A supply of water for drinking and for faeility maintenanee will be needad.
The need will be met by construeting an on site water well.
The facility will nat require any unusual police or security preeautiona beyond
the needs of normal ir�dustrial facilities. S�ne potential far Pire exiats,
associated with functions in the administrativ� building, operating e�qui�nent,
fuel storage, and lab operations. The overall degree of risk, hoWever� is nat
si�nificant.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
Approximately two-thirds of the site is z�ed Industrial Park; the remainder is
zoned Agricultural. The Agricultural portion will need to be rezcned to an
Industrial zone. Sanitary landfills are permitted uses in both f'�ener�l
Industrial distrfcts and Ir�ustrtal Park distriets under tt�e current zoning
ordinanee of the city.
Tntake procedures should be evaluated to identifq any additional mitigation
measur�s that may be taken to minimize operational problems. Hazardous waste
acceptanee must be prevented. Materials that may be ineompatible Por coa�on
disposal should be identified and re�ected or dispo�ed conditionally as
approved by regulatory offieials. Materials that may pose t�uisane� or air
pollution risks should be identified and re�eeted or sub,jeeted ta suitable
controls.
-20-
• r • �
w
Surface water runoff will be handled by directing it to twr> on-site retention
ponds. Potential additional mitigation measures to control surface water
runoff should be evaluated. There may be a rteed for controls to cateh ail,
grease, grit and other waste debris.
Precipitation falling in the active eell wili be eollected by the leachate
collection syste�n. Collected leachate, as well as sanitat^�r wastewater, Kill be
piped to the Rosemoun� wastewater treatment facility for �reatment and
diseharge. Groundwater degradation is nat expeeted. The praposed facility
will be underlain by a series of three liners and thr�e leaehate callectian
systems. Furthermore, the inert nature of the wastes preeludes farmation of a
highly contaminated leachate.
Soils and hydrology should be evaluated to define possible monitoring
strategies to identify any potential leaehate l�eakage frc�m fi.he faci3.iby into
groundwater. The monitoring system ahould be designed to distinguiah on-sit�
from off-site pollution sources fnelud3ng the University of Minnesota Roaemount
facility to the southwest of the site. The draw-down implieation to
the monitoring system fram nearby irrigativn wells �hould be studied. �'
Potential leachate management strategies should be identified that eould
minimize the impaet on biological aetion in the wastewater, treatment prxess
and limit potential volumes that wauld be direeted to the plsnt.
Air quality impaets will be minimal; the faeility will not include any po L�t
source� of emissions, arxi emissians from the vehiales associated with the
facility will be very low. The wastes will not deeompoae biolagically to
generate odors. Dust control measure�, sueh as waterfng of gravel aeeess
roads, will be implemented when necessary. �iitigation m�aasures to atinimize
wind blown debris Prom truek and rail unloading operations arni !°Y�om eroaion of
open disposal cells should be expio red.
The development of the facility is likely to improve the quality of the site
for wildlife habitat. Twp on-site wetlands will be upgraded, and pasturing
will be exeluded.
Electrical and telephone utility lines and natural gas servi�e need to be
extended for the pro�ect. In addition, the proposer, will con�tru�t a pipeline
from the facility to ths r�rastewater treatment plant and wfll also develap an on-
sits water well to help meet its utility and service needs.
The attaehed draft scoping doeument outlines the anticipated environmental
rev iew.
CERTiFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
I hereby certify that the information contained in thi� doQument is� tnae and
coa�lete to the best of my knowledg� and that copiea of the comgleted EAW have
been made available to all points on the ofPie�ai EQB diatribution 3ist.
Signa ture Date
Title
-21-
• L � � . �
.
MINNESOTA INDUSTRIkL CONTAINt�NT FACILITY
DRAFT SCOPING DECISION
BACKGROUND
United States Pollutian Control, Ine. has proposed to build a nan-hazardou�
industrial waste containment facility in the City of Rosemount. The pro,�eet,
known as the Minnesota Induatrial Containment Facility (1�QCF), will only aecept
waste eertified a$ non-hazardous and consistent with ita Minnesota Po3lution
Cantrol Ageney (MPCA) permit.
The faeility will consist of ten six-aore cells, ea�h with a eapacity of
200,000 eubie yards of waste. The initial reeeiving rate is expeeted to be
between 30,000 and 40,000 cubie yards of waste per year. The company
antieipates the receiving rate eould eventually incr�ase to 80,0�0 cubic yard�
per year. At the expeeted receiving ra�es, eaeh cell will. be capen i"or three tca
five years; the aotive life of th e faeility will be thirty to fifty years.
•
The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) ruies do not require an Environmental
Tmpact Statement fEIS) or an Environmental Asse�sment Work�hset (EAW) far non-
hazardous industr�.al waste disposal facilitiea. The pra,��et proposer� however,
has requested that an EIS be prepared. The company will provide much of the
information needed for the EIS. The Metropolitan Couneil has agreed to bs the
responsible government unit (RGU) for the environmsntal review. The Couneil
and its consultant will independently analyze the information provideci by the
proposer, and develop additional information and ana3ysis where appropriate.
PURPOSE
EQB rules require a publie scoping procesa for any EIS (Mn. Rules Ch.
4410.2100). This praeess narrows the scope and bulk of the EIS by identifying
those issues re levant to the proposed pro�eet that require detai,led �nalysis
and by reatrieting studies in ths EIS to those dfscussed in the seoping
decision doeument.
The Couneil has prepared an EAW for the MICF proposal. A publie seopSng
meeting is expeeted to be eondueted on April 24, 1989. A pubiic eoaffient period
will be open from April 3, 1989 thraugh May 3, 1989. The seoping doeumsr�t will
. be re�pansive to publia oo�nent and represent the Caunai.l's decaisicxa ran what
iasues should be addressed te aomplete ari adequate EZS Por tha pro�ect. The
scoping deeision will serve as the basis for preparing the EI3 and eva�luating
its adequacy.
The EIS is to funetion as a means of diselosing ihformation about the
signifieant environmental issues associated with a propased action. T'he
analysis it contains is not intended to �ustify either a positive or r�egative
decisian on the pro�ect. It should serve as a resouree for publia afficials
who are responsible for permit deeisions and other approvals. It should
identify measures neeessary to avoid or mitigate adverse environmer►tal effeets.
PREPAREAS
The Metropolitan Council wili retain a consultant to prepare the EIS. Couneil
staPf will supervise the consultant's wark and manage the envirnnmentai revisw
proce ss.
-1-
�
` . ' � � . � . .� � . .
•
CALENDAR
An EIS preparation notice for the pro�eet must be published in the EQB Nbnitor
within 45 days of the adoption of the scoping decision. A draft and final EIS
must be prepared and released for publie review. The Couneil must make a
determination of adequacy for the Pina3 EIS within 280 days of the natice
publication date.
Pra3ected Timetable;
Scoping deeisione May 25, 1989
Release draft EIS: Aug. 24, 1989
Final EIS adequaey determination: Dec. 21, 1989
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The EIS will contain a description of the proposed MICF a� outlined below: �
a) Purpose of the proposal;
b) Loeation and existing site et�araeteristies;
c} Site layout, with the followi,ng identifieds roads, buildings,
containment cell areas, leachate storage areas, borrow areas, utilitiea
(ineluding leaehate diseharge pipe) , fl�el �torage taanks, pollution control and
m�i�oring deviees, and stortnwater management pond�.
d) Identifieation of off-site pollution ec�trol �nitoring deviees;
e) Explana tion of the purposes and technol.ogies of the pollutiar► eontrol
and monitoring deviees and strategies proposed for ths pro�ect;
f) Diseussion of the nature and extent of existing air and gro�dwater
pollution on or near the proposed site;
g) Waste aeceptanee procedures;
h) Facility operations; and
i) Utility and service requirements.
GOVERNMENTAL APPROVALS
The EIS will list all known governmental permits and/or approvals r�quired far
the pro3ect along with the unit of government responaible for eaeh deeiaion.
The EIS will not be prepared with the intent of supplying aSi necessary data
for any particular permit application. A record of deeision should be prepared
for the following governmental approvals showing how the EIS was considered in
reaehing the deQision.
AGENCY APPROVAL
I�ff'CA Solid Waste Facility Permit
Metropolitan Gouncil l�'CA Solid Waste Facility Pensit Appx*ova].
Dakota Caunty Faeility Operating Liaense
ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives seetion of the EIS must e�valuate reasonably avail�bie optians
for impl�menting the proposed pro�eet� as �ell as assess the conaequer�ea oP a
"no aetion" situation. Typical alternativea Yncluda desi�n maiification�,
different teehnologies, and variations in size.
-2-
• . • � A . .� � � �.'� . . � . . � .
f
Far this EIS, the alternatives to be eva2uated are listed below:
a) alternative waste management strategies;
b) the no-build alternative
Discussion of alternative site� is not proposed. The pro�eet proposer is
co�itted to this site because of fts praximity to fr�dustrial generators of non-
hazardous waste and substantial documentation of the sit�'s intrinsi�
suitability for land disposal operations is available. The propoaed sfte was
approved as "intrinsically suitable" by the MPCA and ths Metropolitan Cauneil
and ineluded in the Dakota County candidate landfill site inventory.
The signifieant direet or indireet environmental impacts associated with eaeh
alternative will be pro�eeted. Additional generator material.� a►anagament
congiderations will be diseussed. Additional management eonaiderations for
alternative disposal faeilities will also be diseussed. Im�pactg of
transportation associated with aiternative disposal will be addre��ed.
• Economic implications will address differences in transportation ar�d disposal�
costs for the alternatives.
It�ACT ANALYSIS
The EIS must diseuss environmental, economie, emplayment anci sociological
impaets for the pro�eet and eaeh ma�or aiternatfve. Direct, indireot, advera�e
and beneficial impaets are to be identified. The topias that will be evaluated
are discussed below with emphasis given to th e isaues that appear to be most
significant.
Envi ronmenta l I aqaaets
Air Quality
Air quality eould gctentiaily be affected by fa4111ty equip�en� at�d inoom�ing
vehicles, unloading aperations, exposed materiaia in open cella, �eila exppoed
during construation and oparation, and equipment noise. The amount oP air
pollution assoeiated with faeility equipment and incoaaing vehicles ia expee ted
to be miniatal. Only one or two pieces of equipment will operate a►t one t3me.
At the highe9t anticipated receiving rate, only twenty to twenty-five
truekloads of wastes will be delivered in any one day. Given the 1ow valunea
of facility equtpment and pro�ect-related traffic, no discu�sion ot' v�hiele-
related air pollution is deemed neeessary. The EIS will� how�ever, inelude a
deseriptian of the types and volumes of vehielea assoeiated with the pro�eet.
Disturbed areas and unpaved roads could beeome duat sources. The progoser
. intends to mini�oize this pot�ntial problem by using �tar�dard eroaian control
practices, including prompt revegetation of disturbed areas and waterir3g of
unpaved roads. Wind erosion of waste materials is expeoted to be minimized by
the buffering effect of the cell berms. The EIS will inelude a deearipticn oP
potential sourees oP dust, evaluate th e proposed mitigatlon me�ac�re�! and
suggest additional mitigation measures that may be desirable. ZTnloading
operations will be specifieally addressed. Mitigation measuresPor apeeiPic
materisls that may pose nuisance or air pollut3.on risks will be discusaed.
Faeility operations and assoeiated traffia will generate some noise. Although
noise increases are expeeted to be minimal, ths EIS will inalucle i�fora�ation on
_3_
, : . � • • .
ambient noise levels and model increases in naise expeeted because of the
facility. Partieular attention will be given to the potential for noise
inereases at nearby residences.
No odors are expected to be emitted by the faci2ity, primarily beeause the
wastes aecepted will not decompose biologically like mixed �nicipai wa�tes.
Furthermore, wastes that could cause an odor problem beeause of their efi�mical
eharaeteris�ics will not be aeeepted. The EIS, therefore, will not address
odor problems.
Surface Water
Stortnwater oa the site will be handled by direeting it to two w�stlartd areas, or
by colleeting it in bhe leaehate management system and later discharging it to
the Rosemaunt wastewater treatment plant. Th� EIS will include a description
of the stormwater management plans and evaluate their suitability. The
capability to handle the runoff will be assess�d. The prevent�.on of
significant erosion and surface water degrmdation on- and off-site will be
addressed. Mitigatian measures that shauid be eansidered will De auggested.t
The implications of leachate diseharge to the Roaemount waste�+ater treatmerrt
plant wi11 be analyzed. Leachate volumes and composition under low and high
precipitation conditions will be investigated, as weil as the i�aet af the
leaehate discharge on the funetion and available capacity of the treatment
plant.
Vegetation and Wildlife
The proposal appeara to pose no threat to wildlif� habitat or ta native speaies
of plants or wildlife. The EIS, therefore, will not address vegetation and
wildlife.
HydrogeoloF�r
Groundwater quality protectfon is frequently a ccncern when land disposa2
faailities are developed. Leaehate, ar wster th�t ha� perealated tlarou�h waate
materials, is the souree oP oonoern beesuae it anay have the �tenti�l to
negatively affeet groundwater quality. The pra�ect proparJer i.ntend� to
minimize the potential for groundwater quality prcblems by 1) aeeepting only
non-putresible non-hazardous wastes, 2) operating it� amall ee�.la th�►t are cpen
a relatively short time and then are capged, and 3) underlying eaah cell with a
aeries oF three high-den�ity polyethylene (HAPE) liners and three ieaataata
collection systems.
The EIS will evaluate the potential f4r groundwater degradation by deseribing
the hydrogeologie setting of the sifi,e and ne�rby areaa; diseusaing leaoha►te
formation, composition, and movement; and identifying potentially aff�eted
aquifers. For each aquifer, the areal exteht and magnitude of the pollution
potential will be estimated. Potentially affeeted groundwater users will. be
identified. Possible mitigative measures, including ehanges in the deaign of
the pro�ect and the type oP liner material, wiil be included. The effeet of
restrictions of the quantities and types of wastes aaoepted will be studied to
identify materials that are not compatible Por land dispo�al or should be
segregated within the facflity. Intake prxedures will he evaluat� tv
identify mitigation measures that may be taken to prevent aaceptanee of
hazardous waste or manage materials that require speeial treatment.
-4-
• +
. � �
� � r F�. . . . .
. i . . . . . . . . .
The site apgears to be in the path of the plume of contaminated ground water
originating from the University of Minnesota's Rosemount Researeh center. The
EIS will evaluate the probability of this plutne pas�ing under the proposed
site, and diacuss how it couid eompliea�e groundwater monttoring �nd
identifica tion of disoharges from the proposed faeility. This analysi� will
include an asge�sment of th e influenee of nearby irrigati.on wells on the path
of the plume, ger�ral groundwater f low d�.recstions, and groundwater elevatfons.
Eeonomic and Sociologieal Assessment
Economie and Enplol►ment
The EiS will discuss the economie and employment impacts of the Pao3li.ty. It
will include information on the number of short- and lvng-term employtasnL
opportunities assoeiated with he faeility and Piseal impaets on the City of
Ros�mount. The fiscal impacts diseussion will identify serviee demands and
their eosts, a� �ell as impact� on the Qity'� tax base. It will also diseua�
the probability of development of the site by other businesses or ind�stries;`
and the likelihood of ohanges in surrounding property values.
SoeioloAical .
� The EIS will diseuss the compatibi].ity af the expansion with surrounding
development in terms of visual impaats. It will identify area� from whiah an-
iookers will likely be able to view the �ite. Maps of the propased Pinal
eontours for the facility and a proposed landseape plan will be included.
Mitigative measures that may be appropriate will be discussed.
Historical and areheolo$ical resourees of significance do not appear to exist
on the site. The EIS, therefore, will nnt addresa hi�toriQal or arc3heologieal
resourc3es.
vRWN36
-5-