Loading...
13b. Composting Facility in Chaska CITY OF L \‘' A I CHANEASSEN . . ,,,ry 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN,•MINNESOTA 55317 ' (612) 937-1900 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, City Planner DATE: April 21, 1988 ' SUBJ: Composting Facility in Chaska - Chaska Councilman Johnson and Geving ' Councilman Johnson, Geving, and myself attended a public hearing regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet for a composting facility in the Arbor Industrial Park in Chaska on April 19 , 1988 . Attached for Council information is the EAW for the Chaska site and a site in Dahlgren Township which has since been elimi- nated from consideration. Also attached are comments from ' Councilman Johnson for the Council to consider so that the city can send a letter to the Metropolitan Council. Comments must be sent to the Met Council by May 4 . Councilman Geving suggested that a tour be arranged at the existing Resource Recovery Plant in Eden Prairie. The proposed composting facility would be receiving organic waste from the ' plant in Eden Prairie. It was also suggested that the Council walk the site prior to preparing comments to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council. At the writing of this report, a tour was being arranged for Councilmen Johnson and Geving as they are going to be out of town next week. Similar arrangements can be made for the remainder of the Council this upcoming week. As to ' a site visit, it is suggested that Saturday morning, April 30th, at 9 : 00 a.m. be established so that everyone can meet at City Hall and can take the city cars to the site. It is also intended that a representative from Reuter would be present to accompany the Council. Because more than two Council people would be pre- sent at one time, this would have to be established as a public meeting. The Council could also schedule a special meeting on ' May 2 , 1988, to finalize comments for the Met Council. Again, the deadline for written comments is May 4 , 1988 . Mike Lien from Carver County also has a slide show of composting facilities in Europe which would be similar to the one installed in Chaska. He would also be available to show these slides at the request of the Council . I 11 Mr. Don Ashworth April 21, 1988 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Direction should be given to staff as to which meetings/tours should be arranged and when. ' ATTACHMENTS 1 . Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 1 I 1 1 i I 1 I I CITYOF 1 , „.„.„,„„ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937-1900 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council 1 FROM: Jay Johnson, City Council Member DATE: April 19, 1988 ' SUBJ: Environmental Impact Statement Reuter, Inc. Solid Waste Compost Plant 1 Chaska Arbor Park On April 19 , 1988 , Councilman Geving, Barbara Dacy and myself 1 attended a Metropolitan Council public meeting at Chaska High School. The purpose of the meeting was for the Met Council to receive public comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 1 ( EAW) for the proposed compost plant in Arbor Park. I provided public testimony in which I contended that the EAW was incomplete and inaccurate. I recommended that the Met Council table the EAW 1 until the EAW is updated. As a preface to my testimony, I stated that the City of Chanhassen had not formed an official opinion on this subject and that my testimony was my personal opinion. ' I have also submitted my detailed comments to the Met Council for their consideration ( letter attached) . As you can see in my detailed comments, there are many questions to be answered to make this document a complete stand-alone document. At the meeting, the Reuter representative indicated that the exact building location has not been determined. The most current pro- posal has the building going east to west which eliminates any future subdivision of the property and alleviates many of my con- cerns . These changes should be added to the EAW. 1 I am and I remain a strong supporter of waste composting, but I also insist on thorough and accurate environmental documentation. 1 I recommend that the City Council pass the following resolution: WHEREAS; the City of Chanhassen fully supports and encourages the concept of solid waste recycling and composting; and 1 WHEREAS; the City of Chanhassen' s review of the Reuter, Inc. Solid Waste Compost Plant Environmental Assessment Worksheet as published by the Metropolitan Council has been found to be 1 • II Mayor and City Council II April 19, 1988 Page 2 incomplete and does not adequately address the environmental issues of the proposed project; therefore BE IT RESOLVED; that the City Council of the City of II Chanhassen recommends that the Metropolitan Council make no decision on the EAW and furthermore, that the Metropolitan Council request additional information from the proposer on the toxicity of the incoming waste material, locations of the facilities, archeological evaluation of the site, odor II control measures to be taken for all odor sources, updated site plan, and other information which aid the Metropolitan Council staff in upgrading the EAW to address all relevant issues . I Attachments: 1 . Environmental Assessment Worksheet I 2 . Letter to Metropolitan Council dated April 19, 1988 I II I II I II II I II II II ' Jay E. Johnson, P.E. , C.I .H. 7496 Saratoga Drive ' Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' April 19, 1988 t Metropolitan Council ' Attn: Mr. John Rafferty 300 Metro Square Building St. Paul, MN 55101 Re: Environmental Assessment Worksheet Reuter, Inc. Solid Waste Compost Plant Public Comment Dear Mr. Rafferty: ' Attached are my detailed comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Reuter, Inc. Solid Waste Compost Plant proposed to be located in Arbor Park, Chaska, Minnesota. ' I believe that the EAW is incomplete and inaccurate. At the public meeting held on April 19 , 1988 at Chaska High School, the proposer introduced several design changes which should be ' included in a revised EAW. These changes may answer some of my concerns. As I stated at the meeting, my detailed comments will be presented to the full Chanhassen City Council for our deli- beration over whether Chanhassen should take an official position on this project. 1 I am a proponent of waste composting as a viable alternative to landfilling and incineration. However, I am also a proponent of providing complete and accurate information to the public through the EAW process . Mr. John Rafferty I April 19, 1988 Page 2 Thank you for your time and consideration of my comments. I Sincerely, 1 j5......44 .____,_______ I Jay E. Johnson, P.E. , C.I.H. Chanhassen City Councilman JEJ:ktm I Enclosure I cc: Chanhassen City Council Marc Waritz , Metropolitan Council II Kathy Boone, Reuter, Inc. I II I II II II II II 11 II II DETAILED COMMENTS ON THE ' REUTER, INC. SOLID WASTE COMPOST PLANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHET Jay E. Johnson, P.E. , C. I .H. April 19 , 1988 1. Section 5 . a. Describe how the moist homogeneous compost will be ' transported from the processing area to the fermentation building. It appears to be by conveyor. Will the con- veyor be enclosed and will there be odor control for the conveyor and enclosure? b. Describe the odor control for the tipping area and pro- cessing line. I suspect that the processing line can ' become the largest odor source if housekeeping measures are not stringently enforced. c. On page 3 in the top paragraph the EAW states "the mature compost is no longer putrescible ( liable to become putrid) and will not reheat upon storage. " This sentence should not be stated in absolutes . Restate the sentence ' using " . . .should no longer be putrescible and should not reheat upon storage" since this is an opinion and not absolute fact. ' d. Where will the mature compost screening drum be located? e . Will there be any odor control on the exhaust from the ballistic separator and cyclone? f . Figure 2 does not show the flow diagram. The flow ' diagram is in Attachment B. g. Will semi-mature compost be screened and separated? If ' so, what odor control will be used on the cyclone and separator exhaust air? h. Will semi-mature compost be stored? What precautions ' will be taken to prevent anaerobic decomposition in semi- mature compost and the odors from anaerobic decom- position? ' i . The Eden Prairie RDF facility has been in operation long enough to have analyzed the concentration of heavy metals and toxic organics in the preprocessed materials . The exclusion of this easily obtainable and most important data should, by itself, invalidate the EAW and is grounds for further investigation prior to making a decision on the EAW. j . The information presented in the "Product and Waste Streams" section indicates that there are potential ' problems with the heavy metal and toxic organics . Again, the feed stock data from the existing Eden Prairie RDF plant is essential to fully predict the composition of the product and waste streams . k. Under the "Product and Waste Stream Disposition" section there should be a discussion of testing and monitoring and the standards under which the test results will be evaluated. The waste stream going to the landfill should be described. 2 . Section 8 - Total Project Area. It appears that the project area of 40 acres includes a large ' area which could be further developed in the future. What are the future development plans of the unused area of the project? (NOTE: At the April 19 , 1988 meeting, Reuter indicated that the building was to be turned such that there is no unused property to be resubdivided. This new infor- mation should have been in the EAW and provided to the public. ) 3 . Section 13. ' The City of Chanhassen does not own any of the land bordering this property. However, the property to the north, east, and south is within the city limits of Chanhassen. 4 . Section 14 . The area calculations are biased by the inclusion of large areas which could be developed in the future. If these calculations are upheld, then no further development of Arbor Park 3rd Addition should be permitted. The actual site appears to be only 18 . 9 acres as per Figure 5 . (NOTE: At the April 19, 1988 meeting, Reuter indicated that the building was to be turned such that there is no unused pro- perty to be resubdivided. This new information should have been in the EAW and provided to the public. ) 5 . Section 15 - "Describe the soils on the site, . . . " . ' A site visit, the USGS map in Figure 4 and the site topography map indicate that small wetlands exist within the proposed area of construction. The wetland at the north end of the proposed fermentation hanger appears to be an ancient pond or lake and the soil appears to be peat. ' 6 . Section 16. Peat soils should also be listed and discussed as they relate ' to the small areas in the northeast corner. -2- 7 . Section 17. The existence of the wetlands in the northeast corner and to the east of the site indicates that a perched aquifer exists ' which probably discharges to the east into Chanhassen. This ground water is probably shallower than 20 feet deep. ' 8 . Section 19. The existing drainage on the northeast corner of the site is to the east. The proposed project shows the redirection of ' the drainage to the south. The effects of the diversion on the wetlands to the east in Chanhassen must be fully investi- gated. (NOTE: The turning of the building, as discussed at the April 19, 1988 meeting, may have solved this problem. However, this should be documented in the EAW. ) ' 9 . Section 21. This section is in contradiction to Section 19 . 10 . Section 27. Industrial wastewater is generated. However, it is reused ' within the facility. The reuse of the wastewater should be discussed in this section. This discussion should include how much is reused, how much storage is provided, what measures are taken to prevent the accidental discharge of ' this wastewater and the environmental consequences of an accidental discharge. What is the consequence of a water pipe break or fire sprinkler discharge? ' 11 . Section 23. Air pollution will be generated by the truck traffic and should be discussed. ' 12 . Section 23 .b. 1 ) . ' The construction activities in the northeast corner of the project is the closest to nearby residences and is currently untilled soil. The effects of the work in the northeast ' area on dust exposure to the nearby property should be discussed and evaluated. 13 . Section 23 .b. 2 ) . 1 Dust generated during maintenance of the earth filter should be discussed and evaluated. ' 14 . Section 23 .c. 1 ) . Add chain saws and wood chippers to the list of noise ' sources . -3- II What noise abatement efforts will be used during construction? Suggestion: No construction before 7 : 00 a.m. of after 6 : 00 p.m. or on weekends. 15 . Section 23 .c. 2 ) . What hours will the delivery trucks be operating? With up to 20 hours per day of operation, this location in the industrial park is unacceptable to the adjacent residences for late night diesel truck operation. The entire facility should be moved to the west side of the proposed site to minimize the effects on the nearby residences . This issue is not adequately discussed. 16. Section 23.c. 1) . ' Fan noise should be estimated and discussed. 17. Section 23 .d. 1) . ' Odors are less offensive to industrial sites than to residen- tial sites. By placing the proposed facility as close as possible to the residential properties the proposer is showing a blatant disregard for the residences to the east and north. The location of the proposed facility should be moved to the west boundary of the proposed site to minimize the effects on the residences . 18 . Section 23 .d. , A description of the " . . .air purification system in the com- post hanger" should be included. If this system is the earth filter then it should be stated as such. 19 . Section 23 .d. 1 ) . How long will the replacement of the earth filter media take and what are the odor emission levels during this time period? If the earth filter becomes prematurely ineffective, there could be an extended period of time of unacceptable odor emissions while the 20 , 000 cubic feet of filtering material is ordered and received. 20 . Section 23 .d. 2 ) . Describe odor abatement practices in the receiving and pro- , cessing area. Is there any exhaust ventilation and filtration? Where is rejected material stored, loaded and what odor control is proposed for this area? 21. Section 24. Will the separation process concentrate heavy metals to the point that they exceed co-disposal or hazardous waste stan- dards and are therefore restricted from landfilling? -4- ' 22. Section 25. The northeast corner of this property is currently exten- sively used by deer and other animals as a habitat. 23. Section 26. ' The " . . .attached letter from the Minnesota Historical Society" is not included in the list of attachments or included in the attachments . 24. Section 26. Recent archaeological investigations in eastern Carver County ' have disclosed several prior undisclosed potential ancient indian sites . The northeast corner of this proposed site contains wetlands and forest areas which are prime sites for ' archaeological investigation. An actual archaeological investigation should be performed on this site prior to a decision on the EAW. 25. Section 27. I would classify the northeast corner of this site as an eco- logically sensitive and scenic view. The destruction of this area will result in a loss of a singularly beautiful site, which in my opinion should be preserved as parkland for the employees at the business park and area residents . 26 . Summary of Issues. ' The Summary of Issues section does not address the fact that further study of the incoming preprocessed waste should be performed prior to a decision on the EAW. The stormwater drainage diversion proposed could have an adverse affect on the wetlands in Chanhassen. These wetland issues should be addressed prior to a decision on the EAW. ' The many issues associated with the location of the proposed facility as it relates to the nearby residences should be ' considered prior to a decision on the EAW. The impact on the potential archaeological sites , scenic view, wildlife habitat, and wetlands in the northeast corner ' of the property should be further studied prior to a decision on the EAW. ' Finally, the updated site plans should be provided to the public prior to a decision on the EAW. -5- II I therefore ask that the Metropolitan Council find that the EAW is incomplete, require that the proposer and Council staff pro- vide additional information and additional study and that a revised EAW be issued for comment. I do not believe that ade- quate information exists for a Finding Of No Significant Impact or to require an Environmental Impact Statement. Jay E. Johnson, P.E. , C. I.H. ' 1 1 1 -6- II v ' ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) MARK APPROPRIATE EAW: X REGULAR EAW SCOPING EAW NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the information and ' suggest issues for investigation in the EIS. Such comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (Metro: 612/296-8253; Non-metro: 1-800-652-9747, ask for environmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends. 1. Project Name: REUTER, INC. ; SOLID WASTE COMPOST PLANT 2. Proposer: REUTER, INC. 3. RGU: Metropolitan Council Contact Person: Katy Boone 300 Metro Square Bldg. St. Paul, MN 55101 Address: Reuter, Inc. Contact Person: 410 11th Avenue S. John Rafferty Hopkins, MN 55343 (612) 291-6459 (612) 935-6921 4. Project Location : City of Chaska, Arbor Park, 3rd Addition, Section 16, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, MN. (See Figure 1 in Attachment A). 5. Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary) . ' Reuter, Inc. is proposing to build, own and operate a 300 ton per day (TPD) preprocessed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting facility in Chaska's Arbor Industrial Park. Reuter is proposing a composting facility which would process the compostable material separated from refuse derived fuel (RDF) processing facilities. The proposer has indicated that the materials received for composting would be preprocessed at facilities operated by Reuter, Inc. , and that the proposer does not plan on accepting solid waste that has not been preprocessed with the possible exception of source-separated yard waste. The proposer has indicated that the compostable preprocessed waste would be obtained from the Reuter RDF 11 facility located in the City of Eden Prairie. The currently permitted capacity of the Eden Prairie RDF facility, owned by the proposer, is 400 TPD of solid waste. The maximum compostable fraction preprocessed and separated at the RDF facility is 120 TPD when the Eden Prairie RDF facility is operating at its 400 TPD permitted capacity. The Eden Prairie RDF facility is currently operating in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and under Minnesota Pollution Control Agency permit. The compostable fraction currently separated is being landfilled and the I II proposed composting facility represents an additional landfill reduction and recycling effort. The Metropolitan Council has completed an EAW on a proposed expansion of processing at the Eden Prairie RDF facility and the proposer is expected to seek approval from regulatory agencies and the City of Eden Prairie to process 800 tons per day of solid waste and hence, generate a maximum of 240 tons per day of the compostable fraction. The proposer has indicated that the composting facility would process the 240 tons per day of compostable material in late 1989 or early in 1990 if the additional tonnage becomes available and the composting facility is on-line and fully operational. The proposer has indicated that construction of the proposed facility is not dependent on the proposers Eden Prairie facility being expanded to 800 tons per day. The remainder of the project description section will be divided into the following topics for ease of analysis: o Process description o Facility capacity o Compostable materials o Product and waste stream o Product and waste stream disposition Process Description The waste to be processed at the facility will arrive in covered transport vehicles that will be directed to deposit the preprocessed waste on the tipping floor of the facility. The tipping floor will be enclosed and can accommodate three trucks at a time. The tipping floor has storage capacity for a minimum of 100 tons of waste prior to processing. The proposer has indicated that preprocessed waste produced at RDF facilities could be directed to a landfill in the event of composting plant shutdown. The waste on the tipping floor will be placed on a conveyer by a front end loader and transported to the processing area. The proposed processing area consists of one processing line. The waste enters a mixing drum in the processing area where water will be added, the material mixed to insure consistency and rejects present in the preprocessed waste will be removed. Mixing helps to ensure the correct moisture content of the waste and produces a homogeneus compost. The compost is transported to the fermentation building. The fermentation building is enclosed and includes an impervious concrete 11 surface constructed with aeration channels to provide oxygen for decomposition of the waste. The air leaving the compost hanger is directed to an earthen filter for odor removal. The building is enclosed for environmental and quality control purposes. The enclosed building helps to maintain the temperature of the compost piles, helps localize odors, and prevents leachate via precipitation. The compost piles are turned by a special windrow turner that is used to further mix the curing compost and add moisture as required to maintain I 2 • approximately 50 percent moisture in the compost. Moisture is released by the compost and some of the moisture condenses in the aeration system. Moisture from condensation and any leachate that may be generated will be collected and reused in wetting preprocessed waste to form compost. The windrows internal temperature exceeds 140 degrees Farenheit destroying most pathogenic organisms. Compost is expected to mature in 84 days. The mature compost would be retained in the compost hangar from the 84th to 90th day. The mature compost is no longer putrescible (liable to become putrid) and will not reheat upon storage. ' The mature compost is transferred to a screening drum which separates undesirable, non-organic particles larger than 10 mm. The screened compost is sent through a ballistic separator where small stones and glass ' fragments are removed. The air from the ballistic separator is drawn through a cyclone separator to remove dust prior to being discharged to the atmosphere. Figure 2 shows the flow diagram for the proposed composting facility. The proposer has indicated that the compost can be marketed in a semi- mature state which requires a minimum of 33 days of composting. The proposer has been approached by Compost Management, Inc. to assist in the development of markets for the compost product produced by the facility. The information on markets indicates that there is a variety of uses in horticulture and landscaping applications. The process description provided by the mechanical vendor in Attachment B. ' Facility Capacity ' The facility is designed and intended to be operated 16 hours per day for five and one half days per week. The processing capacity is limited by the capability of the processing equipment to process waste and the fermentation time required to produce mature compost within an enclosed ' building. The operation of the facility 16 hours in a day processes and prepares a maximum of 300 tons a day of compostable material for windrowing. The proposer has indicated that the facility is capable of ' operating 20 hours per day which would allow for the processing and windrowing of up to 375 tons per day of compostable material. At this maximum rate of input approximately 86 TPD of mature compost or 104 TPD of semi-mature compost could be produced. Compostable Materials ' The proposer has not analyzed the compostable fraction from the Eden Prairie RDF facility to determine the concentration of heavy metals or toxic organics in the preprocessed materials which the proposed facility would compost. The chemical composition of the compostable material and mature compost is a function of the actual incoming waste stream composition. However, the possibility exists for contaminants in the waste stream at the Eden Prairie RDF facility to endup in the preprocessed compostable waste stream which will be composted at the Chaska facility. The toxic materials contained in the finished solid waste compost from existing facilities in the United States and Europe have been reviewed by the University of Minnesota and are provided in Figures 4-6. 3 r I/ The Reuter Composting facility proposed design allows for processing of only pre-processed municipal solid waste (MSW) and/or yard waste. The material delivered to the composting facility will consist of the screening drum fine fraction (fines) and air classified heavy fraction (ACHF). The physical properties of each fraction are provided below. Fines Fraction Physical characteristics of the fine fraction is as follows: Size: Greater than 95 percent is minus 1 1/2" in size on a two dimensional basis. Composition: Mostly grass clippings, leaves, yard waste, food scraps, glass, dirt and sweepings. Some small pieces of paper, plastic, bottle caps, etc. are also known to be present. Percentage composition is presently unknown. I Moisture Content: Depending on season and current weather conditions, the moisture content is approximately 40 percent. Bulk Density: 15-25 lbs/cu. ft. Fines are also considered to be the portion of the waste stream generated at the Eden Prairie facility which is high in organic material and is best suited for use as a composting feedstock. Depending on the time of year, the fines will represent between 20-30 percent on a weight basis, of the Eden Prairie RDF facility's incoming waste stream. Air Classified Heavy Fraction (ACHF) , Approximate components on a weight basis of ACHF are as follows: Food: 10.0% - Wood: 8.5% Yard Waste: 8.5% Metal: 8.0% Plastic: 7.0% Textiles/Rubber: 7.0% Disposable Diapers: 10.0% Paper: 17.0% Miscellaneous: 24.0% TOTAL 100.0% I The miscellaneous component consisted of small material; (minus 1" in size) mostly dirt, sweepings, glass, stones and organic material in the beginning stages of decomposition. Other physical characteristics are: I Size: 95% minus 8" on a two dimensional basis Moisture Content: Approximately 25% Bulk Density: 15-20 lbs/cu. ft. tProduct and Waste Streams ' The mass balance for the proposed composting operation is provided in Table 1 . The information indicates that of the original, nominal 300 tons of preprocessed waste to be received at the facility per day, 162 TPD will be landfilled; 68 TPD of mature compost product produced; and 70 TPD ' will be lost via carbon dioxide and water volatilization. Much of the water added during the composting process, equal to 146 tons per day, will also be lost to evaporation. The mature compost product will have a ' moisture content of between 30 and 45 percent and represent 23 percent of the mass processed at the facility. The proposer intends to produce a Class I. compost according to MPCA draft rules, which has the lowest levels of any contaminants of solid waste compost classifications and is permitted for "unrestricted use". The University of Minnesota has collected information pertaining to solid waste ' compost quality. Table 2 shows the chemical composition and heavy metal contaminants present in finished composts from Europe, Japan, and the United States. The information shows that some samples of compost exceed MPCA proposed Class I standards for unrestricted use for one or more of the following elements: zinc, copper, cadmium, lead, mercury, and nickel. The occurrences of the exceedance of proposed standards cannot be determined from the available data, however, the extent of heavy metal contamination ' in finished composts suggests that routine monitoring of compost heavy metal composition is necessary. The proposer has indicated that a compost monitoring plan will be submitted to the MPCA as part of the solid waste facility permit application. Heavy metals may be present in screened materials from the composting ' operation. Small batteries and other contaminants not decomposed in the composting process may be present in the materials landfilled by the proposed facility. No data currently exists on the concentration of heavy metals present in screened materials that would be produced by the proposed facility and ultimately landfilled. The compostable material as well as screened rejects are part of a solid waste stream which is currently being landfilled in accordance with Minnesota Statutes. Tables 3 and 4 show the concentrations of select toxic organics in finished solid waste compost reported in a University of Minnesota study. Specific standards for the organics identified are not available. The data in Table 5 indicates that the composting process reduces the concentration of toxic organics in finished compost. Product and Waste Stream Disposition The proposer has indicated that it has been approached by two firms that wish to market the compost product. The proposer anticipates entering into a contract with a compost marketing company to purchase the finished compost. The proposed facility is capable of retaining compostable material from initial formation of a windrow for a period of 90 days. ' The proposer intends to dispose of 54 percent of the incoming preprocessed waste stream in landfills. The chemical composition of the material to be ' disposed of will be tested and monitored by the proposer as part of the solid waste facility permit. 5 II Table 1 II MASS BALANCE FOR THE PROPOSED COMPOSTING FACILITY II Mass Mass Dry Matter H2O H2O Percent TPD TPD TPD Percent Refuse Input II - Fines 118 176 114 62 70 I - ACHF 82 120 96 24 40 Input to II ZST mixing drum 200 296 210 66 58 - Water addition 48 70 0 70 200 II - Screen rejects 64 96 82 14 30 II Raw Compost 182 270 128 142 106 - Water added II during fermentation 52 76 0 76 200 - Fermentation losses 144 212 34 178 168 II Mature Compost Before II Fine Treatment 90 134 94 40 60 - Sieve reject greater II than 10 mm 40 60 44 16 50 - Glass/Stones 4 6 6 0 0 II Fine Compost less II than 10 mm 46 68 44 24 70 Note: II 1. Above values are approximate only. II 2. Amounts stated are in U.S. (short) tons per day. Source: Buhler-Miag, Inc. Sales Contract, 1987 II II 6 II II II Table 2 CHEMICAL COMPOSITIONS OF COMPOSTS AND PROPOSED MPCA STANDARDS IComposts MPCA Class I Constituent Low High Standards (proposed) II (mg/kg) (mg/kg) C 9.9 40.0 N 0. 1 2.9 II P <0.1 1.2 K <0. 1 2.6 Ca 0.5 15.3 IS Mg <0. 1 5.9 0.2 0.6 NA 0. 1 0.8 Fe 1250 16500 I Zn Cu 76 10000 (4000 1000 12 4300 (2800) 500 Mn 120 1300 I Cd <0.1 100 10 As 0. 1 16 Cr 1.5 500 1000 Pb 1 .3 5300 ( 1570) 1000 II Hg <0.1 17 ( 7) 5 Ni 0.8 450 ( 300) 100 B <0.1 321 II I 1. The values in parenthesis are for the second highest concentrations in Tables 1 through 4. II Source: Characteristics of solid waste composts and co-composts affecting their use as soil amendments, University of Minnesota, 1986. I I II II II II 1 I Table 3 ' Approximate1average concentrations of four to six ring polyaromatic hydrocarbons in fresh and ripe composts (93). Compost Compound Fresh Ripe mg/kg benz(a) anthracene/chrysene 15.5 5.1 benz(b/j/k) fluoranthenes 11.0 5.5 benzo(e) pyrene 5.7 2.9 benzo(a) pyrene 4.0 1.8 perylene 0.8 0.4 dibenz(aj) anthracene 1.2 0.7 indeno (1 ,2,3-cd) pyrene 3.4 1.9 dibenz (ab/ac) anthracenes 1.0 0.7 benzo(ghi) perylane 3.2 1.8 1 Values estimated from bar graph , Source: Characteristics of solid waste composts and co-composts affecting their use as soil amendments, University of Minnesota, 1986. I 1 r 8 11 IITable 4 ITable 6. Pesticide levels in two composts from different sources (90). Parameter Aerobically digested Windrowed mg/kg IILindane nd5 0.08 Heptachlor nd 0.04 I PCB 0.32 0.41 Metoxyehlor 0.07 nd DDD 0.08 0.17 DDE3 nd 0.03 1 DDT4 0.15 nd Dieldrin 0.04 0.08 II 1 Polychlorinated biphenyl 2 1,1-dichloro -2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl) ethane I 3 dichloro diphenyl dichloroethylene 4 dichloro diphenyl trichloroethane 5 not detected IISource: Characteristics of solid waste composts and co-composts affecting their use as soil amendments, University of Minnesota, 1986. 1 II II II II II II II I9 - 11111 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 11111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • Table 5 List of all known Local, State and Federal Permits & Approvals Required for the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Composting Facility to be Located at Chaska, MN. LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRED TYPE STATUS 1. Local - City of Chaska Building Permit Permit To be Applied For 2. Local - City of Chaska Site Plan & Bldg. Plan Review Approval To be Applied For 3. Local - City of Chaska Storm Water Runoff Plan Review Approval To Be Applied For 4. local - City of Chaska Sanitary Sewer Hookup Approval To Be Applied For 5. Local - City of Chaska Municipal Water Hookup Approval To Be Applied For 6. local - City of Chaska Tax Increment Financing District Approval/ To Be Applied For • Bonding 0 7. County - Carver Solid Waste Facility License To Be Applied For �' 8. State - MEQB EAW Review (Met. Council RGU) Approval* Filed 2/22/88 9. State - MPCA Solid Waste Facility Permit* To Be Applied For 10. State - Historical Society Site Investigation Review Filed 2/18/88 11. State MOOT Driveway Access Permit To Be Applied For 12. State - MDOA Building Plan Review Approval To Be Applied For • 13. State - Dept. of Health Plan Review Plumbing Approval To Be Applied For * NOTE: All units of government listed along with any other interested parties have a right to review the EAW and Solid Waste Facility Application when filed and comment on any areas of concern during the published 30-day review and comment period. • • 6. Reason for EAW Preparation: Minnesota rules 4100.4300 subpart 17D. Construction of a resource recovery facility for 100 or more tons per day input is in the mandatory EAW category. For projects in the Metropolitan Area the Metropolitan Council has been designated to be the responsible governmental unit to complete the ' environmental review. 7. Estimated Construction Cost: $10 million 8. Total Project Area: Approximately 40 acres 9. Industrial Square Footage: ' Approximately 184,000 square feet of structures, divided as follows: 1)Process building 22,000 square feet 2)Compost hangar 158,000 square feet ' 3)Misc. (scale house, fan enclosure) 4,000 square feet Paved surfaces are estimated at approximately 90,000 square feet, made up of an access road (approximately 25,000 square feet) and parking, truck turning, and runoff control surfaces (approximately 65,000 square feet). 10. Number of proposed parking spaces: 15 (10 employees, five visitors) 11 . List all known local, state, and federal permits/approvals/funding ' required. See Table 5 12. Is the proposed project inconsistent with any: a) Adopted land use ordinances? No b) Adopted comprehensive land use plans? No c) State or Federal resource management plans? No 13. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site. The proposed site is within an existing and partially developed industrial park within the City of Chaska. The site is zoned industrial and is also within the City's established tax increment district for commercial/industrial development. The site has historically been used for agricultural - small grain production and is bounded on the north, east and south by primarily agricultural use land owned by the City of Chanhassen and on the west by Arbor Industrial Park development which also has a past agricultural land use orientation. Several rural residential/farm dwellings are located to the east and southeast of the site at a distance of approximately 1000 feet. I I 1 11 14. Approximately what percentage of the site is in each of the following I categories? (Percentages should total to 100% before and after construction). Before After I Forest/Wooded 18% 15% Cropland 60% 53% Brush/grassland 20% 13% Wetland (types 3-8) 2% 2% Impervious surface 0% 5% Turf/planted 0% 2% Structures 0% 10% Total 100.00% 100.00% 15. Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, 1 if known. The proposed project site contains SCS soil classification types HaB, HaC, HaC2, HaD and Ge described as follows: HaB - Hayden loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes HaC - Hayden loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes HaC2 - Hayden loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes, eroded HaD - Hayden loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Ge — Glencoe silty clay loam The Hayden series predominates and consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in friable, limy clay loam or loam glacial till. These soils are extensive in this country. The slopes are undulating to steep, and the topography is morainic. The original vegetation consisted of deciduous hardwoods. The surface layer is black, friable loam. It is about two inches thick, has moderate granular structure, and is slightly acid. The subsurface layer, about seven inches thick, also is friable loam. This I layer is medium acid. The upper part is very dark gray and has platy structure. The lower part is very dark grayish brown and has weak blocky structure. The subsoil is about 25 inches thick and is medium acid. The uppermost part is dark-brown, friable loam that has moderate blocky structure and is medium acid. There are grayish, dusty, silica coatings on the blocks. The middle part is dark brown, firm clay loam that has moderate blocky structure. This part grades to dark yellowish-brown clay films and organic films on the blocks. The lowermost part is light olive-brown, massive clay loam that has very dark grayish-brown organic stains. The underlying material is light olive-brown, friable loam glacial till. It is limy and massive. There are streaks of light brownish-gray lime, very dark grayish-brown organic stains, and a few reddish-orange iron stains. Natural fertility is moderate. The organic-matter content is low. Runoff is medium to rapid, depending on the slope. Permeability is moderate, and the moisture-storage capacity is moderately high. I 12 1 I ' Most of the acreage is either cultivated or pastured. A few areas are wooded. The less sloping soils are suited to all of the common crops. The steeper soils are subject to severe erosion and are used mainly for hay and pasture. The soil survey map is in Attachment A. ' 16. Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? If yes, show on site map and explain: Yes - erodible soils...the HaC2 is subject to erosion, however, site grading to a one percent slope and storm water runoff control would prevent soil erosion. 17. What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: a) groundwater over 20 feet b) bedrock over 200 feet (City of Chaska) ' 18. Does any part of the project area involve: a) shoreland zoning district? X NO YES b) delineated 100 year flood plain? X NO — YES c) state or federally designated river X NO YES land use district? If yes, identify water body and applicable state classification(s), and describe measures to protect water and related land resources. ' 19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g. dikes, excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any drainage system, lake stream, and/or wetland. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged and indicate where spoils will be deposited. Physical alteration of existing drainage system is not required or P lanned. ' 20. Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes, explain (indicate quantity and source) : No ' City water will be available on the site. 21 . Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after construction of the project. Standard and accepted erosion control practices required by the City of Chaska and the State of Minnesota will be followed during and after construction. This will include a stormwater collection and control system tied into the industrial park's stormwater drainage system. 22. Will the project generate: a) surface and stormwater runoff? NO X YES b) sanitary wastewater? NO X YES c) industrial wastewater? X NO _ YES d) cooling water (contact and noncontact)? X NO YES 1 13 r If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage) , and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. a. Stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces will be collected and directed to the City's stormwater drainage system designed to handle stormwater runoff for the entire industrial park. Based on the average annual precipitation of 26.36 inches for this area and 6.3 acres of impervious surface associated with the composting facility, stormwater runoff volume is expected to be 4.5 million gallons annually. i b. About 200-300 GPD (gallons per day) of sanitary wastewater will be generated by 10 employees and visitors at 20 gallons per person per day and discharged to the city's sanitary sewer system. c. The compost process will use a maximum of 40,000 gallons of water per day for moisture adjustment. It is planned that any leachate will be collected and reused in the process. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts 11 of the discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide percolation/permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available. 23. Will the project generate (either during or after construction) : a) Air pollution? X NO YES b) Dust? NO X YES c) Noise? _ NO X YES d) Odors? _ NO X YES If yes, explain; including as appropriate: distance to sensitive land uses; expected levels and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile sources, and fugitive emissions (dust) ; odor sources; and mitigative measures for any impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates. b) Dust: 1) During construction: ' Dust will be generated during the site grading and site preparation process. Expected levels of dust generated will be similar to the agricultural discing and planting currently experienced and tolerated in the general area of the site. Site preparation work should be completed within a month following groudbreaking. No special measures are planned for dust control during site preparation. 2) During operation: Some dust will be generated during the composting process, particularly during compostable material unloading, fine treatment screening and loading. These activities will be carried outinside buildings equipped with a cyclone separator and ventilation system. 14 r r II c) Noise: 1) During construction: Noise is expected during the five to six month construction period. The nearest sensitive receptor (single family I residential) is located approximately 1000 feet from the project site. The following equipment is expected to be utilized during construction with associated noise levels as indicated. IOutdoor Indoor dba dba dba I 50 ft. 1000 ft. 1000 ft. Graders 85 59 39 Backhoes 83 57 37 II Trucks (general) 88 62 42 Tracked Earthmovers 88 62 42 Cement Trucks 81 55 35 Cranes 82 56 36 II Pavers 88 62 42 Generators 79 53 33 Compactors 73 47 27 1 Source: U.S. EPA Doc 155019-74-004 2) During Operation: IThe process building contains equipment that will generate noise at an estimated 82 db at the source. However, this equipment will be enclosed in a structure constructed of 1 precast, double "T" concrete panels which will attenuate process generated noise to the point that it will be virtually inaudible from the outside of the building. This I has been our experience at our Eden Prairie facility of similar construction and greater decibel level. Operational noise is the fermentation hangar will be limited Ito a single windrow turning machine. This machine has a single six cylinder diesel engine and resembles both in appearance and noise generation a small grain harvesting I machine common to this area for the picking of barley or oats. Again, noise attenuated by the concrete building enclosure. IIMechanical equipment for processing the solid waste is the primary source of noise generation within the facility. With the proposed Reuter system, all process machinery will I be located in enclosed buildings with the exception of a belt conveyor which runs between the process building and the fermentation hangar. Operational noise generation will I thus be largely confined to delivery and pickup vehicles and an end loader when it is in the yard. Such noise is anticipated in an industrial park although this project can be considered a minor generator. IId) Odors: 1) No waste disposal method or solid waste recycling and processing facility exists which operates without odor. In II a solid waste processing and composting operation, the majority of the odors are generated in the receiving and 1 15 fermentation areas. Aerobic decomposition of organic ' material, produces less objectionable odors. The proposed aerated windrow method of composting insures that aerobic conditions will be maintained to the greatest extent possible, thus reducing odors. To accomplish this, the fermentation hangar floor is equipped with a series of air channels on to which the compost is stacked. Air is drawn down through the compost pile into the channel by a fan in the middle rows. As a precaution, the exhausted air is passed through a biological filter to remove odors (earth filter) prior to atmospheric discharge. The earth filter is used for removal of odorous compounds from the interior windrows in the compost hangar prior to discharging the process air to the atmosphere. The physical dimension of the earth filter is 4,000 square feet of filter area with a bed depth of approximately five feet for a total filter volume of 20,000 cubic feet. The length/width dimensions are not critical and are usually determined based on site constraints. The filter media is a composition of various components. Buhler-Miag recommends a composition of compost, fiberous peat and wood shreddings at a mixture of 11 20 percent, 40 percent and 40 percent respectively. The filter media sits atop a bed of gravel in which perforated PVC pipe network is placed. The used air from the composting process passes through the ductwork and into the filter media. Routine maintenance would consist of monitoring of moisture levels in the filter and inspection for cracks/crevices or holes in the filter. Depending on operating condtions, local weather conditions and the actual mixture of components used in the filter the earth filter should provide service for at least one year after which time the filter media would be replaced. Turning of the windrow piles at periodic intervals also helps to "fluff up" and aid the passage of air through the pile to maintain aerobic conditions. In the outer windrows, air is blown up through the piles to maintain an oxygen supply. At this stage, the operation odor levels are minimal. Odor control measures have been designed which will include an enclosedtipping area, two to three day waste turnover and an air purification system in the compost hangar. 2) Proper plant operation procedures and housekeeping in the receiving area will also minimize odor generation. The proposed facility will have a smooth concrete floor for tipping of compostable material. Plant personnel shall inspect the floor for residue and clean by sweeping or washing, as necessary, on a regular daily basis. 3) In the fermentation hangar, conditions are maintained for the biological decomposition and stabilization of the organic matter in the refuse. Generally speaking, there are two types of processes: aerobic and anaerobic. When organic material is decomposed in the presence of oxygen, the process is aerobic. When oxygen is deficient, the process is called anaerobic. 1 16 1 1 II24. Describe the type and amount of solid and/or hazardous waste including sludges and ashes that will be generated and the method and location of disposal: II Solid waste will be generated at this facility when nonprocessible waste is separated from the compostable material and when the compost product is I screened and separated. Waste that would be landfilled is estimated at 54 percent or an estimated 162 tons per day. This will be transported from the facility by truck to a landfill. The material will consist of rocks, I plastic, wood products, small pieces of aluminum and textiles. The material may contain heavy metal contaminants from material found in the original waste stream. The preprocessed waste to be processed at the II facility is currently disposed under MPCA. rules in sanitary landfills. The heavy metals found in the reject stream from the proposed facility are currently being disposed of in the preprocessed waste. II25. Will the project affect: a) fish or wildlife habitat, or movement of X NO YES animals? IIb) any native species that are officially X NO YES listed as state endangered, threatened, or of special concern (animals and/or Iplants)? 26. Do any historical archaeological or architectural resources exist on or Inear the project site? X NO — YES ISee attached letter from Minnesota Historical Society. 27. Will the project cause the impairment or destruction of: IIa) designated park or recreation areas? X NO _ YES b) prime or unique farmlands? X NO _ YES c) ecologically sensitive areas? X NO — YES d) scenic views and vistas? X NO YES e) other unique resources (specify)? X NO _ YES If yes, explain: II28. For each affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT) , increase in ADT contributed by the project and the directional Idistributions of traffic. The proposed project will generate an estimated maximum 20 trucks per day I (40 ADT) between Reuter's Eden Prairie dRDF facility and the Chaska industrial park site just south of State Highway 5 on State Highway 41 . The routing of truck traffic will be from the Eden Prairie dRDF plant west Ion Hennepin County 62 one mile to Interstate 414 south, approximately two miles to State Highway 5 west, approximately eight miles to State Highway 41 south, approximately one-half mile to Chaska's Arbor Industrial Park off II of West 82nd Street. 17 II t State Highway 5 is in the process of being upgraded between 1494 and State Highway 41 from a nine ton to a 10 ton road. The upgrading will include shoulder widening and an overlay with work to be completed in about a year. Additional traffic information is given below as provided by MnDOT. ' ADT Design Cap. Co. 62 7400 2000 vehicles/hr/2 lanes 1 494 51,700 2000 vehicles/hr/2 lanes Hwy 5 12,500-31 ,100 2000 vehicles/hr/2 lanes Hwy 41 9600 2000 vehicles/hr/2 lanes According to MnDOT, the increased traffic. generated by the proposed project will not represent a significant problem on any of the affected roads, particularly after State Highway 5 is upgraded. Traffic generated by the movement of finished product is estimated at five vehicles per day (10 ADT) moving either south on State Highway 41 or east on State Highway 5. Traffic generated by employees and visitors is expected to be 15 vehicles per day (30 ADT) with one-half coming from and returning south on State Highway 41 and one-half following the same basic route as the truck traffic originating at the Eden Prairie dRDF facililty. , Material rejected at the composting facility will be removed by the same transfer trailers delivering the compostable material and transported to a landfill for disposal. The route will likely be State Highway 41 south to State Highway 212 west to U.S. Highway 169 west of Shakopee. Two to three trucks per day will transport rejected material to a landfill. 29. Are adequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? Yes a) Utilities are not yet on site, but are in close proximity to the proposed site and readily accessible. Sewer, water, stormwater drainage, electricity and primary access road will be provided by the City of Chaska. Summary of Issues: ' The proposer has indicated that the proposed facility will accept only preprocessed waste (residuals) from the Eden Prairie RDF facility. ' The composition of the finished compost and the screened materials requiring disposal produced by the proposed facility have not been chemically characterized with respect to the composition of toxic organics and heavy metals present in waste. The information presented in the EAW suggests that the compost produced by the proposed facility will meet the proposed Minnesota Pollution Control (MPCA) Agency Class I compost standards. The proposer has indicated that an analysis plan for the compost will be required in a MPCA permit. The analysis plan for the compost will include a plan for the monitoring of the materials which will require disposal. , 18 , I The proposer has indicated that the finished compost should not contain pathogens which may lead to soil borne infections. The testing program for the compost should monitor pathogens to assure destruction of the orgnisms in the ' composting process. The proposer has indicated that a firm has expressed interest in marketing the compost produced by the proposed facility. If markets are seasonal the facility or marketer will be required to provide storage for finished compost in excess of the six day storage currently identified by the proposer. The facility relies on an earthen filter to control odors that may be produced in the facility. The characterization of the odors that may be produced by the facility has not been discussed in the materials available for completing the EAW. The actual design and effectiveness of the odor contol system proposed has not been assessed and will require further investigation in relationship to the permit to be issued by the MPCA. Observation by Council Members and Council staff at composting facilities confirm that the nature of odors from ' solid waste composting facilities are generally not offensive. r CERTIFICATION BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT rI hereby certify that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that copies of the completed EAW have been made available to all points on the official EQB distribution list. Signature Date /IA Gr c,L a s 1 Q Fsg r Title TrC, .r P\ a•■,.a.r- 1 JR142C/PROTX4 r r r r r r r19 r LIST OF ATTACHMENTS ' A. SITE INFORMATION o General Location Map o Land Use/Industrial Park Map o Arbor Industrial Park Layout o USGS 7.5 min. , 1:24000 Scale Map o Site Plan o Soil Survey Map B. PROCESS INFORMATION ' o Process Flow o Leachate Collection System o Process Description o Mass Balance C. PERMITS o List of Permits Required D. REUTER COMPOSTING PROJECT FACT SHEET ' JR142C/PROTX4 @6 r r r 1 20 r I 1 I I ISOH IN �` 0 IN , V I 100uW .eo.nos dgW esa8 IS NINO v373 w w, SS/n03,7001 / ^y 1 +nik2 ..eiL 1 I I• umi • �� - �1 I f _410 , -A1111111ftri■-a p� 71. v� • j +± Imo /toe I - + 7MYOSl IM >INSI DI N ( I r••• _ I ` I J[ I 1 , x et,, ,.. ill VMSYHO «.. MN 1e. J IC I 1SfTMI IS t -�j f -.)- J) t m 311S JNIISOdWOO r— ,�,��, �, erh 1 a in - a3SOdOad P I I NSfft•rrl.. t .� t dlaoiain I 4, I S ` ^ / \ i I' 1 'w1 • + r•w t� �•w ..., ./' III I - 1 ----77.,■ t +' • �;I � I Mme uaNne• t I wee. / -� / \..�It '+;;�I'fi J f• d ter.. - •r_ -/� •' 1 �'� /7 I dVV\ NOI1VOO1 1bdEN F I I I Figure 2 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING LAND USE I tort 7. te 'i`t. 1-,.1 .:, 17 • " -Ilk i).444_ ; V ■ -;:,' ---,-1--*---" `-,-'"--, -.. Y7�.." p l 17. c } .t' v I!a . . X7 � 4,, •'ir `,7 •� k ' '+ ` 1, 7'; i� 'n or' ;y � k...IA,. _ . r 'XVSilt. �� :" Agui al/ opos.ed 4. IT �- I E S E -N ac and • • - •,M . -6 t �0. - L _ __ - •J9 ;4, yr '! 1 iri- �. '� , !.t . , 'yak . .f,k , • i- - _ =+i�.tai`- , ._ ---T-- - - •-. i r- ,\t I I, •-, .N .', , -,. - -; - ..- . .... ,....-„,:/it,, .i4,S, ,..,....-__ .._4. - .,. - , -41.:.*... - 4." ' a:.'i. ::". ...v.:. L..1. ,: . .:, , :...1,z '=:::',0.„4.:V t. ...:.,.:,,,1. ,,--.;4..c.v.,'.,:: . :1'1'.-Y7'.. ii.....: :41'.....5z1,:,.'2.1.,)1.7:.:4' ....r..:.,,,,,rt.;;:tf." :•_.;.:Sir.,I4. ..:..., 2\.: - I f--lam•_ ••'- - •.J • - /" II • tf �- .f. ' //1_';- -. - - . ,� iyt r, - . . . .Source: 1984 Aerial Photograph I f1 0 0.5 N 1 Mile I 22 I £Z I I I I W I I 1 5.0 0 8 1- •Q�l •03 out �I;ned :eoinoS oiydaj0 I � u I 1r I = n z I yr, Z I -1 bbd ,. tig;;;:;;;;;;;?:::::;;;;:;0‘.31:7:71..1 11.1.1,.•.•1.11•.11.111111111 A I •111.11.1111 111111111111111 }11,11.111111111111111111 0♦ •1.1.111••111.1.• 11.1.H1H•NN•H1N .N�1.11 : •,1111111111111111111•I.•ii:.:•:�: :: 11.............1.....111.1 �• •ii��: 1::1::•i 0�:i::ii0•i• Z •111.1.1' p 5 � 1.•.. • 1••11•••1 £ N•1• � 11.111.11 •.111.1•. .. 1.1.11111,...:.::: .../.••.•...11..1. 1 •:�1• :�••:�L•1.1:••::: �11•�11::::it:111:111:11 1 •1; Z OO • 11 m 11•::.:111. ± : . ..1 O 2 )•11111 ...,.....,. .........1..1,., .,.1 z• ..k-11.:.1.••1••1•• : 1.•1.1.• •111 I •..,•.••..� 1111• ..... 1..••..N1N�HNN 1 � •1••.11 •111, :: •:•i•::••••::O:.:� .1••••1111•.•:•.::: ::•1::::::s:'s ❖:s•:❖:;, eb........•. .......1.........1....... 6. _._._ _ •---ts�Ts N3SSVNNVIO .1 S Q N z 8 I yddd 1V!dJ na(\ I I > Vd �1O8� b' aSOdQd � IH LIM NCIJVQO� �11S 1 eJnbi I I I Figure 4 TOPOGRAPHY IN THE VICINITY OF PROPOSED SITE 1 F - v _ 1 �.' .u� ` v im , � • C I \�' li_ I .. /0� ,-- - 990, _ 1 i•= — J/• -' ��\ =ri Jam_ - O I I `( r 973- _`��, _ --. %` 0 ° --w. ))�-yr ter- - ` ._-�/ . l t I cJi _ '-"� V \J 1 � .%_�\"-_ _ �� _ .6 a"_-. - ,Town.hip f `�_ ��/0 of rQw,f Hra1L' Ir irir 7 _ w_ Cem � 15 5 of 7. ��/ G 0 '�'�V - i A. ✓ , `-950~�`\�1 . ......s\ =*--0 ----I I,/ ._„____,./.. /), --_-:',-,1' cj ,..:,,,,,i))C.,,.-- _..,,_.,ccrpl,„j;,,,,--:.,„:,-. ,7-------\..j-:,%_._-,k -:-.' ---------,,:„„? /,---7--411/' '' I !1 '1 i\.\,� :,_ - r _�i .e„-.�;. -H \ A _ s� o Vi •bp-—1'11_7_-_-_---,_:__,--J, -6\• _ I� `1 ,•,� _ , ! r'4\,; so= , (• I I- -;"--/ , --4'f116- 3 tw- :r..-----01 k - r'_I�-i' P :H?;; i� /;'.-_- ' '-' ✓- 1j -:.��' -7927 -r- _ I • - � , •-, - tine 6`Lake_ ” '� ltin _. :-:' -. 4. 9/5 • - 4 . I ___..pr- ,,,,,,,ft , ....... - ,. .__ - I '''.1‘,...);:::,::::::.''..:":- .., ......... ........... :2' _ (---f----' .._ _ 0 ■ G) .---../ ) ,.... ,---_, ri, 1 Base Map Source: U.S.G.S. Shakopee quadrangle N 0 0.5 1 1 I Mile I I 24 1 IIIIII • i I ! I r MO ' MI • = N — I — — ! - — - laaJ N l■ii Li N 0001 0 •oul 'Jelned :eoJnoS ofydino it '--AHV9Nf108 - _ acs�� :•%,; \ 1 1 ` N. - 1 1? \-?ya - I ,.,:::::-:Ill:i ,..,.....„--;I.::: -::-*Baliralint.". . ...3.71 lit I _.):0.1 IiT 7.014).ye i i!rit_. 44-;#.,•i•1.4/ •■*N. 'I•4 _f.... iiiipr , 1111 . 1 7 --� \ 1 f , • -� � o.. r i• �� ��\ . . ', A-\___� r II 1' iii. ,• _, I� `, �.\\. , . 1 i 1 I` E* ILL � - \ \ ' /, \ (/ ; ✓(� 1 1, 1t (' _ . ----- 7--ss / r-) Y-�' ii ` ti� ...1,..\..K,1 \ 1':�•- )_�t I I` lam'-3,�'� 1 �\ �.__ ' • i \ _ 1 . -- L N 1 1 1 . .....,. - .� _ , /' , 1 (\( 1 , I \ - ` /' l I/, ,,.._.„. ,.._._..,,, ----... i' • - ' li �s .. r-� :•rr----s.-r. —r.- 1 r - _ _ :_ r: .z_ 1'11, \ - I sseg0-1p-f1t10 ---- - - -- -- = y AHdVHEDOdO1 Al IS g eJn8ld , 1 I Figure 6 CA-SITE SOILS 1 IC2 G t� S�'���� 1 ft ,_ o Pd , \ pm� 1 Q \McMa• 1 Ha a j1/4117, r I �a'�';� v �I '` ` ae \4,,......,.__sk ,1 •• .4ZII, i•-, . v!Ma9 aC . 17 1-11r...ar AI H' Iiirk !'� . , at 1 ,T Ir ,,...iMaD � tzi., (.,MaD (� MaF I MaD •f '`Q,1 k MM I 4114 * r— Go Atr.-,111,0 Tab : . K�Ta I Pm -�� l • 1 I� FME2 'L'- Pm J r►•,,,,,..„..„, �� � +;i , HaD M0.2 , _ /J�Ts Ott .4 pd Base Map Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Survey of Carver County N 0 0.5 i We ON-SITE SOILS INVENTORY 1 Approximate Area Symbol Name (acres) 1 Cw Cordova/Webster silty clay loam 1 Ge Glencoe silty clay loam 4 1 HaB Hayden loam, 2-6% slopes 3 HaC Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes 5 HaC2 Hayden loam, 6-12% slopes, eroded 6 HaD Hayden loam, 12-18% slopes 7 1 HaD2 Hayden loam, 12-18% sipoes, eroded 9 HcE3 Hayden clay loam, 18-25% slopes, severly eroded 1 1 Pd Peat and muck, deep 1 TeB Terril loam, 0-6% slopes 3 TOTAL AREA 40 1 26 I ATTACHMENT B ' Process Information • Process Flow Diagram ' • Detailed Description of Process • Mass Balance (8 hour operation) 1 I 1 1 r I 27 11 I C I 0 c 0 0 CO N m O O m 14,4" H I c° gill / Q © 7 n +, __ °__k—L7,7 © Q I cn _�_ ` I i 0 I Q b^ 4 1 0 _.._____-___. 1 ° I p :? Km 1 I e A IMJ ' O _ 0 f � � z A 1 e - i I ' I • D 1 z Ooh e © R + EFL' 1 H 71 I r- 3 gAf In -zPr i ur■ 0 O PI) YYVNglisszam,g,- a .Irr«— o ui 1 A ,71 pp 1 ' i m 1 1 Aa « . t roc 4 J I 11: 111,1 :,..::i n �i . « 171 S " _ w ; 1 • i- i . I I 28 H MN 11111111 I NM I IIIIIII OM • • MI • MN NM NM MI MN M , Du n Je� ed :eolnog - a r. .n O w m D Al L C i v, O -• V _lam\ _H r H Jjo/Yu1 ' MOWS 1' Me 2/ -)— > ,JiNos ? W 3 AVVJ �ovyols Q L ' _ L LL' C.) — ^ Jivru sk , Wf24 JNt xi IN Ul ill 7V:IS— n 31Fi7/3-1 l.c�w."7--y1 2171VM d33 l u in 5131.1TIV r> 0 •u NO11V2i3d - 2 J d ..• j1Jb71`137� I t ' eV* l7 NY!11dli 14 010/1113V,11133 :- �--u, - o 6t ,, ` v f <- s o T r °o CV WAJSAS NOIIO 1100 AIVHOVA1 A1I1IOVV 1SOdW0O SALES LON I hI14L 1 P°—", BUHLER-MIAG, INC. Page No. 6 Sales Contract No. 87006 ' ITEM# QUANTITY DESCRIPTION • C. DETAILED PROCESS DESCRIPTION ' (Refer to process flow diagram AUGX-40005 for system configuration and as reference to item numbers used in the following description.) Coarse Treatment The composting process begins with coarse treatment which includes , receiving, mixing and homogenizing, moisture level adjustments and con- veying to the fermentation area. Pre-separated MSW, less than 30mm in size, and ACHF from the Reuter dRDF facility in Eden Priarie, Minnesota will be delivered to the composting plant in 40'-0" transfer trailers. The trailer contents are dumped onto a concrete slab adjacent to the process equipment area. An end loader scoops the MSW from the pile and pushes it onto a slat conveyor(1). The slat conveyor provides a metered material feed for downstream equipment. The slat conveyor discharges into the inlet of the mixing/homogenizing/ screening drum(2). Water is also added at this point to adjust the moisture content of the refuse mixture. A beginning moisture content of between 50% and 60% is desired for good fermentation to occur. After a thorough mixing inside the drum, the refuse mixture, now called raw compost, is discharged into the chain conveyor(5) to be transferred to the fermentation hangar. Reject material is discharged at the end of the drum and transferred by conveyor(3,4) to the reject loadout area. Fermentation The prepared raw compost arrives from the coarse treatment area where two primary windrows are created in the middle of the fermentation hangar. The primary windrows are formed by a central belt conveyor with traveling tripper and cross belt conveyor(6) which runs the entire length of the hangar. The tripper moves continuously back and forth the length of the hangar piling up the two primary windrows in thin layers to a height of approximately 10'-0". The hangar contains a total of twelve windrows, six on each side of the central belt conveyor. It is in the fermentation hangar where the raw compost undergoes a con- tinuous, controlled change in its physical , chemical and biological condition. Oxygen, moisture and temperature must be closely regulated during this stage of the process to insure optimal decomposition of the raw compost. 30 ' SALES CONTRACT /// I BUHLER-MIAG, INC. Page No. 7 Sales Contract No.87006 �I+ QUANTITY - DESCRIPTION ' The windrow aeration system(8) provides the necessary amount of oxygen during the entire fermentation phase. Air(oxygen) is sucked intermit- tently into the windrows and the CO2 charged air is drawn away and discharged via a trench system provided in the floor under the windrows. By setting of the forced aeration on/off periods, controlled by a programmable logic controller(17), the CO2 levels are reduced and temperature and oxygen supply maintained. This controlled aerobic decomposition, along with adequate amounts of oxygen in the compost pile, results in a minimum amount of odor ' emissions from the process. In addition, the used air from the windrows is passed through a biological (earth) filter for further odor control . ' After one primary windrow has been formed, a special windrow turning machine(7) moves through the pile, repositions it into the second place and from there to the third place and so on. The windrow turning machine reclaims and builds up a windrow at the same time. At the front end of the machine, there is a scraper and a collecting screw. They convey the material to a vertical elevator which drops it onto the ' discharge belt. The discharge belt builds up the windrow again, either behind or to one side of the machine. This process gives assistance to the aeration and homogenization of the compost. (tut a To compensate for the loss of moisture by evaporation during fermen- tation, water can be added automatically by a special device mounted on the windrow turning machine. This is done by means of water being sprayed into the collection screw of the windrow turning machine, thus insuring a thorough mixing of compost and water before it is re-stacked into the next windrow. Water is usually added during the first and second turning over of the windrow so that the required moisture content ' is maintained in the compost at approximately 50%. Through the high temperatures (exceeding 140°F) resulting from the aerobic, exothermic fermentation process, and persisting for a considerable period of time, as well as through the vigorous activity of micro-organisms, the ' composting material is rendered thoroughly hygenic. 31 SALES CONTRACT 4, BUHLER-MIAG, INC. ►``� I Page No. 8 Sales Contract No87006 TEM• QUANTITY DESCRIPTION Fine Treatment The mature compost from the last windrow is transferred from the fer- 1 mentation hangar to the fine treatment area by an end loader and discharged into a box feeder(9) . From the box feeder, the compost is metered and then transferred by a chain conveyor(10) to a screening drum(11) . A screening drum is used to separate undesirable material such as plastic, glass, large objects, etc. from the compost. This reject material is discharged at the end of the screening drum onto a belt conveyor(12) which transfers it to the reject pile. The screened compost, less than 10mm, is transferred from the screening drum by a chain conveyor(13) . The screened compost is conveyed via a chain conveyor(15) to a ballistic separator(14) for removal of fine glass pieces and stones. The glass and stones removed drop into reject containers under the separators while the finished compost is trans- ferred to the loadout area via a chain conveyor(16) and loaded into trucks or containers with an end loader. The air from the destoning operation is run through a cyclone separator(15) for dust removal before being discharged to the atmosphere. • 1 32 ' Ho JMLtb LUN I MAC I l//// BUHLER-MIAG, INC. ."-- -110 I Page No. 5 Sales Contract No. 87006 rit r QUANTITY DESCRIPTION IIB. MASS BALANCE IIMass Mass Dr y Matter H2O H % TPD TPD TPD % IRefuse Input I - Fines 59 88 57 31 35 - ACHF 41 60 48 12 20 IInput to ZST mixing drum 100 148 105 43 29 I - Water addition 24 35 0 35 100 - Screen rejects 32 48 41 7 15 Raw Compost 91 135 64 71 53 - Water added 26 38 0 38 • 100 during fermentation - Fermentation losses 72 106 17 89 84 Mature Compost Before 45 67 47 20 30 IFine Treatment - Sieve reject greater 20 30 22 8 25 Ithan 10 mm - Glass/Stones 2 3 3 0 0 Fine Compost less than 10 mm 23 34 22 12 35 I INOTE: 1.) Above values are approximate only. I2.) Amounts stated are in U.S. (short) tons per day. I33 I 1 1 ATTACHMENT C Permits 1 • List of Permits Required ' 1 1 I 34 ATTACHMENT C List of all known Local, State and Federal Permits & Approvals Required for the Construction and Operation of the Proposed Composting Facility to be Located at Chaska, MN. LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRED TYPE STATUS 1. Local - City of Chaska Building Permit Permit To be Applied For 2. Local - City of Chaska Site Plan & Bldg. Plan Review Approval To be Applied For 3. Local - City of Chaska Storm Water Runoff Plan Review Approval To Be Applied For 4. Local - City of Chaska Sanitary Sewer Hookup Approval To Be Applied For 5. Local - City of Chaska Municipal Water Hookup Approval To Be Applied For 6. Local - City of Chaska Tax Increment Financing District Approval/ To Be Applied For Bonding 7. County - Carver Solid Waste Facility License To Be Applied For M 8. State - MEQB EAW Review (Met. Council RGU) Approval* Filed 2/22/88 9. State - MPCA Solid Waste Facility Permit* To Be Applied For 10. State - Historical Society Site Investigation Review Filed 2/18/88 11. State MOOT Driveway Access Permit To Be Applied For 12. State - MDOA Building Plan Review Approval To Be Applied For 13. State - Dept. of Health Plan Review Plumbing Approval To Be Applied For * NOTE: All units of government listed along with any other interested parties have a right to review the EAW and Solid Waste Facility Application when filed and comment on any areas of concern during the published 30-day review and comment period. M. MI - 1111111 - - - ME - • I MI • - - - NM ATTACHMENT D ' FACT SHEET ' REUTER COMPOSTING PROJECT - Spr. '88 I City of Chaska - Carver Co. , MN 1 General Project Description & Philosophy I Reuter, Inc. is proposing to build, own and operate a 300 tons per day (TPD) preprocessed municipal solid waste (MSW) composting facility in Chaska's Arbor Industrial Park. The composting facility is being designed to receive and process compostable material generated by Rueter's densified refuse derived fuel (dRDF) processing facility located in Eden Prairie, MN, which is currently operating in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and under Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permit (Permit SW-296). The proposed composting facility is a "downstream" facility and represents an additional landfill reduction and recycling effort which would also produce a commercially saleable product from the compostable material which is currently being landfilled. The proposed facility is also the final link in a $28 million construction effort to link composting capability with the existing $18 million, upstream dRDF Eden Prairie facility. Composting can broadly be defined as the process of controlled degradation of organic matter producing a humus-like substance that can be used as a soil amendment. At the 300 TPD input design capacity the proposed composting facility will , produce approximately 50 TPD_ of mature compost for commercial sale. The entire process will take approximately 90 days and will be carried out inside two buildings for environmental and quality control purposes. The compostable material will be delivered to the proposed facility in 40 foot "transfer trailers" which have an appearance similar to commercial eighteen wheel semi- trailers. These vehicles have a payload capacity of 20-25 tons. Maximum truck traffic at the facility is projected at 25 vehicles per day (50 AOT). The proposed facility would initially receive and process 75 to 100 TPD of compostable material from the Eden Prairie dROF facility, increasing to its maximum 300 TPD input design capacity as additional compostable tonnage becomes available from ROF facility expansion or new facility construction. The proposed project is environmentally sound and consistent with the State of Minnesota's landfill reduction mandate requiring all MSW generated after 1990 to be recycled and processed to the greatest extent possible prior to landfilling. I 36 ' { ..R T 43 sc xs � �^ ..a ,- IIs Design Basis 1 1. Max. Design Capacity • a. 300 TPD input 1 b. 50 TPD output 2. Composting Process II a. carried out entirely inside (buildings) • b. appx. 84 days from start to finish c. minor noise generator d. minimal/controlled odors II e. Class I (unrestricted use) compost to be produced f. ongoing inspection by MPCA and Carver Co. on regular basis II 3. Buildings a. process bldg. = 22,000 sq. ft. (80' x 250' ) ; 30' max. height b. fermentation bldg. = 158,000 sq. ft. (205' x 770' ); 30' max. height II c. filter/fan bldg. = 4000 sq. ft. (est.) d. combined tot. space = 184,000 sq. ft. e. precast, double-T concrete construction with aesthetically pleasing shading and contrasting II f. creative berming and landscaping to soften building lines and blend with surroundings I 4. Impervious Surface Area a. bldgs. tot. = 184,000 sq. ft. eg b. paved surfaces a 90,000 sq. ft. II c. combined tot. area = 274,000 sq. ft. (6.3 acres) 5. Stormwater Runoff a. estimated annual volume = 4.5 million gal. (MGY) I b. will be collected and directed to City's stormwater drainage system for Arbor Park industrial area 6. Process Water IIa. 40 GPM (gal. per min.) consumption over 16 hrs. or appx. 40,000 GPO (gal. per day) b. used for moisture adjustment 11 c. no free moisture, discharge or leachate anticipated 7. Utilities, City Related Improvements & Public Services I a. all to be provided by City of Chaska b. Reuter will be assessed for improvements 8. Sanitary Wastewater Ia. 200-300 GPO discharge (based on 10 emp. + 5 visitors) b. discharged to City's sanitary sewer system II 9. Truck Traffic a. 25 trucks per day max. (50 ADT) input/output b. transfer trailer truck type, i.e. , 20 ton, eighteen wheel, semi-trailer I appearance c. primary route from Co. 62 E (Eden Prairie) to I-494 S to Hwy 5 W to Hwy 41 S to W. 82nd St./Arbor Park 1 37 10. Environmental Controls a. aerobic decomposition process to minimize odor generation b. air purification system/earth filter to control odor generated c. backup leachate collection system d. stormwater runoff collection system e. compostable material prescreened and separated at Eden Prairie dRDF facility Summary of Issues The proposed project is a landfill reduction effort that will convert from 25X- I 30% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream processed at an Eden Prairie based recycling/dRDF (refuse derived fuel) facility into commercial-grade compost. The proposed composting facility will have a nominal design capacity of 300 tons per II day (TPD) of input and would be located in an existing industrial park in the City of Chaska. A maximum of 25 trucks per day (50 ADT) would be required to transport compostable material to the facility and finished product away. The additional traffic associated with the composting facility would have a minimal impact on the existing roads to be utilized given existing and design ADT's (average daily traffic). The entire composting operation will be enclosed and designed to minimize associated noise and odors which are expected to be minimal . II A backup leachate collection system will be incorporated into the design of the facility and capture any leachate for reuse. The proposed project is not inconsistent with any adopted land use ordinance or comprehensive land use plans and no adverse environmental impact is anticipated. Contacts: Katy Boone or John Boquist at 935-6921 I 1 38 1