STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION
ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
MALCOLM AVENUE SOLID WASTE
TRANSFER FACILITY
HENNEPIN COUNTY
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on
the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period,
and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of
Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.
FACILITY HISTORY
Overview
Carl Bolander and Sons Co. (CB&S) owns the Malcolm Avenue Solid Waste Transfer Facility (Facility),
located at 620 Malcolm Avenue Southeast, city of Minneapolis, in Hennepin County, Minnesota. NRG
Processing Solution, LLC (NRG PS) operates the Facility. The Facility accepts yard waste, construction
and demolition (C&D) debris, selected industrial wastes, tires, white goods, mattresses, and recyclables
(paper, glass, plastics, cardboard and aluminum) as the markets allow. Material is consolidated at the
Facility, and then it is transferred to an appropriate disposal site.
Permitting History
The property at 620 Malcolm Avenue SE has been owned by CB&S since 1991 and operated by SKB
(a subsidiary of CB&S) as a yard waste compost site since 1993. This site was operated as a permit-byrule yard waste compost facility in accordance with Minn. R. 7035.2835, subps 2 and 3, and was used as
a city of Minneapolis yard waste composting facility. On May 1, 1997, the site was permitted as a C&D
recycling and transfer station. In December 2000, the solid waste permit was amended to add NRG PS as
the operator and co-applicant for the Facility with SKB. Specialized Environmental Technologies, Inc. is
the operations wing of NRG PS, which has been operating the Transfer Station since December 2000.
SKB is no longer involved with site operations and, therefore, will be removed as a co-operator and
co-applicant as part of this modification.
Previous Environmental Review
The Facility has had no previous environmental review.
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
Compliance/Enforcement History
On September 16, 2005, during an inspection, MPCA staff observed and documented a railroad tie; dry,
crushed, and crumbled asbestos-containing Transite debris; a car hood, door, and seat; and four
polychlorinated biphenyl ballasts, two of which were burned. As the operator of the Facility, NRG PS
was issued a Notice of Violation. As the owner of the Facility, CB&S was issued a Letter of Warning.
Corrective actions include submitting a plan, subject to MPCA approval, which describes how the
Facility operators will screen for prohibited wastes and how they will handle, label, store, and dispose of
prohibited wastes that are inadvertently delivered to the Facility. The Facility personnel will also receive
asbestos training and additional signage will be installed. There is no other enforcement history for the
Facility.
PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Proposed Modification
CB&S is requesting a solid waste permit amendment to increase the throughput for the existing Facility.
The Facility is currently permitted to transfer up to 318,500 cubic yards of C&D debris and 40,000 tons
per year of yard waste. The permit amendment would allow the following: transfer of 156,000 tons per
year (500 tons per day) of municipal solid waste (MSW); 156,000 tons per year (500 tons per day) of
C&D debris; 60,000 tons per year of yard waste; and selected non-hazardous industrial waste. The
proposed project would not require a physical expansion of the existing Facility; therefore, no
construction will be required.
Environmental Concerns
Environmental concerns from transfer facilities typically include the potential for odors, noise, dust, litter,
traffic and water quality impacts to surface and ground water.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.
Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 17(C), an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the
proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500 (2003), the EAW was distributed to the
Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on November 18,
2005.
2.
The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release
was provided to interested parties on November 21, 2005. In addition, the EAW was published in
the EQB Monitor on November 21, 2005, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on November 21, 2005.
3.
The public comment period for the EAW began on November 21, 2004, and ended on
December 21, 2004. During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received four comment letters.
4.
The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period.
Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these
findings. The MPCA responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as
Appendix B to these findings.
2
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
5.
Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably
expected to occur. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental
effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the
project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2003). These criteria are:
A.
the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
B.
cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects;
C.
the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority; and
D.
the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer,
including other EISs.
THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA
ARE SET FORTH BELOW
Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
6.
The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and
reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A (2003). The MPCA findings
with respect to each of these factors are set forth below.
7.
Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality:
A. odor;
B. noise; and
C. traffic.
8.
The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:
A. Odor
The activities at the Facility mainly take place within a building enclosure. Some overhead
doors are open during business hours. However, the building enclosure itself does help to keep
wind off the waste and, therefore, reduces the strength of odors beyond the Facility borders.
The overhead doors are closed during non-business hours, and limited residence times of
putrescible wastes makes odor concerns from this Facility negligible. In addition, the tipping
floor must be cleaned at least every seven days. Based on MPCA’s experience, this is adequate
to control buildup of substances that might cause odor and vectors such as flies and vermin.
3
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
Neighboring businesses are also industrial, including a potato processing plant that can produce
odors. The nearest residence is located approximately 1,500 feet south of the Facility.
B. Noise
On-site noise is low due to the building enclosure. Outdoor noise from delivery and outbound
traffic and heavy machinery (operations, cleaning, or snow removal) is typical of this type of
operation. Due to its distance from residential developments and proximity to other heavy
industrial activities, noise impacts are expected to be minimal.
C. Traffic
The proposed project will generate air pollution as a result of vehicles driving to and from the
Facility. Motor vehicles emit a variety of air pollutants including carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxides and particulates. The Facility has averaged around 150 trucks per day in the past. The
Facility is expecting to stay around 150 trucks per day average, even with adding MSW as
acceptable waste. This “decrease” is attributed to the use of larger trucks for both C&D and
MSW wastes. These larger trucks have not been used in the past to the extent that they are used
in current (and future) transfer stations operations. Total miles driven by waste haulers are
anticipated to decrease on a regional basis as a result of the project proposal. The air pollution
generated as a result of the proposed project would not significantly add to existing levels in the
metropolitan area.
9.
The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:
The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would
be reversible. Any noise or traffic emissions that are released to the atmosphere would not be
recovered, but further emissions or noise could be stopped, if necessary. As discussed above, there
is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect
on air quality.
10.
The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project
have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been
developed.
11.
The MPCA finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects
reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions.
12.
Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality:
A. Surface-water runoff
13.
The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:
4
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
A. Surface-water runoff
The driving surfaces on-site are packed gravel. The site is graded so that stormwater runoff
drains to the east and north corner of the property into a holding pond. There will be no
construction outside of the existing transfer facility building and all transfer activities take place
within an enclosed structure, so the proposed project is not expected to change the quantity nor
quality of runoff from the site.
14.
The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:
The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would
be reversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no
reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on
water quality.
15.
The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:
All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed
expansion of this facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent
these impacts has been developed.
16.
The MPCA finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental
effects reasonably expected to occur.
Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects
17.
The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential
for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative
potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B (2003).
The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
18.
The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or
anticipated future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to identify any
potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur.
19.
In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA
finds that the reasonably expected effects from this project will not be significant.
The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public
Regulatory Authority
20.
The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the
environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R.
4410.1700, subp. 7.C (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
21.
The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
5
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Unit of Government
A. MPCA
B. City of Minneapolis
C. City of Minneapolis
D. Hennepin County
22.
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
Permit or Approval Required
Modification to Solid Waste
Management Facility Permit
(SW-525)
Conditional Use Permit
Site Plan Review Approval
Operating License
Status
Existing/Modification Pending
Existing/Modification Pending
Existing/Modification Pending
Existing/Modification Pending
A.
MPCA
The project proposer is responsible for submitting engineering plans and for managing the
Facility in accordance with the Solid Waste permit requirements which would regulate design
parameters, construction, operation, leachate management, nuisance control methods,
frequency and method of waste removal, and ultimate deposition of waste, among other things.
B.
City of Minneapolis
Construction and operation of the Facility is subject to the regulatory control and possible
further mitigation of impacts through the city of Minneapolis’s Conditional Use Permit
process.
C.
Hennepin County
Construction and operation of the Facility is subject to the regulatory control through the
county’s licensing process.
23. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential
environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.
The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other
Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer,
Including Other EISs
24.
The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can
be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by
public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D
(2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
25.
The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental
impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Facility. This list is not intended to be
exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors,
staff experience, and other available information.
•
•
Draft EAW; and
existing solid waste permit, permit file and permit application for a modification to the
solid waste permit.
6
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Minneapolis, Minnesota
Findings of Fact
Conclusions of Law
And Order
26.
There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that
cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and
local plans.
27.
Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on
similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably
expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
28.
The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the
permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in
response to comments on the Malcolm Avenue Solid Waste Transfer Facility EAW, and the
evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential
significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this project.
29.
Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been
identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and
permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.
30.
Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), there are no potential significant
environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project.
31.
An EIS is not required.
32.
Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be
termed findings are hereby adopted as such.
ORDER
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental
effects reasonably expected to occur from the Malcolm Avenue Solid Waste Transfer Facility project and
that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED
__________________________________________
Sheryl A. Corrigan, Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
__________________________________________
Date
7
APPENDIX B
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW
1. Comments by Barbara Sporlein, Planning Director, City of Minneapolis, letter received
December 20, 2005.
Comment 1-1: I am requesting that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency extend the public comment
period for this pending Environmental Assessment Worksheet by thirty days.
Response 1-1: The MPCA denied this request on December 20, 2005. The MPCA verbally and via email, conveyed to the city of Minneapolis (City) that they could have one extra day (until December 22,
2005) to get comments to the MPCA. The EAW was sent to the City through the mayor’s office and the
city clerk. It took over two weeks to get it delivered to the Environmental Review and Operations
Section. While we at the MPCA sympathize, we cannot extend the public comment period because of
slow internal mail procedures. In addition, Mr. Michael Orange at the City verbally told Ms. Heffron
their concerns (outlined in the letter). Ms. Heffron and others at the MPCA determined that these
concerns could be adequately addressed through the response to comments document.
Comment 1-2: I am requesting that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency host a public comment
meeting to which the [MPCA] should invite the public and especially the representatives of the nearby
neighborhood organizations of both Minneapolis and St. Paul.
Response 1-2: This request was also denied on December 20, 2005. The concerns stated to Ms. Heffron
verbally did not warrant a public meeting. Ms. Heffron also talked to a representative from the
Prospect Park neighborhood organized group. There was no indication from them that a public meeting
was warranted.
2. Comments by Matt Langan, Environmental Planner, Department of Natural Resources, letter
received December 21, 2005.
Comment 2-1: From a natural resource management perspective, the project does not appear to have the
potential for significant environmental effects, and does not require the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement.
Response 2-1: No response needed.
3. Comments by Barbara Sporlein, Planning Director, City of Minneapolis, letter received
December 22, 2005.
General Response to Comments Provided by the City: Several comments on this EAW by the City
indicate concern that certain components of the proposed project differ from the terms and conditions in
the current Malcolm Avenue Transfer Station Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The MPCA notes these
comments, but notes further that EAWs assess impacts and identify mitigation; they do not make
permitting decisions. Nor does MPCA make permitting decisions for any other entity than itself.
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
MPCA assumes that, once environmental review is completed, the City will either grant or deny a new
CUP based on the information contained in this EAW, the permit application, and its own ordinances, as
well as other data sources as appropriate. The EAW and issuance of a state permit for this project by the
MPCA will not prevent the City from imposing its own more restrictive conditions through its CUP.
Comment 3-1: …comparisons with other transfer facilities in the region would help the reader
understand the relative size of the operations… A fuller description is essential for an understanding of
the project, its scale, the reasonableness of the assumptions and the projections, and the adequacy of the
EAW.
• The EAW discloses that the current through-put operations are exceeding those allowed
through the City’s conditional use permit by 45,850 tons per year, 15% above permitted
amounts. The EAW should disclose this inconsistency with the current City permit.
• The proposed through-put amounts are 19% greater than currently permitted. The construction
and demolition (C & D) debris would decrease by about half but the tonnage would be replaced
by an even greater amount of municipal solid waste (MSW).
• Truck operations would decrease although the EAW does not explain whether this decrease is
due to more reliance on larger capacity trucks, denser waste materials, or some other factor.
Response 3-1: The EAW focuses on the proposed project. The EAW describes the proposed volumes
of wastes to be accepted at the Malcolm Avenue Transfer Station (Facility). Carl Bolander and Sons Co.
(Proposer) is proposing an estimated 1,250 tons per day. There are two transfer stations owned or leased
to Hennepin County (Brooklyn Park and Freeway Transfer Station). As a comparison, Brooklyn Park
Transfer Station is permitted to accept up to 273,000 tons per year (1,700 tons per day) and the Freeway
Transfer Station is permitted to accept up to 217,750 tons per year (950 tons per day).
Indeed, the commenter is correct that the current state Solid Waste Permit, SW-525, allows greater
volumes than the CUP issued by the City. SW-525 issued by the MPCA is consistent with state rules.
The EAW and issuance of a permit for this project by the MPCA will not prevent the City from imposing
its own more restrictive conditions.
According to the existing CUP, the City has approved 171.2 trucks per day. The EAW states 150 trucks
per day, which is the annual average. The Facility has averaged around 150 trucks per day in the past.
The Facility is expecting to stay around 150 trucks per day average even with adding municipal solid
waste (MSW) as acceptable waste. This “decrease” is attributed to the use of larger trucks for both
construction and demolition (C&D) and MSW. These larger trucks have not been used in the past to the
extent that they are used in current (and future) transfer stations operations.
Comment 3-2: The first paragraph states that “SKB is no longer involved with site operations” yet two
sentences later under “Proposed Facility Operations,” the EAW states “SKB may modify the tipping floor
areas and associated traffic operations.” Please clarify this apparent inconsistency.
Response 3-2: The MPCA agrees that this statement is inaccurate. It is a typographical error. When the
data portions of the EAW were submitted to the MPCA, “SKB Environmental, Inc.” was listed as the
proposer of the project. The EAW was drafted as such. Prior to the public notice, there were changes in
the company that required a name change of the proposer. The Proposer’s name then changed to “Carl
Bolander and Sons Co.” The “SKB” under “Proposed Facility Operations” should read, “Carl Bolander
and Sons Co.”
2
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 3-3: Under “MSW (new)” on p. 3, the EAW states that municipal solid waste (MSW) “will
also be processed.” In order to complete its permit review responsibilities, the City will need a far more
detailed description of the nature of this processing, storage plans, the potential for the generation of offsite impacts, and mitigating measures.
Response 3-3: The term “processing” in this EAW for MSW means tipping waste loads onto the tipping
floor, screening for and removing unacceptable wastes, then consolidating the wastes into larger vehicles
to be transferred to another waste management facility. The current operation of the Facility involves this
type of processing. The loads are screened by staff on the floor by walking around the loads and by the
use of front-end loaders. Unacceptable materials are removed by hand or by front-end loaders.
Comment 3-4: Will the Transfer Station accept MSW only from licensed MSW haulers or will it also
include drops by individual residents and businesses, and, if so, how many such visits and tons are
anticipated daily? How will non-licensed MSW drops be screened for prohibited wastes such as
hazardous, flammable, infections, and radiological contaminants?
Response 3-4: The EAW states that waste from residents and businesses will be accepted at the Facility.
From past experience, individual resident and business drop-off is rare. It is anticipated that this will not
change with the proposed project. The waste brought by residents and businesses will be inspected by a
floor operator for unacceptable wastes prior to the resident or business operator leaving the premises.
This is the same procedure used by the Facility for anyone dropping off waste.
Comment 3-5: The EAW also states that “MSW may be sorted by separating the organic waste.” Since
the decomposition of organic waste has the potential to create odors, more detail is needed to properly
evaluate this proposal. How much organic material is anticipated? Where and how will the material be
sorted? How long will the processing take, and for what period of time will the processed material stay
onsite?
Response 3-5: It is not economically feasible to separate organic waste from the MSW waste stream at
this time. The Proposer is asking for this in its SW-525 permit in order to be able to start organic waste
separation if it becomes economically feasible in the future. For the time being, the Proposer is only
planning to accept source-separated organic waste. The amount is hard to anticipate as the market is still
developing. Source-separated organic wastes are treated like MSW and must be removed from the
facility in three days (proposed). This is similar to how Hennepin County handles source-separated MSW
at its Brooklyn Park Transfer Station.
Comment 3-6: Storage is a concern that is not adequately addressed in the EAW. The draft Agency
permit describes storage limits at 2.3.13 and 14 but the language allows 3 days’ storage of MSW,
industrial solid waste, and C & D debris provided it is in the transfer station building…
Response 3-6: The current permit allows two days of waste storage. The Proposer is requesting three
days in their draft SW-525. The Proposer is asking for three days in their proposed SW-525 permit in
case of the following occurring: 1) three-day holiday weekend when the transfer station or other waste
management facilities may be closed; 2) landfills are closed because of wind; or 3) landfills are closed
because of other inclimate weather. These circumstances are rare. The goal of the transfer station is to
remove all wastes prior to closing every day. If they do not have enough waste to fill a trailer, that waste
may be stored overnight. It would then be the first waste to leave the next day.
3
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 3-7: The draft permit does not expressly prohibit outdoor storage of any materials or
equipment, however, the Zoning Code prohibits it as does Hennepin County. Currently, City-operated
transfer facilities are prohibited from any overnight storage of MSW. The City will look very carefully at
any project that proposes a change from this best management practice.
Response 3-7: As noted above, the EAW and issuance of a permit for this project by the MPCA will not
prevent the City from imposing its own more restrictive conditions.
Comment 3-8: As regards “Select Industrial Wastes,” which of the items listed are currently being
accepted by the Transfer Station and which would be new?
Response 3-8: An Industrial Waste Management Plan does not contain an all inclusive list of materials
accepted at the Facility. The plan describes many wastes that cannot be accepted and a process of how to
identify acceptable and unacceptable industrial waste. The wastes listed in the EAW are typical industrial
wastes that are acceptable so the reader understands what might be accepted at the Facility. New items
are empty containers, foundry sand, coal ash, paint residue, paint filters, and spent activated carbon filters.
Construction debris and old demolition disposal debris are typical, while the others listed are not.
Comment 3-9: Beginning on the bottom of p. 3, the EAW states that, “Ventilation in the building is
achieved through a combination of 16 overhead doors and mechanical ventilation by a series of exhaust
fans and vents. During normal operation, the overhead doors are left open allowing plenty of fresh air to
circulate.” Open doors also allow odors to leave the facility. On p.10, the EAW states that odors will not
be a problem: “Due to the use of an enclosed facility, odor concerns from the transfer station will be
negligible.” These two statements are inconsistent.
Response 3-9: While some of the overhead doors are open during the day for ventilation, the building
enclosure itself limits the exposure of wind to the waste. Not all 16 doors are open at the same time. The
best scenario is that the doors open and close as traffic enters and exits the building, but this can be
unreasonable on a busy day. The strength of the odor is less apparent the further away one is from the
building. The overhead doors are then closed during non-business hours, which limits the exposure of
odors to the surrounding area.
Comment 3-10: Modern MSW transfer facilities minimize the potential for off-site odor impacts through
the use of air handling equipment with filters. The EAW describes no such equipment nor does the draft
Agency permit. Instead, the EAW implies that the odor management plan is to disperse odors into the
surrounding area through the practice of large open doors and vents.
Response 3-10: The commenter does not give examples of what is meant by “modern.” To MPCA’s
knowledge, transfer stations in Minnesota do not have air handling equipment with filters. There is one
facility that has a permit to install such a device, but has not done it yet. There are requirements in Minn.
R. 7035.2870 that address odors at transfer stations. The tipping floor must be cleaned at least every
seven days. Based on MPCA’s experience, this is adequate to control buildup of substances that might
cause odor and vectors such as flies and vermin. In addition, putrescible wastes that are first in should be
first out of the transfer station. This allows less resonance time (less sitting around) and that, in turn,
reduces the opportunity for odors. Doors should remain closed except when traffic enters and exits the
building, but this can be unreasonable on a busy day. If odors become a problem, compliance officers can
enforce the closed door requirement.
4
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
The Facility has a good working relationship with the local planning committee in Prospect Park – the
neighborhood most affected by this Facility. A representative of the neighborhood group told
Ms. Heffron that she has the home number of the Facility owner and if there is a concern, she calls and it
is addressed right way.
If an odor complaint is received, it would be recorded in a file and an investigation would be done
immediately to ascertain the cause of the odor.
Comment 3-11: On p. 4 regarding hours of operation, the EAW states that the facility will operate
Monday through Saturday, and under “Proposed capacity,” the EAW states the yard waste calculation is
based on seven days a week. Not only is this inconsistent with the stated hours of operation proposed, it
should be noted that the current City permit for the site allows operation Monday through Friday.
Response 3-11: As noted above, the issuance of a permit for this project by the MPCA will not prevent
the City from imposing its own more restrictive conditions. Incidentally, Attachment 8 to the CUP
addresses specific operational hours. This attachment states, “…the site has the option to be open seven
days per week, 52 weeks per year from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.” Seasonally, the facility has typically stayed
open seven days to receive yard waste.
Comment 3-12: Also under “Hours of Operation,” the EAW states, “under certain circumstances, such
as special projects . . . [the Transfer Station] would be allowed to operate twenty four hours per day,
seven days a week . . . .” The activities listed as examples of “special projects” when the facility would
be expected to be permitted to operate on a 24/7 basis includes bridge and building demolition and
highway construction. There is probably no period during which building demolition and highway
construction are not going on. The EAW should provide a better description regarding how often such
24/7 weeks are anticipated and how much traffic will occur during the evening and night.
Response 3-12: The purpose of the 24/7 language is to allow for projects that need disposal on a 24-hour
basis. This is very rare, as most bridge or highway projects do not need disposal outside of normal
operational hours. A recent example of needing extra hours was when a contractor was hired by the City
to demolish and dispose of homes on Hiawatha to make way for the light rail. Truck traffic and times of
night are hard to predict since “special projects” do not come in a standard size. The Facility operators
will work with the City when a special project surfaces.
Comment 3-13: EAW Questions 8 and 9: At the time the City approved the permit in 1996, the site
was zoned M3-3 and the use was a “permitted” use....the rezoning to I2 in 1999 made the waste transfer
aspect of the operation (the primary aspect) a legal nonconforming use. The recycling aspect is a
conditional use in the I2 District. In addition to a conditional use permit, the facility will also need either
a rezoning to I3 or an expansion of a nonconforming use permit. Finally, it will require site plan review
approval. These permits should be added to the list for Question 7 and this information should help the
Agency modify the inaccuracies in the response to Question 8. Attached is the current zoning map
(Attachment 2).
Response 3-13: The addition of a site plan approval to list of permits is noted. It is also noted that the
Facility is in nonconforming use, which is not uncommon when a city rezones an area. The Facility will
be required to obtain a new CUP as stated in item 8 of the EAW.
5
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 3-14: EAW Question 10: The list of cover types does not account for the landscaping and
stormwater retention pond on the site.
Response 3-14: The stormwater retention pond is shown on the site map (attachment 5) and is
approximately 0.73 acres. Landscaping is minimal and would be difficult to assign an acreage number.
Comment 3-15: EAW Question 11: The EAW states that, “The proposed project . . . will not have any
impacts to wildlife habitats.” The EAW does not apparently take into account the presence of the nearby
Kasota and Highway 280 wetland.
Response 3-15: There should be no off-site impacts, which include the Kasota and Highway 280
wetland. Stormwater and waste are all managed on site.
Comment 3-16: EAW Question 21:
1. The EAW states that, “No congestion is expected.” The EAW does not provide sufficient
information to verify this expectation. The EAW should include a method for the reader (and City
permit review professionals) to confirm that the various tonnages of the individual waste streams
could be transported to and from the site based on the various capacities of the vehicles. Malcolm
Ave. can be very congested; however, the EAW provides no information regarding the capacities and
expected Levels of Service associated with the intersections that will be impacted by the Project.
2. As regards rail operations, will the facility utilize rail access? The EAW should disclose the amount
of truck operations expected to cross the proposed light rail line.
3. The EAW should address the potential for off- and on-site truck queuing, and the potential traffic and
odor impacts.
Responses 3-16:
1. The amount of truck traffic proposed (150 trucks per day average) is less than that approved in the
City” CUP (171.2 per day). It is assumed that a Level of Service analysis was done by the City at the
time the CUP was issued and does not need to be re-evaluated for the EAW. The Facility is
expecting to stay around 150 trucks per day average even with adding MSW as acceptable waste.
This “decrease” is attributed to the use of larger trucks for both C&D and MSW wastes. These larger
trucks have not been used in the past to the extent that they are used in current (and future) transfer
stations operations. The purpose of the project is to allow another option for MSW haulers to drop
off their loads. This may save miles for haulers depending on the distance they have traveled to bring
MSW to other disposal facilities and transfer stations.
2. Rail utilization is not part of the Facility’s current plans. As for the University light rail line, MPCA
staff cannot address situations that are years off and will need their own environmental review. If a
light rail line does get built in the future, the City should work with the Facility through its CUP.
3. There is room on the Facility property for on–site queuing if this rare instance occurs. According to
information received by the Proposer, off-site queuing is not anticipated. All trucks carrying MSW
are enclosed and, therefore, odor is negligible.
6
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 3-17: EAW Question 22: The EAW states that, “The air pollution from these vehicles will
not add to existing levels [of air pollutants] in the metropolitan area and is not expected to cause a major
increase in air pollution in the area.” The air pollution from these vehicles will add to existing levels of air
pollutants. Also, there is insufficient information in the EAW upon which to base the conclusion that
vehicular emissions will not create a problem in the area, especially considering that the ‘area’ is bounded
by I-94, Hwy 280, and University Avenue—all very busy and congested thoroughfares.
Response 3-17: According the information provided by the Proposer, the proposed project will not add
additional trucks and will likely be less than allowed by the CUP (171.2).
Comment 3-18: EAW Question 24:
1. The EAW states that, “The Transfer Station site including the on-site access road will be constructed
of asphalt or gravel.” The Minneapolis Code of Ordinances requires all areas where vehicles will
operate, maneuver, or park be paved with a dustless, all-weather material with specific load-bearing
capacities. Gravel is not an acceptable paving material.
2. The EAW concludes that “on-site noise will be low due to enclosure of operations within the Transfer
Station building,” and that litter won’t be a problem for the same reason. Again, these two
conclusions are inconsistent with the disclosure beginning on the bottom of p. 3 that, “Ventilation in
the building is achieved through a combination of 16 overhead doors and mechanical ventilation by a
series of exhaust fans and vents. During normal operation, the overhead doors are left open allowing
plenty of fresh air to circulate.”
Response 3-18:
1. Comment noted. As noted above, the EAW and issuance of a permit for this project by the MPCA
will not prevent the City from imposing its own more restrictive conditions.
2. The building enclosure does help to cut down on the amount of wind that can carry litter onto the
property and beyond. The same is true for noise. The Facility cannot eliminate all noise and litter.
The enclosed building helps to mitigate these issues. Overhead doors are closed during non-business
hours to contain waste left on the tipping floor. The Facility is required to canvas their property for
litter every seven days.
Comment 3-19: EAW Question 27: The EAW does not discuss the project’s compatibility with the
relevant plans and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the Minneapolis Plan, nor those of the
small area plan, the “SEMI Master Plan/AUAR.”
Response 3-19: The MPCA staff assumed compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan because the City
did issue a CUP for this Facility in 1996, the Facility is not changing or creating new structures, and
correspondence with the project Proposer confirmed compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan.
Because the City has asked, in the future MPCA staff will contact City staff for verification. The
Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI) Master Plan is a development plan from the SEMI group, which
is a group of industries in the area. The Facility received approval from the SEMI group at the time the
CUP was issued. When the current CUP was issued by the City in 1996 to operate a transfer station, the
operations of this Facility were in compliance with these plans. The purpose of the Facility, to transfer
solid waste, has not changed.
7
Malcolm Avenue Recycling and Transfer Station
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Responses to Comments on the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Operationally, the Facility is the same. According to the project Proposer, this is an existing facility with
existing approvals for the transfer of solid waste and is, therefore, in compliance with these development
plans.
The commenter has not asserted that the proposed project is not compatible with these listed plans. The
commenter did not provide their own evaluation or copies of these plans.
4. Comments by Phyllis Hanson, Manager, Local Planning Assistance, letter received
December 21, 2005.
Comment 4-1: Metropolitan Council staff finds that an EIS is not necessary for regional purposes.
Response 4-1: Comment noted.
Comment 4-2: The EAW should address the facility’s compatibility the City of Minneapolis’s
comprehensive plan. The Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI)/Bridal Veil Refined Plan should be
finalized this month and will revise the City’s Comprehensive Plan for this area. The City of Minneapolis
expects to submit the SEMI Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Metropolitan Council for review in
early 2006.
Response 4-2: See response 3-19. The project Proposer should work the City through its CUP when
updated plans, as referenced in the comment, become available.
Comment 4-3: The EAW references an outdated Minneapolis zoning code….The facility is in
nonconforming use….and will need to obtain a new permit.
Response 4-3: See response 3-13.
Comment 4-4: Long term planning: The facility is located within the study area of the Central Corridor,
a potential light rail or bus transit way.
Response 4-4: An EAW cannot address situations that are years off and will need their own
environmental review. If a light rail line does get built in the future, the City should work with the
Facility through its CUP.
Comment 4-5: Long term planning: The Red Rock commuter rail corridor is proposed to follow the rail
line on the northern boundary of the site.
Response 4-5: An EAW cannot address situations that are only in the planning stages. If a commuter
rail line does get built in the future, the City should work with the Facility through its CUP. The project
Proposer has not been contacted by the City, county, or state regarding a Red Rock commuter rail on the
northern boundary of their property.
The MPCA has made the project Proposer aware of these two potential future projects.
8