sign in sign up
<<
Home , Resource recovery

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET

Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling 651-757-2101. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw.

1. Project Title: Prairieland Solid Management Resource Recovery Facility

Prairieland Solid Waste 2. Proposer: Management Board 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Contact Person Mark Bauman Contact Person William J. Lynott

Title Principal Planner Title Director Environmental Review Unit

Address 801 East 5th Street North Address 520 Lafayette Road North Truman, Minnesota 56088 St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194

Phone 507-776-3232 Phone 651-757-2542 Fax 507-776-3288 Fax 651-297-2343 E-mail [email protected] E-mail [email protected]

4. Reason for EAW Preparation: EIS Mandatory Citizen RGU Proposer Scoping EAW X Petition Discretion Volunteered

If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name: Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 17.E

5. Project Location: County Martin City/Twp Truman

NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 10 Township 104 North Range 30 West

GPS Coordinates: N 43°49’41.50” W 94°25’53.68”

Tax Parcel Number

p-ear2-26a TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332 Printed on recycled containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers Tables, Figures, and Appendices attached to the EAW:

• Attachment 1 – U.S. Geological Survey map showing the general location of the project • Attachment 2 – Aerial photo showing location in Truman • Attachment 3 – Site map showing stormwater flow directions

6. Description:

a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor.

The Prairieland Solid Board proposes to convert the existing Prairieland Resource Recovery/Composting Facility in Truman from the production of to the production of refuse derived fuel (RDF). The proposal would include increasing the solid waste feedstock input from 100 tons per day to up to an average 200 tons per day. The project involves internal equipment changes to accommodate the change in product, but the facility footprint would not change.

b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce . Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities.

The facility is operated to provide an integrated waste management system for Martin and Faribault Counties. The facility is the primary component of the integrated system that diverts waste from the . This integrated system recovers materials for from the (MSW) stream and currently produces primarily compost and a small amount of RDF. This abates the landfilling of unprocessed mixed MSW. All waste processing, composting, curing, storage, and RDF production activities are conducted in enclosed buildings.

Currently, the facility uses one processing line and the Siloda composting process, a French proprietary system of grinders, turners, and conveyors that prepares incoming solid waste for composting. After the garbage trucks dump the waste on the tipping floor, non-processables, recyclable and rejects are sort-separated and placed in a trailer for disposal or recycling elsewhere. A portable waste shredder on the tipping floor performs size reduction and sorting on bulky and oversized material and reduces the amount of waste sent to the landfill. Waste is then pushed by front-end loaders from the tipping floor onto the in-feed conveyor, which feeds a vertical shaft shredder in an explosion resistant containment room. The shredder tears the bags and grinds the waste. The size-reduced waste is subjected to magnetic separation to recover ferrous metals prior to screening. A trommel screen separates the oversized fraction (greater than three-inch, mostly ) as non-compostable rejects, the intermediate fraction (three inches to one inch) for composting, and the undersized fraction (less than one inch) for further screening. The non-compostable reject fraction is then compacted into trailers and sent to a RDF burn plant or to a landfill for disposal. The undersized fraction is processed further into inorganic rejects and compostables with a vibrating screen and an air classifier. A mixer is used to blend the two organic fractions and to add . The compostable material is then conveyed to the silo building for composting.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 2 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota The small amount of RDF currently produced (a byproduct of the composting process) is currently burned at the Xcel Energy Wilmarth Power Plant in Mankato, Minnesota, a 22-megawatt power plant that burns 720 tons per day of RDF for power generation. The RDF specifications are as follows:

Minimum Average Maximum BTU/lb 5,000 5,000-5,500 Moisture N/A 25% 40% Particle Size N/A 8” x 8” 12” x 12” Ash (dry) N/A 15% 20%

Up to the present, Prairieland RDF burned in the Wilmarth facility has been commingled with RDF from an MSW processing facility operated by Resource Recovery Technologies, LLC in Newport, Minnesota. The proposed conversion of the Prairieland facility to all-RDF production requires assurance that the product will be suitable for burning at Wilmarth without commingling. Test burns for this purpose indicate that this will be acceptable. Combustion of RDF from Prairieland is currently taking place at this plant, and the Prairieland expansion project will require no changes to the Wilmarth Plant or its permits.

No new buildings are planned for the facility. Equipment will continue to remove glass, grit, and ferrous metals, but be modified to combine the combustible streams into one RDF product.

Plans for future modifications include a phased approach. These phases include:

1. One to two years continuing to compost, but “ramping up” RDF production using existing equipment. 2. Conclude test burning for quality assurance at Wilmarth. 3. Phase out composting and “ramp up” MSW deliveries by working with surrounding counties to bring in more MSW. 4. If an agreement with Xcel Energy or other waste to energy facility can be reached, after December 31, 2012, Prairieland would fully convert to RDF production, discontinue composting, and disassemble the composting equipment. 5. After removal of the composting equipment, processing to maximize RDF production would be accomplished by retaining and utilizing existing equipment up to and including the trommel screen in order to grind the waste, remove ferrous metals, and remove glass and grit as in the past. The key changes in the process would consist of combining the minus three-inch material with the plus three-inch material instead of separating the organics, and not adding water. The product would then be compacted into walking floor trailers and sent as bulk RDF to the Wilmarth Power Plant in Mankato, or other suitable facilities. 6. As the facility increases the volume of waste received, additional conveyors and compactors may be added. The equipment in the current compost refining and storage building would be re- purposed to the RDF production building as much as possible. 7. As there are no plans to add buildings or a second processing line, additional shifts or days of operation may be added to the operating schedule to process the additional incoming MSW. 8. The concrete bunkers that now serve as composting vessels would be utilized for storage of RDF when Xcel’s Wilmarth Power plant is down for maintenance. This would avoid the need to landfill the RDF. 9. All operations will remain indoors with no outdoor storage.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 3 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.

The purpose of the project is to expand MSW throughput, eliminate or replace unneeded equipment, and redirect operations to the production of RDF while continuing to provide resource recovery for the citizens of Faribault and Martin Counties.

d. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? Yes No

e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.

In 1989, an EAW was prepared on the proposal to build and operate this facility as a composting project. The facility was built and became operational in 1991.

7. Project Magnitude Data

The following are data for existing buildings. The project will be constructed entirely within existing structures.

Total Project Area (acres) 20,332 or Length (miles) Number of Residential Maximum Units Per Units: Unattached Attached Building:

Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space): total square feet 74,000

Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office 1,750 Retail Other Industrial 72,250 Warehouse Institutional Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings

8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans, and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and . All of these final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minn. R. 4410.3100.

Unit of Government Type of Application Status City of Truman, Minnesota Conditional Use Permit Current MPCA Solid Waste Permit (#357) Renewal Due MPCA HHW Permit Current MPCA Stormwater Permit Current EPA EPA ID# MNR000113480 Current

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 4 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota

9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines.

The facility is located on the northeastern outskirts of Truman (Attachments 1 and 2), and has been the site of the Prairieland Resource Recovery Facility since 1991. Adjacent land use is unchanged since 1991 and consists of agricultural land on the north and east, commercial on the west, and residential on the South.

10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development:

Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 16.266 16.266 Wooded/forest 0 0 Impervious Surfaces 4.066 4.066 Brush/grassland 0 0 Stormwater pond 0 0 Cropland 0 0 Other (describe) TOTAL

11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources.

a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts.

None.

b. Are any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources on or near the site? Yes No

Describe any measures that will be taken to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Provide the license agreement number (LA-______) and/or Division of Ecological Resources contact number (ERDB______) from which the data were obtained and attach the response letter from the DNR Division of Ecological Resources. Indicate if any additional survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.

None. There is no new construction planned for the site, and all changes to the facility would take place within the buildings. The current facility does not impact species or habitats of concern, and this would not change with the proposed project.

12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 5 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota

13. Water Use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes No

14. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No

15. Water Surface Use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes No

16. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: 0 acres; 0 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction.

Since there will be no new construction, the current controlled runoff regime would not change and erosion and sedimentation issues would be minimal to nonexistent (see following).

17. Water Quality – Surface-water Runoff.

a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm-water pollution prevention plans.

The site consists of 20.3 acres. Total roof area of the existing buildings is 76,000 square feet. The total area of paved surface is approximately 130, 000 square feet.

All buildings were constructed to contain all water that enters or has the potential to escape. Building drains are connected to the city system.

Currently, leachate from the composting process is recycled to the compost wetting process. No leachate will be generated by the RDF production process, as the RDF is expected to absorb whatever moisture comes in with the raw waste. In the unlikely event that leachate is generated, it will be sent to the sanitary sewer by agreement with the city.

On the exterior, the entire site is bermed so that all stormwater runoff is directed to a vegetated swale that was constructed in 1990 (Attachment 3). This berm also eliminates stormwater run-on. The swale contains hydrophytic vegetation as well as trees and shrubs, all of which contribute to stormwater control. All areas of the site that are not buildings or pavement are vegetated, and stormwater runoff must travel through a minimum of several feet of vegetated ground prior to reaching the swale.

This swale drains to the approximate center and enters a standpipe. This standpipe is connected to the city’s stormwater collection system, which, in turn, drains into the county ditch system.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 6 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota

b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters.

After leaving the site, runoff travels approximately 15 miles to the Blue Earth River. Runoff, which is filtered by the vegetated site and swale, as well as settling before discharge through the standpipe, is not believed to have a significant impact on the water quality of the river and will not change after the project is implemented.

18. Water Quality – .

a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site.

Waste water is generated by the men’s and women’s restrooms and the odor control system (see Item 24) at a rate of approximately 200 gallons per day. The city has stated that this is a minimal amount that requires no testing or pretreatment.

b. Describe methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies (identifying any impaired waters), and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems.

None.

c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility’s ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary.

Domestic wastewater and water from the odor control system is disposed of in the city of Truman’s facility.

19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions.

a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Ground water: minimum; 25’ average. Bedrock: minimum; 100’ average.

Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards.

There are no known geologic hazards at the site or the vicinity. In addition, all operations and materials will be handled indoors. There is miminal potential for groundwater pollution.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 7 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota

b. Describe the soils on the site, giving Natural Resources Conservation Service classifications, if known. Discuss soil texture and potential for ground-water contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination.

A field investigation of existing soil conditions was completed at the proposed site in 1990 as part of the initial environmental review, planning and design phase. The finding in that EAW process was that there was minimal potential for groundwater pollution. The current project does not involve any changes to the outdoor configuration of the site, and includes nothing else that would change that conclusion.

20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks.

a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating MSW, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments.

The facility does not produce hazardous wastes, but has accepted household hazardous wastes from periodic collection events in surrounding counties and weekly one-day drop-ins. The collected waste is stored in a dedicated storage building with secondary containment. These wastes are picked up by a licensed hauler for delivery to recycling facilities or an incinerator in Illinois. This facet of facility operations was approved by the MPCA in 2003, and will not change with the project.

b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating ground water. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission.

Prairieland operates a household hazardous facility on site. The facility is permitted by the MPCA and follows household hazardous waste rules (see above).

c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans.

There is one 650-gallon mobile diesel fuel tank on the site. If a spill occurs, it will be contained and disposed of appropriately. Spills over five gallons must be reported to the State Duty Officer.

21. Traffic. Parking spaces added: 0 Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 60 ATD Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence: 10:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 8 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota Indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates.

Actual and anticipated vehicle traffic is based on 20 years of facility experience.

If the peak hour traffic generated exceeds 250 vehicles or the total daily trips exceeds 2,500, a traffic impact study must be prepared as part of the EAW. Using the format and procedures described in the Minnesota Department of Transportation’s Traffic Impact Study Guidance (available at http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/access/pdfs/Chapter%205.pdf) or a similar local guidance, provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the regional transportation system.

The facility currently receives 16 to 20 vehicles per day. These vehicles include:

Given the relatively small amount of traffic this project will generate, the impact is minimal. Also, if we

Although Prairieland intends to double its throughput of MSW, this will not result in a doubling of traffic, since the additional waste will come from farther away and be transported by 20-ton semis instead of 10-ton packer trucks. Hauling of RDF to Wilmarth will be done in 20-ton trucks as well, so incoming raw waste trips do not translate to an equal number of outgoing product trips. In addition, compost hauling traffic will be eliminated with the project, and the employee and visitor traffic will not change.

Waste is brought to the facility via State Highway 15 and County Road 52, a nine-ton road. In the ten years that Prairieland has operated, there has been no indication of congestion or road wear caused by facility traffic. Currently, the average daily traffic on Highway 15 varies from 3,200-4,000 trips, and the project will contribute a negligible volume of traffic to it.

Given the relatively small amount of additional traffic this project would generate, traffic impacts would be expected to be minimal.

22. Vehicle-related Air Emissions. Estimate the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts.

The small number of vehicles visiting the facility would cause little or no air impacts, as is the case at present.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 9 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota

23. Stationary Source Air Emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing), any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, , and nitrous oxides), and ozone-depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality.

The facility, at a maximum, operates at levels below thresholds that would require an MPCA Air Quality Permit. Odors are the primary air emission issue at this facility. With the proposed reduction in MSW composting, the potential for odor from the facility is expected to decrease. However, the facility nonetheless employs a rooftop odor control system to minimize any residual odors. See following Item.

24. Odors, noise, and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes No

If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.)

The Prairieland Solid Waste Management Odor Control System consists of two identical roof mounted chemical scrubber systems, each with two independent absorption stages. Both scrubber systems are served by common water reservoir systems at ground level. The water reservoir systems consist of pumps, chemical feed systems, and chemical monitoring systems.

The Prairieland facility's processing building, called the Siloda Building, is ventilated by these two scrubber systems at a maximum exhaust rate of 50,000 cubic feet per minute. The storage building will be ventilated at a maximum exhaust rate of 40,000 cubic feet per minute by transferring the exhaust air to the south end of the Siloda Building as makeup air. Both buildings are thus maintained at negative air pressure and vented through the treatment system upstream of the rooftop stack on the Siloda Building.

The Odor Control System uses sulfuric acid, sodium hydroxide, and sodium hypochlorite as odor control reagents for the two stage chemical scrubber systems. The chemicals will be received in carboys and tote tanks, stored in containment areas, and deployed as required with chemical feed systems and chemical monitoring systems.

The exhaust air from the Odor Control Systems is expected to contain no more than: 0.1 ppm (parts per million) ammonia, 0.05 ppm sulfide, and 0.020 ppm total reduced sulfur gases. These percentages were obtained from the system vendor and confirmed by means of emission testing when the system was installed. These odorants will be exhausted at concentrations, at elevations, and at velocities that will minimize odor annoyance in the community.

The chemicals used for this system are stored in containment bunkers designed to contain any spills.

The facility employs a dust collection system consisting of pick-up tubes and a bag house to collect dust. This equipment is also indoors.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 10 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota Each Odor Control System includes an exhaust fan that provides a fan exhaust dilution factor of 2.75:1 at the top of the stack. The fans do not cause property line sound levels to exceed the Minnesota nighttime sound level limits, as confirmed by property line testing. Noise is not anticipated to exceed standards at the facility boundaries.

25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site?

a. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes No b. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes No c. Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Yes No d. Scenic views and vistas? Yes No e. Other unique resources? Yes No

26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes No

27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes No

If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain.

Prairieland has obtained a provisional conditional use permit (CUP) for this project from the city of Truman. This permit was approved with the condition that the facility obtain the proper permits from the MPCA. The CUP was amended to allow for additional hours of operation if the volume of waste received at the facility increases. The permitted hours were increased from five 12-hour days to six 16-hour days.

28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No

29. Cumulative potential effects. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects” when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative potential effects. (Such future projects would be those that are actually planned or for which a basis of expectation has been laid.) Describe the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to these cumulative effects.

There are no “related or anticipated future projects” that have any potential for impact interaction with the Prairieland facility. The proposed project, an increase in MSW throughput and a changeover from compost production to RDF production, involves only internal equipment and processing changes that will change the facility’s existing minimal environmental impact either minimally or not at all. There is little if any potential for cumulative impacts related to this project.

Prairieland Solid Waste Management Environmental Assessment Resource Recovery Facility 11 Worksheet Truman, Minnesota