Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-03 PACKET 08.A.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 2/3/10 PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Consider adoption of a zoning ordinance amendment to prohibit commercial waste incineration facilities. COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended denial of the ordinance amendment. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE ® PLANNING 1/25/10 ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY El ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ® MEMO /LETTER: Memo from Howard Blin dated 1/28/10 ® RESOLUTION: Draft - Ordinance Summary Resolution ® ORDINANCE: Draft ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Excerpt from 1/25/10 Planning Commission Minutes ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS l} /P `City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: CITY OF MINNESOTA COTTAGE GROVE TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Howard Blin, Community Development Director DATE: January 28, 2010 RE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Prohibiting Commercial Waste Incinerators Proposal Adoption of a Zoning Ordinance amendment to prohibit commercial waste incineration facilities. This amendment was directed by the City Council as part of the recent review of the 3M hazardous waste incinerator. Proposed Permit Modification In 2009, 3M Company requested a modification to its Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) permits for the hazardous waste incinerator located at 3M Cottage Grove. The modifi- cation would allow the burning of non -3M wastes. The existing permits allow incineration only of wastes generated by 3M. The purpose of the request is to allow 3M to bring in solvent wastes which can fuel incinerator operations and replace the natural gas and fuel oil currently used as a fuel source. If the permit modifications are approved, the incinerator must continue to meet existing MPCA limits for emissions from the incinerator. It is expected that the MPCA will act on the permit modification request within the next few months. City Regulatory Authority Cottage Grove does not have authority to approve or deny the current request by 3M to modify the MPCA permits. The City's land use controls on the incinerator are summarized as follows: • in 1970 the City approved a conditional use permit for the incinerator. That permit does not specify whether 3M may accept outside wastes. At that time the incinerator was allowed as a conditional accessory use to the larger 3M facility. • In the 1990's the revised the Zoning Ordinance removed incinerators as a use. Since that time the incinerator has existed as a legal non - conforming use. • In 1995 and 1997, the City approved variances to height limits to allow reconstruction of the incinerator facility. At that time the existing conditional use permit was not amended. Honorable Mayor, City Council, and Ryan Schroeder Zoning Ordinance Amendment Prohibiting Commercial Incinerators January 28, 2010 Page 2 of 2 Environmental Task Force Study From August through October 2009 the Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force studied the proposed modifications to the incinerator permits. The Task Force prepared the attached report and a set of recommendations that were adopted by the City Council in the attached resolution. Commercial Incineration A concern raised by the study was that the permit modifications could lead to the future conver- sion of the facility from a corporate incinerator, which burns 3M waste, to a commercial incine- rator, which burns waste from a variety of sources for a fee. Commercial incinerators typically have less control over the wastes burned than corporate facilities. Commercial incinerators are, therefore, thought to have greater negative effects on property values in surrounding com- munities. It was learned that the regulations of the MPCA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency distinguish between corporate and commercial incinerators. Although 3M has represented that it has no plans to convert the facility to a corporate incinerator, those plans could change in the future or the facility could be sold to an owner who would operate it as a corporate incinerator. To strengthen the City's land use controls over commercial incinerators, the zoning amendment was proposed. Proposed Amendment The amendment would prohibit commercial incinerators by placing the use in a newly created category of prohibited uses in the industrial zoning districts. Added to the existing industrial cat- egories of permitted, conditional, and accessory uses would be uses which are prohibited. The effect of this amendment would be to continue the current 3M corporate incinerator as a legal non - conforming use which can continue to operate but may not be expanded. Conversion of the facility to a commercial incinerator would, however, be prohibited. The amendment would also provide definitions for the terms "commercial waste incineration facility," "hazardous waste," and "solid waste." A commercial incinerator is defined as: Commercial Waste Incineration Facility. Any facility that sells services of burning solid waste or hazardous waste materials for generators other than the owner and operator of the facility. The Planning Commission reviewed the amendment on January 25 and recommended denial of the amendment. Minutes of the Commission meeting are attached. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE, MINNESOTA AMENDING 4 TITLE 11, CHAPTER 1, SECTION 3(E): RULE OF WORD CONSTRUCTION; DEFINITIONS 5 AND 6 TITLE 11, CHAPTER 11, SECTION 2; PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES 7 OF THE CITY CODE 8 9 The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, Washington County, Minnesota, does hereby 10 ordain as follows: 11 12 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT Title 11, Chapter 1, Section 3(E); Rules of Word 13 Construction; Definitions is amended by inserting the following: 14 Commercial Waste Incineration Facility: Anv facility that sells services of burning solid waste 15 or hazardous waste materials for generators other than the owner and operator of the facility. 16 Hazardous Waste: Any refuse sludge or other waste material or combinations of refuse. 17 sludge or other waste materials in solid. semisolid, liquid, or contained gaseous form 18 which because of its quantity, concentration or chemical physical, or infectious 19 characteristics may (a) cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an 20 increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness or (b) pose a 21 substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when 22 improperly treated, stored. transported or disposed of. or otherwise managed. 23 Categories of hazardous waste materials include, but are not limited to: explosives 24 flammables oxidizers poisons irritants and corrosives. Hazardous waste does not 25 include source special nuclear or bv- product material as defined by the Atomic Energy 26 Act of 1954 as amended. 27 28 Solid Waste: Garbage, refuse. sludge from a water_ supply treatment plant or air 29 contaminant treatment facility and other discarded waste materials and sludges in 30 solid semisolid liquid or contained gaseous form resulting from industrial commercial 31 mining. and agricultural operations, and from community activities, but does not include 32 hazardous waste: animal waste used as fertilizer; earthen fill boulders rock: sewage 33 sludge solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other common pollutants in 34 water resources such as silt dissolved or suspended solids in industrial wastewater 35 effluents or discharges which are point sources subject to permits under section 402 of 36 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended dissolved materials in irrigation 37 return flows: or source special nuclear, or by- product material as defined by the Atomic 38 Energy Act of 1954, as amended. 39 Page 1 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 SECTION 2. AMENDMENT Title 11, Chapter 11, Section 2; Permitted and Conditional Uses is amended and shall read as follows: A. Except as provided in this title or otherwise as provided by law, a principal building, structure or land use shall be permitted only in the zones indicated in the following table. A principal use listed in the table in any zone denoted by the letter "P" is permitted and denoted by the letter "C" is a conditional use. The uses in table 1 are permitted in the zones designated. However, the director of community development shall have the right to allow any other use which is similar to and compatible with those uses permitted in the district. Such a determination by the director of community development shall be in writing. Page 2 Mn I -4 1 1. High Capacity Sanitary Sewer Discharge D❑❑❑F� Bottling works E1© © ❑© Bus maintenance shops and bus parking lots ❑ [Q©F-1© Cans and other container manufacturing " © © ❑© Carpet and rug cleaning plants I © © ❑© Clinics © ©F--]F--]❑ Hotels and motels ©❑❑❑D Laundry and dry cleaning D © © ❑© Motor fuel stations /truck stops I © © ©F Offices © © ©❑© Pharmaceutical manufacturing FJ© © ❑© Plastics manufacturing and fabrication EX] P P Private vocation /technical schools ITIVIFIFIVI Processing and packaging food products ❑© © Restaurants © © ©0© Wastewater treatment facilities ❑ ❑ © ©© 2. Low Capacity Sanitary Sewer Discharge [::]❑ ❑ ❑[::] Agricultural, excluding greenhouses I © © © ©© Agricultural implement sales, service, and storage (inside the principal structure) ❑ C❑ C❑❑ C❑ Appliance repair © © © ❑© Page 2 jArchery ranges (inside the principal structure) JFP-1 P P P P jArmories and convention halls EIKII �C lAssembly and packaging (inside the principal structure) IKIKITIFIF—P-1 lAuction halls I C I C c FIF—c lAuto body and painting (inside the principal structure) IDI KI Fp ❑ p jAutomobile distribution facilities IFI❑ ❑ ❑K] Automobile repair (inside the principal structure) EI [E:IFP-]F-IFP-1 lBakeries I" P P F 1Boat, trailer, marine sales (inside the principal structure) Fp--][E:]❑ ❑F-1 IBroadcasting studios (television and radio) Ip P p ❑p IBuilder's supply yards and lumberyards (having outdoor storage) F-]❑ ❑ ❑Fc-I IBulk materials storage (inside the principal structure) =:1F-1❑ Fc-1❑RQ ICeramic products IFI❑ PP ICredit card/bank processing I[PIFFIF lElectromagnetic communications facilities I © © © © © lEssential services (public utilities) I © © © © © IFurniture repair, refinishing shops and sales ITIFFITI❑VI IGlue manufacturing 11 P �Greenhouses (commercial production) F P F—P lGreenhouses (inside the principal structure) IF IGun clubs (inside the principal structure) IEIFP-IFP-IFP-IF—P-] lIce, cold storage IE:IIEIFP P IMachine shops DKIFIFIVI IManufacture of electronic instruments I © © ©0 © IMetal polishing and plating IFIKIFFI❑F—P-1 IMill working IDFP P IMining and excavation 17❑0 Fp IMunicipal buildings (office/public safety buildings) [p][p] 7pFp7 p IMunicipal buildings (storage buildings) " © © © © INature centers (private or public) EIFIFITID INursery and garden supplies (exterior or enclosed sales) IFIKITI❑F—c-I IParcel delivery services IFIKIPP IPI JPlumbing, electrical and carpenter shops EITIFIFIE] IPrimarily gas fired power plants/cogeneration power plants IFQFIF-j F ❑c ❑c IPublic enclosed rental storages or garages 1EEKILIVI EM Public utility installations © © © ©© Publishing plants (printing) EI© ©❑© Recycling operations other than reduction or processing of refuse, trash, and garbage LINNIM Research, testing and scientific laboratories FI© © ❑© Sign shops (inside the principal structure) IFFIKKID © Sign shops EI❑©❑© Stone cutting (inside the principal structure) I F © ©❑© Storage of crude oil, refined oil, alcohol and other liquids (inside the principal structure) ❑� C❑� C❑ Truck, service and maintenance stations (inside the principal structure) ❑ C❑ C❑� C Utility stations and substations © ©© ©© Veterinarian hospitals /clinics (inside the principal structure) IRE ❑❑EI Warehouses and enclosed storages © © © ❑© Welding shops FI© ©❑© Well drilling services ❑EI©❑© 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 U M MA B. Prohibited Uses: 1. Commercial Waste Incineration Facilities. Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption and publication according to law. Passed this day of 1 2010. Attest: Myron Bailey, Mayor Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XXX RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCE NO. XXX BY TITLE AND SUMMARY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove adopted Ordinance No. XXX, which amends City Code Title 11 -1 -3E, Rule of Word Construction, Definitions; and Title 11 -11- 2, Permitted and Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, subd. 4 allows publication by title and summary in the case of lengthy ordinances; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the following summary would clearly inform the public of the intent and effect of the ordinance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the City Clerk shall cause the following summary of Ordinance No. XXX to be published in the official newspaper in lieu of the entire ordinance: Public Notice The City Council of the City of Cottage Grove has adopted Ordinance No. XXX. The ordinance amends City Code Title 11 -1 -3E, Rule of Word Construction, Definitions; and Title 11 -11 -2, Permitted and Conditional Uses in Industrial Zoning Districts. This amendment prohibits commercial hazardous waste incinerator facilities. The entire text of Ordinance No. XXX is available for inspection at Cottage Grove City Hall during regular business hours and is posted at the Washington County Park Grove Library. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a complete copy of the ordinance is kept in the City Clerk's office at City Hall for public inspection and a copy of the ordinance will be posted on the Public Notice Bulletin Board at City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Passed this 3rd day of February 2010. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk EXCERPT FROM UNAPPROVED MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 25, 2010 6.1 Commercial Incinerator Ordinance — Case TA10 -002 The City of Cottage Grove has applied for a zoning text amendment regarding commer- cial incinerators. Blin summarized the staff report. He read the proposed definition of a commercial incinera- tor: "A commercial waste incineration facility is any facility that sells services of burning solid waste or hazardous waste materials for generators other than the owner and operator of the facility." He stated that the ordinance amendment creates a new category for prohibited uses in industrial zoning districts under which commercial waste incinerators would be prohibited. He explained that if this proposed amendment was adopted, the existing 3M hazardous waste incinerator could continue in its current form under the city's zoning ordinance as a legal nonconforming use. He recommended approval of the ordinance amendment. Linse asked if the definition of commercial waste incineration facility would include an in- stance where the value of the hazardous waste material as fuel would be greater than the cost of its disposal or is it just for selling the incineration service. Blin responded that was part of the discussion before the Environmental Task Force; 3M is proposing to accept pri- marily solvent wastes, which burn at a fairly high temperature and can fuel the incinerator to burn other types of hazardous waste. Under their proposal, 3M would not pay for the waste solvents nor would the source generator or processor pay 3M for disposal. As long they are not paying for it or accepting payment, it doesn't fall under this commercial waste incinera- tion definition. Rambacher asked if the EPA has a national definition for commercial incineration. Blin rep- lied that the EPA rules do not distinguish between commercial and corporate. They use terms to differentiate between whether the waste source is within the company that owns the incinerator or outside of the company. Rostad noted that the staff report states that the City of Cottage Grove does not have the authority to approve or deny the current request by 3M to modify the permits, and asked if this ordinance would keep them from having it for commercial use. Blin responded that was correct from a city zoning land use control standpoint, 3M could not convert to a commercial incinerator as defined here. Willhite asked if there is any way for the city to know whether they are getting money for that or not. Blin responded that the city would rely on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which monitors what they bring in. The state has a fairly extensive system for tracking that waste. The city would encourage the PCA to regularly take a look at that. Linse stated that he would like to strike the word "significantly" from line 19 that states "cha- racteristics that may cause or significantly contribute to an increase" and the word "substan- tial" from line 21 that reads "pose a substantial present or potential hazardous." He believes, in the first case that "causes or contributes" is strong enough, and secondly any threat would Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Commercial Incinerator Ordinance January 25, 2010 Page 2 of 3 be enough, unless there is some legal basis why those words are specifically included. Blin stated there should not be a problem removing those two words but staff will check with the city attorney. He stated that these definitions were taken in whole from state statutes. Willhite agreed with Linse about removing the words "significantly" and "substantial." Rambacher asked about the proposal for more random audits. Blin responded during the city's study of the incinerator, it was noted that PCA does very few unscheduled inspections. What we were suggesting in our recommendation is that the PCA do more unscheduled ran- dom inspections. Rambacher asked why the proposed definition for "commercial" was used rather than the EPA definition. Blin responded that the city thought this best characterized what the city's concern that it not become an incinerator that, for a fee, anyone could have their hazardous waste disposed at that location. The city could look at the EPA definitions, but talking with the EPA back when this issue first started, they were clear that from an emissions standpoint they don't distinguish between commercial and corporate incineration; they are more concerned with what is emitted. Rostad asked if there was a benefit to 3M to have solid or hazardous waste brought in as a replacement for the natural gas and fuel oil costs. Blin responded that saving money by not burning natural gas is the purpose for 3M bringing in outside hazardous waste. Rostad asked if the savings was significant enough so they would not need to sell that service. Blin stated that 3M represented that they could dispose of their wastes by bringing in these sol- vents to fuel the incinerator at a lower cost than the natural gas they are currently burning. Messick stated that he does not support this ordinance amendment. He understands there are certain members of the citizenry who are upset about their water and are tying this issue to that. The PCA allows 3M to burn up to a certain amount and it doesn't matter where it comes from; their only concern is the effect on health. They have said 3M can burn a certain amount and it is healthy. He noted that his lungs cannot tell the difference whether the waste came from 3M or across the state. He does not see the benefit of this proposed ordinance to the city but he sees a downside for 3M. We either say we do want a certain amount of chemicals in our air or we don't, but this hampers 3M. What they are trying to do is burn chemicals that we don't want in the ground, have a safe amount of emissions, and do so at a cost effective price. This amendment would hamper that. We would be asking them to do something at a higher price for zero gain because they could burn up to that certain amount if it was their own chemicals. What we are getting is zero gain for the city at a higher cost to a business in our city that provides jobs and revenue. Linse asked if there has been an assessment as far as what this would cost 3M and what it would cost the city in lost tax base. Blin responded no, but reiterated that 3M has represented that they don't intend to convert this incinerator to a commercial waste incine- rator. As part of the recommendations that are going to the PCA from the city, 3M agreed to prohibit commercial incineration during this permit period, which lasts for five years. At this time, we could not calculate a cost and perhaps there would never be a cost. Messick opened the public hearing. Being that there was no testimony from the public, Messick closed the public hearing. Excerpt from Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes Commercial Incinerator Ordinance January 25, 2010 Page 3 of 3 Rambacher asked how close 3M is to the EPA's limit burning their own waste. Blin re- sponded that they are quite far from those limits and they will remain significantly below those limits even if they are allowed to bring in outside waste fuels. Willhite stated that she does not trust outside hazardous waste and believes the city needs to protect the community. She does not believe the community has been protected in the past and is in favor of the ordinance amendment. Willhite made a motion to recommend approval. Messick seconded. Motion failed on a 1 -to -4 vote with one abstention (Line). Nay votes: Messick, Pearson, Rambacher, Rostad. Messick stated that the comments he made during the discussion explained his nay vote. Pearson, Rambacher, and Rostad concurred with those comments. Linse abstained because he needs to review more data on this topic. 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -190 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST OF 3M TO THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TO MODIFY PERMIT MND006172969 REGULATING THE OPERATION OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR AT 3M COTTAGE GROVE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued Permit MND006172969 to the 3M Company dated June 2005 providing for the incineration of "business related waste generated by 3M throughout North America ;" and WHEREAS, 3M has requested a modification to this permit to allow it to accept and burn non -3M generated solvent waste to replace natural gas and fuel oil as a fuel source for the incinerator; and WHEREAS, in May 2009 3M agreed to suspend its request to the MPCA for a permit modification to allow an opportunity for the City of Cottage Grove to study the proposal; and WHEREAS, the City formed an Environmental Task Force to advise the City Council on matters relating to the physical environment in the community; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Task Force was organized in August 2009 and over the last three months studied the 3M incinerator proposal, which included a tour of the incinerator; studying information provided by the MPCA, 3M and City staff and consultants; and holding a public forum attended by approximately 30 residents during which comments were received by 12 residents. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following comments be presented to the MPCA in its consideration of the 3M request for a permit modification: 1 } Commercial Incineration If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that prohibits commercial incineration at the facility. Commercial incineration is defined as 3M accepting payment or other compensation for burning wastes generated by non -3M sources. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 2) Non -3M Wastes Allowed If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that 3M may accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content from non -3M sources. All non -3M generated wastes must have one of the following waste codes listed in the hazardous waste manifest: F001, F002, F003, F005, D001, and codes related to law enforcement wastes. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. Resolution No. 2009 -19U Page 2 of 2 3) Limits on Non -3M Wastes If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that establishes a maximum limit of non -3M wastes of 400,000 million BTU per year of wastes burned at the incinerator from sources within the United States. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 4) Law Enforcement Materials If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition law enforcement waste may be accepted only from Minnesota law enforcement agencies for processing at the incinerator. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 5) Risk Assessment With the 2010 permit renewal, an update shall be prepared of the 2004 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the incinerator. 6) Incinerator Inspections. The City requests the MPCA to perform their inspections of the 3M Corporate Incinerator to be conducted in a more random and unannounced nature. Passed this 4th day of November 2009. �� Myron Bai y,dfayor Attest: A4 m - A� Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk Cottage Grove City Council November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting City Administrator Schroeder recommended amending the organizational chart establishing the Department of Administration and the Department of Finance. He also recommended that the management analyst position titles for the existing management analyst positions be reassigned to managers of human resources, economic development, and community services /communications. Mayor Bailey asked if anyone on Council had any questions. Council Member Olsen suggested that for the proposed tiles they be changed from manager to Human Resources Coordinator, Economic Development Coordinator, and Community Services /Communications Coordinator. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON, TO AMEND THE PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE TITLE FROM THAT OF MANAGER TO COORDINATOR FOR EACH OF THE NEW POSITIONS - HUMAN RESOURCES COORDINATOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR AND COMMUNICATIONS COORDINATOR UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE DEEM NECESSARY TO RE -VISIT THIS. Mayor Bailey stated that we are not adding new positions; we are re- classifying three (3) existing employees and streamlining some of the responsibilities so there is more specific direct accountabilities as it relates to each position. UPON VOTE BEING TAKEN, MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0 3M Incinerator Proposal Mayor Bailey noted this is to consider approving the resolution providing comments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the request of 3M to modify their MPCA permit to accept and process non -3M generated hazardous waste at their hazardous waste incinerator at 3M- Cottage Grove, Community Development Director Blin reviewed the Environmental Task Force report on the 3M Incinerator Proposal noting that they were assisted on a technical basis by Tom Henning of SEH, Inc. Community Development Director Blin summarized the proposal noting that 3M is currently permitted to burn hazardous wastes generated only by 3M facilities. Mr. Blin stated that 3M is seeking to amend their permit to allow them to burn high -BTU solvents from sources outside 3M. Community Development Director Blin stated in terms of government controls over the incinerator, the City issued a special use permit in 1970, and no change is required by the City for 3M's current proposal. The special use permit does not specify the source of the waste so the City's permit does not need to be amended in any way. The MPCA must approve the permit amendment and the current air emission permit allows only Cottage Grove City Council November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting 31M waste to be burned. Washington County must approve an amendment to 3M's solid waste permit. Community Development Director Blin then presented a schematic showing the incinerator operation noting that emission limits are set by the MPCA and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the 3M proposal before the MPCA would not change those limits. Community Development Director Blin noted that if the permit is ultimately approved by the MPCA, the changes in emissions over the current natural gas and fuel oil that is used to fuel the incinerator would increase the volatile organic compounds of the VOC by about .001 pounds per hour or less than a half a percent increase. The particulate matter would increase by about .03 pounds per hour or less than a 1 % increase. There would be no change in the metals. Thomas Henning of SHE, Inc. provided a summary of the technical evaluations that they completed for the Task Force. He stated that the 3M- Cottage Grove facility is actually permitted as eight (8) separate facilities: • Abrasive Systems Division • Building 17 • Building 13 - Formally TCM • Center Utilities • Corporate Incinerator • Film & Materials Resource Division • Specialty Additives • Tape Manufacturing Henning stated that he submitted a request to receive information that the MPCA has on the 3M facilities and focused on three (3) specific facilities at the Cottage Grove plant for the years 2006, 2007, and 2008 - being the Materials Resource Division, Tape Manufacturing, and the Corporate Incinerator. The three (3) operations generate the majority of emissions at the 3M Center. Henning then reviewed the emissions from combustion, volatile organic compounds, the VOC emissions (tons per year), 2005 emissions (pound per year), allowable versus actual emissions of the 3M Incinerator and the emission test results. Henning stated there was a public meeting a few weeks ago where the public was allowed to express concerns or present questions about the 3M plant, and one question dealt with their Risk Management Plan which is required at facilities that store quantities of chemicals that might be released and become a hazard to the surrounding community. Henning stated they looked into it and the 3M incinerator is not required to prepare such a plan because they do not store those chemicals. Henning stated another person asked about the operation of the incinerator. They were concerned that it was operating differently at night than during the day. Henning Cottage Grove City Council G November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting V stated he sent an engineer from his office to the 3M Incinerator to look at their operational data from the incinerator noting that SEH, Inc. saw no significant difference in the incinerator or pollution control operation. Henning noted that the MPCA conducts inspections of all of the 3M plants on a two - year cycle. In the Materials Resource Division they looked at inspection reports from 2005, 2007 and in 2008; tape manufacturing for the same three years; and for the incinerator in 2006 and 2008. All of the reports show that the three (3) facilities are operating in compliance with their permit. Henning stated that every six (6) months 3M is required to submit a report to MPCA that highlights deviations or abnormalities that have occurred during the previous six (6) months. He stated they looked at those reports for the three (3) aforementioned facilities and for the material resources division and tap manufacturing there were some minor for incidents reported. For the incinerator, they were more frequent but in very short duration and the report summarized those deviations. Henning stated in general, the incinerator has operated in compliance with the air permit requirements, the emission tests have all shown compliance, the incinerator operation and the operation of the control equipment does not vary between night and day, the incinerator is not required to prepare a Risk Management Plan, and for many pollutants, the emission levels are greater from other Divisions at the 3M- Cottage Grove facility than they were at the incinerator. Community Development Director Blin then reviewed the recommendations from the Environmental Task Force to the MPCA on the 3M request for permit modification. Commercial Incineration If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that prohibits commercial incineration at the facility. Commercial incineration is defined as 3M accepting payment or other compensation for burning wastes generated by non -3M sources. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 2. Non -31VI Wastes Allowed If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that 3M may accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content from non -3M sources. All non -31VI generated wastes must have one of the following waste codes listed in the hazardous waste manifest: F001, F002, F003, F005, D001, and codes related to law enforcement wastes. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 3. Limits on Non -31M Wastes. If MPCA Permit No. MND006172696 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the Cottage Grove City Council I 7 November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that establishes a maximum limit of non -3M wastes of 400,000 million BTU per year of wastes burned at the incinerator from sources within the United States. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 4. Law Enforcement Materials If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition law enforcement waste may be accepted only from Minnesota law enforcement agencies for processing at the incinerator. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 5. Risk Assessment With the 2010 permit renewal, an update shall be prepared of the 2004 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the incinerator. 6. Incinerator Inspections The City requests the MPCA to perform their inspections of the 3M Corporate Incinerator to be conducted in a more random and unannounced nature. Mayor Bailey asked if Council had any questions for staff or Mr. Henning Council Member Olsen stated that the 400,000 million pounds of BTU's, you indicated equates to two (2) tanker truck loads per day. He stated it was his recollection that at the beginning of this dialogue, it was one (1) tanker truck per day and stated he is curious what changed. Community Development Director Blin stated the actual representation by 3M at the start of this process was about one (1) tanker load per day. He stated 3M was concerned that if they are limited to one -half of that or one truck per day, they may not have enough solvent waste to fuel the incinerator properly. Vickie Batroot, 31A Cottage Gove Site Director, stated that early in the process when 3M was asked what volume of solvent we were talking about there was concern that there would be a stream of trucks going in and out of the site on a daily basis. She stated it would be more like one tanker per day. Currently, 3M has 100 to 125 trucks coming into the facility each day. Ms. Batroot stated that 3M sharpened their pencils and when they did the math, it came out to about 1.5 tankers on average per day and they rounded that up to two (2) tankers. Council Member Olsen stated that one of the recommendations is to prohibit commercial incineration in the MPCA permit. He asked whether, 3M as an example, applied for a permit modification six months to a year from now to amend the current agreement we are looking at today what does that look like, what does that mean, and how does the City then respond to that? Community Development Director Blin responded that if that condition is put in the permit, Staff would be made aware of that proposal and the Council would probably direct them to protest a permit modification Cottage Grove City Council I p November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting because it is an agreed upon stipulation that 3M and the City have reached. Community Development Director Blin stated the process is the same but the MPCA would be hard pressed to modify a permit that the City and 3M have agreed upon. Council Member Olsen asked if there was any dialogue by the Task Force on the original Special Use Permit and perhaps implementing language prohibiting commercial incineration in the original SUP. Community Development Director Blin responded that the Task Force did discuss opening up the original 1970 Special Use Permit to include a clause that would prohibit commercial incineration; however, the important point is special use permits can only be revised by the mutual consent not only of the City, but of the party holding the permit, or in this case 3M. 3M did not agree to do that. Council Member Olsen asked if they are open to putting that in the MPCA permit. Community Development Director Blin responded that they discussed it and on a 5 -2 vote, approved the recommendation on the table. He stated without 3M's concurrence, the original Special Use Permit could not be re- opened. Mayor Bailey asked if Council had any further questions from Staff at this time. There being none, Mayor Bailey stated before he looks for a motion, one of the things he found very interesting in this whole process was the fact that we have learned that the City's land use controls do not address hazardous waste incinerators within Cottage Grove and as everyone is aware, the authority of the City of Cottage Grove is very limited on what we can actually do in the sense of approvals or disapprovals especially without 3M's consent. He stated he wanted to mention that what he will be doing after the vote is completed and calls for a motion, he will be asking for a motion to direct City Staff and the Planning Commission to study the range of impacts caused by commercial and non - commercial incinerators and to recommend changes to the City's zoning code and other official controls as necessary to prevent commercial incineration and to restrict expansion of existing incinerator facilities within the City of Cottage Grove. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RICE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GROSSKLAUS, TO ACCEPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -190 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST OF 3M TO THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TO MODIFY PERMIT MND006172969 REGULATING THE OPERATION OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR AT 3M- COTTAGE GROVE. Mayor Bailey asked the City Clerk to conduct a roll call vote. City Clerk Stransky asked for roll call votes from: • Mayor Bailey -Voted Aye • Council Member Peterson -Voted Nay • Council Member Rice -Voted Aye • Council Member Olsen -Voted Nay Cottage Grove City Council November 4, 2009 Regular Meeting • Council Member Grossklaus -Voted Aye MOTION CARRIED. 3 -2. (COUNCIL MEMBER PETERSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN VOTING NAY) MOTION BY MAYOR BAILEY, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OLSEN, TO DIRECT CITY STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO STUDY THE RANGE OF IMPACTS CAUSED BY COMMERCIAL AND NON - COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS AND TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY'S ZONING CODE AND OTHER OFFICIAL CONTROLS AS NECESSARY TO PREVENT COMMERCIAL INCINERATION AND TO RESTRICT EXPANSION OF EXISTING INCINERATION FACILITIES. MOTION CARRIED. 5 -0. 9. RESPONSE TO PREVIOUSLY RAISED COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS - None. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND REQUESTS Council Member Peterson stated the next Human Services /Rights Commission meeting is November 11, 2009. Due to it being Veteran's Day Holiday, that meeting has been cancelled. Mayor Bailey announced upcoming events: • Decorate and Skate at the Ice Arena - Wednesday, November 18 " from 6:30 PM to 8:00 P.M. Bring a new or gently used decoration for the 12 -foot tree in the Ice Arena and receive $2.00 off your public skating admission of $4.00. The discount is valid on that evening only. Free hot chocolate will be provided at the event. • Holiday Train Pancake Breakfast- Saturday, November 21 from 8:00 AM to 10:00 AM, at Applebee's which includes all you can eat pancakes, eggs, bacon, and beverage, for $6.00 per person. With the purchase, you will be eligible to win a ride on the Holiday Train. Three (3) winners, with a guest, will be chosen. • Holiday Train Dine to Donate - Friday, November 27 " or Saturday, November 28 at Applebee's 20% of your bill will be donated to the Friends in Need Food Shelf. • Residential Holiday Lighting Contest - Nominations must be received by Wednesday, November 25 homes will be judged on overall appearance, creativity, holiday spirit, theme, taking place between December 7 1h and 11` , between 5:00 PM and 10:00 PM. Nomination forms are available at City Hall, Public Works and on the City's web site at www.Cottage- Grove.org • Community Tree Lighting Ceremony at City Hall - December 2 nd at 6:00 PM. Music will be provided by the Park High choir, free hot beverages and cookies will be served. REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # L �6 DATE 11/4/09 8 PREPARED BY: Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR Y * I * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Y * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST: Consider approving the resolution providing comments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the request by 3M to modify their MPCA permit to accept and process non-3M generated hazardous waste at their hazardous waste incinerator at 3M Cottage Grove. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution providing comments to the MPCA regarding 3M's request to accept and process non-31M generated hazardous waste at their incinerator at 3M Cottage Grove. ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: ❑ MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Jennifer Levitt and Howard Blin dated 10/28109 Z RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: Z OTHER: Report on 3M Incinerator Proposal Public Comment Correspondence ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: A `/city A7 COUNCILACTION iAKEN: [- 'I I- r- DE NIED F- 0-1-HER DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ 1:1 ❑ F� PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS El ❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ F1 HUMAN SERVICES/RIGHTS El El El ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Environmental Task Force 1 1:1 ❑ El SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: ❑ MEMO/LETTER: Memo from Jennifer Levitt and Howard Blin dated 10/28109 Z RESOLUTION: Draft ❑ ORDINANCE: ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: Z OTHER: Report on 3M Incinerator Proposal Public Comment Correspondence ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS: A `/city A7 COUNCILACTION iAKEN: [- 'I I- r- DE NIED F- 0-1-HER CITY OF COTTAGE GROVE MINNESOTA To: To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator From: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director Date: October 28, 2009 Re: 3M Incinerator Proposal Background: The first charge of the newly assembled Environmental Task Force was to review the permit modification for the 3M Corporate Hazardous Waste Incinerator at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. The background, analysis, review, and research that were conducted for the incinerator can be found in the enclosed report: Report on 3M Proposal, Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force, October 2009. Discussion: During the review process of the incinerator operations and in discussions with 3M, there was an agreement that 3M would provide the City an annual report on the incinerator addressing total emissions levels, operational compliance, plans to address peak emissions levels of carbon monoxide, compliance with 3M environmental targets, and procedures related to severe weather and power outages. Also, during those same discussions 3M agreed to work with the Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force to study air and water emissions from sources other than the incinerator at the 3M Cottage Grove facility and explore means of reducing emissions levels. The Environmental Task Force agreed that this should be a future action they undertake, specifically looking to address air emissions related to VOCs and toluene. The Task Force further recommended using 3M's annual reporting for the incinerator as a model for other industries in the community. A request was made to further review what other permits exist in the community related to air emissions. The Task Force's next meeting is scheduled for December 9, 2009, at which time they will decide on the next industry and permit to review for providing recommendations to the City Council. It is recommended the Council adopt the attached resolution providing comments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the 3M Incinerator Permit MND006172969 modification and renewal regulating the operation of a hazardous waste incinerator at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. RESOLUTION NO. 2009 -XXX A RESOLUTION PROVIDING COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST OF 3M TO THE MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY TO MODIFY PERMIT MND006172969 REGULATING THE OPERATION OF A HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATOR AT 3M COTTAGE GROVE WHEREAS, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued Permit MND006172969 to the 3M Company dated June 2005 providing for the incineration of "business related waste generated by 3M throughout North America ;" and WHEREAS, 3M has requested a modification to this permit to allow it to accept and burn non -3M generated solvent waste to replace natural gas and fuel oil as a fuel source for the incinerator; and WHEREAS, in May 2009 3M agreed to suspend its request to the MPCA for a permit modification to allow an opportunity for the City of Cottage Grove to study the proposal; and WHEREAS, the City formed an Environmental Task Force to advise the City Council on matters relating to the physical environment in the community; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Task Force was organized in August 2009 and over the last three months studied the 3M incinerator proposal, which included a tour of the incinerator; studying information provided by the MPCA, 3M and City staff and consultants; and holding a public forum attended by approximately 30 residents during which comments were received by 12 residents. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Cottage Grove, County of Washington, State of Minnesota, that the following comments be presented to the MPCA in its consideration of the 3M request for a permit modification: 1) Commercial Incineration If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that prohibits commercial incineration at the facility. Commercial incineration is defined as 3M accepting payment or other compensation for burning wastes generated by non -3M sources. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 2) Non -3M Wastes Allowed If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that 3M may accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content from non -3M sources. All non -3M generated wastes must have one of the following waste codes listed in the hazardous waste manifest: F001, F002, F003, F005, D001, and codes related to law enforcement wastes. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. Kesolut on No. LUUU -AAA Page 2 of 2 3) Limits on Non -3M Wastes If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -31M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition that establishes a maximum limit of non -3M wastes of 400,000 million BTU per year of wastes burned at the incinerator from sources within the United States. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 4) Law Enforcement Materials If MPCA Permit No. MND006172969 is modified to allow 3M to burn non -3M generated solvent waste as a fuel source for the incinerator, the permit and any renewal thereof should include a condition law enforcement waste may be accepted only from Minnesota law enforcement agencies for processing at the incinerator. 3M has represented to the City that 3M will voluntarily agree to such a condition, and the City has relied upon that representation. 5) Risk Assessment With the 2010 permit renewal, an update shall be prepared of the 2004 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the incinerator. 6) Incinerator Inspections. The City requests the MPCA to perform their inspections of the 3M Corporate Incinerator to be conducted in a more random and unannounced nature. Passed this 4th day of November 2009. Myron Bailey, Mayor Attest: Caron M. Stransky, City Clerk M• • • ! t Cottage Grove Environmental . y. r 1. Introduction Since 1971, 3M has operated a corporate hazardous waste incinerator at its Cottage Grove plant. Under Minnesota Pollution C ®ntrol Agency (MPCA) permits, only waste products generated by 3M may be processed at the incinerator. In March 2009, 3M requested a modification from the state air emissions and hazardous waste permits to allow 3M to accept and process non -3M generated hazardous wastes. The purpose for this request is to allow 3M to accept wastes with high fuel value to replace the natural gas and fuel oil currently used to fuel the incinerator. In addition, as part of the modification to the permits, the MPCA requested that 3M also process at the incinerator wastes generated by Minnesota law enforcement agencies. 6 This report includes the following elements: A description of the incinerator • A description of the MPCA permitting process • Analysis of emissions monitoring data a Recommendations on the City's response to the 3M permit modification request. Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force To allow time for the City of Cottage Grove to study the incinerator request, in May 2009, 3M voluntarily suspended its requested permit modification. The City subsequently formed an Environmental Task Force to review issues related to the incinerator and provide a recommendation to the City Council. The City also contracted with SEH, Inc. to provide technical assistance to the Task Force and City staff. The Task Force has met six times on the proposal: August 5, 2009 — The Task Force participated in a tour of the facility. August 19, 2009 — Presentations by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and 3M on the incinerator proposal. September 9, 2009 — Discussion of issues involving the incinerator proposal. September 23, 2009 — The Task Force held a public forum on the proposal attended by approximately 30 Cottage Grove residents. Thirteen residents spoke on the issue. October 14, 2009 — Discussion of issues raised at the public forum. October 27, 2009 — Review of final report on the incinerator. The minutes of the Task Force meetings on the incinerator are attached. se 2. Incinerator Background As noted above, 3M has operated an incinerator at the 3M Cottage Grove facility since 1971. The original incinerator was replaced and upgraded in a series of improvements from 1996 to 2005. The primary fuel for the incinerator is solvent waste. These solvents are supplemented by natural gas and fuel oil to maintain operating temperatures of 1,800 ° F to 2,000 ° F in the incinerator. The following description of the incinerator is included in the technical support document prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for the air emissions permit for the incinerator: The 3M Company (Permittee) Cottage Grove Center (Facility) is located at 10746 Innovation Road, Cottage Grove, Minnesota. 3M operates a thermal treatment system under separate air quality and hazardous waste permits. The 3M Corporate Incinerator consists of a rotary kiln and a secondary combustion chamber (SCC) followed by a wet off -gas cleaning system. The off -gas cleaning system consists of a quench chamber, a subcooler, a particulate removal device known as the M1 module, a wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP), an induced draft fan, and an exhaust stack. Also located at this Facility are indoor and outdoor container storage areas, outdoor tank storage areas, a containment building for bulk solids storage, a tanker truck unloading area, outdoor trailer storage, indoor and outdoor material handling areas, and a rotary kiln incinerator with a secondary combustion chamber. These units provide treatment and storage of hazardous waste generated by 3M's operating divisions. No disposal of hazardous waste is conducted at this Facility. The material storage and -z- handling areas of the facility are permitted under a separate RCRA permit and are not covered under this air emissions permit. This permit authorizes the operation of the combustion system consisting of a rotary kiln and a secondary combustion chamber. The rotary kiln is 40 feet long, has a shell diameter of 14 feet 9 inches, and is designed as a primary combustion chamber. The secondary combustion chamber is 60 feet high and has a shell diameter of 20 feet. It provides additional residence time to combust off -gases of organic wastes. An emergency vent stack is provided at the roof of the secondary combustion chamber. The combustion system has no boiler. This permit does not authorize the installation of a future boiler. The 3M Corporate Incinerator, which includes container and tanker storage areas, provides treatment and storage for business - related wastes generated by 31VI's operating divisions throughout North America. The Incineration system is designed to handle a variety of wastes introduced through four separate feed systems. Materials can be fed to the rotary kiln by four means depending on the waste stream. Solids are fed through a bulk feed chute (pakfeeder and Komar shredder); pumpable liquids are fed through lances or the frontwall burner; sludge is fed through a lance from either the Building 145 sludge room or the Building 47 pump room; and direct burn wastes are fed through a lance. Pollution control is facilitated with several flue gas treatment devices. The incinerator exhaust gases are saturated and cooled in the quench chamber. Flue gases then pass through a subcooling tower and filtering module. Final pollution control is provided by a wet electrostatic precipitator. Flue gases are pulled through the system with an induced draft fan and exhausted through a 165 -foot stack to the atmosphere. -3- Hazardous waste is shipped to the Facility via semi - trailers in 55- gallon steel drums, totes, plastic and fiber drums, pails, boxes, bags, portable tanks, and tanker trucks. The types of containerized wastes received include solids, gases in cylinders, pumpable sludges, organic liquids, and aqueous liquids. (Source: MPCA Technical Support Document for Air Emission Permit No. 16300025 -001) 3. Air Permitting Issues 3M Incinerator Air Permit The incinerator operated at 3M Cottage Grove is subject to several state and federal air quality regulations and permitting requirements. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has issued an air operation permit for the incinerator, Permit Number 16300025 -001. In addition to containing emission limits applicable to the incinerator, the air permit also documents required recordkeeping, monitoring, testing, and reporting requirements. There are several pollution control devices operated in conjunction with the incinerator which are designed to control emissions. Each of the pollution control devices have operation conditions that must be continually met in order to demonstrate the devices are functioning properly. For example, the electrostatic precipitator (a device designed to control particulate matter (dust) from the incinerator) must maintain a sufficient electric current to work properly. Also, the incinerator kiln must be maintained at a minimum temperature to ensure organic material is completely burned. The incinerator is subject to several state and federal air quality regulations. One of the most important regulations is call the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. This federal rule established emission rates and other requirements to ensure proper control emissions of hazardous air pollutants such as lead, cadmium, arsenic, beryllium, chromium and mercury. Regarding mercury, 3M has accepted a permit limit for mercury that is less than half of the federal mercury emission standard. The lower emission limit was accepted at the request of MPCA because of Minnesota's focus on reducing state wide mercury emissions. The rule also establishes required performance levels for pollution control equipment. The facility is also required to meet state and federal ambient air quality standards. Emissions from the incinerator must not cause air quality outside of 3M's property to degrade below these standards. The permit contains emission limits and recordkeeping requirements to ensure these standards are met. Air Permit Renewal Process The 3M Incinerator air permit was issued on February 14, 2005. The permit is valid for five years, that is, it expires on February 14, 2010. 3M is required to submit a permit renewal application at least 180 days prior to the expiration date. Therefore the renewal application was due by August 18, 2009. 3M submitted a renewal application prior to this date. The MPCA will review the application and prepare a draft permit. The new draft permit will ` reflect any changes proposed by 3M in their renewal application and will incorporate any new Irla applicable air quality regulations that may have come into effect since the initial permit was issued. The MPCA will also prepare a "Technical Support Document" in which MPCA will document the technical review they conducted while preparing the draft permit. The Technical Support Document also provides the legal and factual justification for each applicable requirement or policy decision considered in the issuance of the draft permit. When complete, the draft permit and Technical Support Document will be made available to the public for review and comment. The comment period lasts for 30 days. Written comments on draft permit must be considered by MPCA. Members of the public or organizations can request that a public information meeting be held. MPCA generally grants these requests as long as the reason for the request is a legitimate concern related to the air permit. In addition to the 30 -day public comment period, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also given a 45 -day comment period. EPA's comment period typically runs concurrent with the public's 30 -day comment period. MPCA only issues the permit after all comments related to the air permit are addressed. Note that MPCA will typically not respond to comments on issues unrelated to the air permit such as land use, zoning; traffic, or environmental impacts unrelated to air emissions. Inspections and Required Reports MPCA staff conducts inspections of regulated facilities every two years. Although MPCA has the authority to conduct unannounced inspections, their policy is to provide the facility at least a couple days' notice of an upcoming inspection. SEH reviewed the inspection reports for three facilities operated at the 3M Cottage Grove plant (see Section 3.2.3). The 3M Incinerator permit contains reporting requirements. For example, 3M is required to submit an annual compliance certification for the incinerator. Deviation reports are required semi annually (every six months). SEH reviewed the compliance certifications and deviation reports for three facilities located at the 3M Cottage Grove plant (see Section 3.2.4). SEH conducted a review MPCA files for the 3M Cottage Grove facility. SEH focused the review on three facilities at the 3M Cottage Grove Complex: the incinerator (since it is the focus of the Task Forces' efforts), the Tape Manufacturing plant and the Materials Resource Division. The latter two are included since most of the emissions from 3M Cottage Grove originate from these operations. In addition, we requested information from the MPCA for years 2006, 2007, and 2008. Below is a summary of the information received. Review of Emission Test Results A January 14, 2008 letter from MPCA to 3M Cottage Grove documented the results of emission testing conducted on emissions from the incinerator. Testing was performed on four dates, August 20, 2002; November 5, 2002; May 8, 2003; and August 17, 2004. The summary documents that all of the testing demonstrated compliance with permit emission limits. The results of each test and the allowable emission limits are shown on Table 1. -5- Table 1. Stack Test Results 3M Cottage Grove Incinerator Note: ug /dscm =micrograms per dry standard cubic meter lb/hr = pounds per hour gr /dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot An October 13, 2006, letter from MPCA to 3M Cottage Grove documented the results of emission testing conducted on the two thermal oxidizers operated at the Tape Manufacturing plant at the 3M Complex. The thermal oxidizers are used to destroy solvents and other volatile compounds use on two tape "makers." The two oxidizers are required to achieve at least 95 percent destruction efficiency of volatile organic compounds (e.g. solvents). The "Maker 11" thermal oxidizer achieved 98.1 and 96.3 percent destruction efficiency (3M used two different tests to verify compliance). The "Maker 14" thermal oxidizer achieved 99.6 and 97.4 percent destruction. The tests show that both thermal oxidizers achieve their required destruction efficiency. Review of Compliance Inspections The file review included the results of several Air Quality Compliance Inspections conducted by MPCA staff for the three facilities. SEH reviewed inspection results conducted during 2005, 2007, and 2009 for the Materials Resource Division; 2005, 2007, and 2009 for the Tape Manufacturing Plant; and 2006 and 2008 for the incinerator. The results of each compliance inspection concluded that "No emissions violations of applicable Minnesota air quality rules were observed at the facility." However, some of the inspections generated some dialogue between 3M and MPCA staff regarding the specifics of some recordkeeping and reporting requirements. On Table 2 we show the dates and facilities covered by each inspection and a description of issues discussed during the inspections. 0 Results of Emission Permit Tests 8/20/2002 11/512002 5/812003 8/1712004 Pollutant Limits Units Arsenic + Beryllium + 97 ug /dscm 3.9 12.4 Chromium gram /24- Beryllium 10 hour < 0.56 < 0.55 < 0.48 Cadmium + Lead 240 u /dscm 185.1 47.8 Hydrogen Chloride 4.0 lb/hr < 0.052 0.34 0.07 Mercury 50 u /dscm 2.6 1.9 0.25 Opacity 20 Percent 2.5 1.5 Particulate Matter 0.06 r /dscf 0.010 LCL0048 1 0.010 0.026 Note: ug /dscm =micrograms per dry standard cubic meter lb/hr = pounds per hour gr /dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot An October 13, 2006, letter from MPCA to 3M Cottage Grove documented the results of emission testing conducted on the two thermal oxidizers operated at the Tape Manufacturing plant at the 3M Complex. The thermal oxidizers are used to destroy solvents and other volatile compounds use on two tape "makers." The two oxidizers are required to achieve at least 95 percent destruction efficiency of volatile organic compounds (e.g. solvents). The "Maker 11" thermal oxidizer achieved 98.1 and 96.3 percent destruction efficiency (3M used two different tests to verify compliance). The "Maker 14" thermal oxidizer achieved 99.6 and 97.4 percent destruction. The tests show that both thermal oxidizers achieve their required destruction efficiency. Review of Compliance Inspections The file review included the results of several Air Quality Compliance Inspections conducted by MPCA staff for the three facilities. SEH reviewed inspection results conducted during 2005, 2007, and 2009 for the Materials Resource Division; 2005, 2007, and 2009 for the Tape Manufacturing Plant; and 2006 and 2008 for the incinerator. The results of each compliance inspection concluded that "No emissions violations of applicable Minnesota air quality rules were observed at the facility." However, some of the inspections generated some dialogue between 3M and MPCA staff regarding the specifics of some recordkeeping and reporting requirements. On Table 2 we show the dates and facilities covered by each inspection and a description of issues discussed during the inspections. 0 Tahle 2_ Summary of Comnliance Insnections Facility Date of Follow -up Discussion Points Inspection Materials Resource January 25, 2005 MPCA requested that 3M: Division • Calculate rolling 12 month emission totals upon issuance of the 16300022 permit. • Document that PM10 emissions emitted is equal to PM emissions. Y Include building number, unit descriptions, and permit ID numbers on the required equipment list. September 6, 2007 No follow-up items June 26, 2009 Records search did not include letter with follow -up items. Tape Manufacturing March 30, 2005 • Even though the permit only requires weekly throughput 16300080 calculations, MPCA states that 3M must also demonstrate compliance with a monthly throughput limit. • MPCA requested that 3M clarify how actual monthly VOC usage will be calculated • MPCA clarified reporting requirements related to the two thermal oxidizers operated at the plant. September 7, 2007 No follow-up items June 25, 2009 Records search did not include letter with follow -up items. Incinerator June 7, 2006 MPCA requested that 3M: 16300025 • Include Test Methods and Procedures in 3M Leak Detection and Repair SOP. • Organize the equipment shown on their required equipment list into categories. • Update information on mechanical pumps operated at the plant. • Update a Title V notification confirming the applicability of federal control requirements at the plant • Specifically state in deviation reports that no deviations are noted. June 17, 2008 No follow-up items Each of the 3M facilities at the Cottage Grove complex are required to submit semi - annual monitoring reports, annual compliance certifications and deviation reports. SEH reviewed reports from 2006 — 2009 for the Material Resource Division, 2005 — 2009 for the Tape Manufacturing Plant, and 2007 — 2009 for the incinerator. In general, few deviations are reported at the Materials Resource Division and Tape Manufacturing Plant. Deviations were commonly failure to verify operation of temperature recording devices. The Incinerator reports had more frequent deviations reported. Examples of deviations reported include out of range carbon monoxide concentrations or kiln temperatures. The reported deviations were typically for very brief durations. A summary of the reports provided by MPCA from the file search is shown on Table 3. da Table 3. Summary of Monitoring, Compliance and Deviation Reports Facili Date of Report Deviation Discussions Materials Resource January 27, 2006 No Deviations July 21, 2006 No Deviations Division January 26, 2007 A required report for the Subpart PPP MACT is being submitted 16300022 separatel July 20, 2007 No Deviations January 25, 2008 No Deviations July 27, 2008 No Deviations January 27, 2009 The pH of the Halogen Scrubber operated with the Wastewater Treatment plant dropped below 7.0. The cause was identified and corrected. Documentation of MPCA notification associated with the low pH. Tape Manufacturing July 20, 2005 No Deviations January 12, 2006 On four days between July 16 and December 4, operators failed 16300080 to verify the operation of temperature recording devices on the thermal oxidizers. July 26, 2006 On five days between January 2 and June 25, operators failed to verify the operation of temperature recording devices on the thermal oxidizers. January 5, 2007 No Deviations July 20, 2007 No Deviations January 14, 2008 No Deviations July 22, 2008 No Deviations January 27, 2009 On November 15, operators failed to verify the operation of temperature recording devices on the thermal oxidizers. Incinerator January 27, 2007 • Listed several dates when CO concentrations exceeded 16300025 threshold 6 Documented events when feed chute relief damper opened 6 Two incidents when kiln temperature dropped • Documented when subcooler water pressure dropped • Descriptions of monitor downtimes for calibration and maintenance July 26, 2007 . Listed several dates when CO concentrations exceeded threshold • Documented calibration data and startup /shutdown information [January 28, 2008 a Site -wide power outage caused a system shutdown. Some operational data was lost during power outage. • Lightning strike caused a shutdown of the system. A burnout of the system was initiated as the severe weather approached. . A bearing failure in the ID fan caused an emergency shutdown of the system. ® Documented calibration data and startup /shutdown information July 27, 2009 ® Listed several dates when CO concentrations exceeded threshold January 27, 2009 e Listed several dates when CO concentrations exceeded threshold • Power outage caused hazardous waste feed cutoff. Event caused drop in pressure across M1 scrubber. d Excess slag dropping into quench caused E -stack opening ® Komar Pressure Relief Panels opened • Excess slag dropped in quench causing a drop in kiln t em . -8- During the September 23, 2009 Environmental Task Force meeting, members of the public expressed concern that the 3M Incinerator was operated differently at night than during the day. In response to these comments, SEH conducted a review of 3M Incinerator operational data. On September 30, 2009, Kathryn Sarnecki, PE, with SEH visited the 3M Cottage Grove Incinerator. The purpose of the visit was to view operational data from the incinerator. Specifically, SEH was looking for evidence that the incinerator or the pollution control equipment associated with the incinerator is operated differently at night than during the day. Initially, Ms. Sarnecki viewed data generated at the incinerator for the previous 24 hours (from 9:00 a.m. September 29 through 9:00 a.m. September 30). From the incinerator control room she viewed instantaneous results and process averages compared to permit values. Specific parameters viewed were: 1) Kiln exit temperature, 2) Total hazardous mass and total pumpable mass input rates, 3) M1 venturi scrubber pressure differential, 4) Wet electrostatic precipitator power, 5) Ash generation rate, and 6) Material loading rates (e.g. chlorine, arsenic + beryllium + chromium, and lead + cadmium). These parameters are indicative of the loading rates of total waste and specific compounds (such as metals) to the incinerator and the kiln's operating temperature. In addition, this data documents the operation of the primary pollution control equipment (e.g. the venturi scrubber and the electrostatic precipitator). After viewing data for the previous 24 hours, Ms. Sarnecki asked to view data from several other dates selected at random. Care was taken to ensure some of these dates included weekends. Data from the following dates were viewed: • September 27 and 28, 2009 • August 6 and 7, 2009 • June 2 through 9, 2009 • February 18 through 23, 2009 • May 3 through June 6, 2006 Figure 1 shows kiln operating temperatures for sixteen 24 -hour periods between February 22, 2009, and September 29, 2009. The temperatures show no daily fluctuation. The data show the operating temperature dropping from about 2,000 ° F to 1500 ° F during the morning of June 2, then increasing back up to 2,000 °F during the morning of June 3. Figure 2 shows waste loading rates to the kiln for sixteen 24 -hour periods. No daily fluctuations are apparent from day and night operation. Note that waste loading to the kiln drops to zero during the time period that the kiln temperature lowered to 1,500 ° F. -9- Based on this review, SEH saw no significant difference in incinerator or pollution control equipment operation. Although the data varied throughout any given 24 -hour period, the differences between daytime and nighttime operation were negligible. Additionally, no violations of permit requirements were noticed for the parameters examined. 3M Cottage Grove Emissions 3M Cottage Grove actually consists of �-a =veral separately permitted operations, one of which is the 3M Corporate Incinerator. Each of these operations has a separate air permit. Table 4 below lists the operations and the Facility Identification number assigned to each operation by the MPCA. -10- Tahia A 3M nnorntinnc at 3M Cottage Grove Permitted facilities in Minnesota are required to annually report their actual "criteria pollutant' emissions to the MPCA. Every three years (i.e. 2008, 2005, etc.) permitted facilities are required to report annual emissions of additional compounds. MPCA makes this data available to the public on their website at: www.pca.state.mn.us/air/criteria-emissionsearch.cfm At the request of the Task Force, SEH totaled the annual emissions from each of the 3M operations at the 3M Complex for the three most recent years, 2005, 2006 and 2007 using the data available from the MPCA website. Note that 2008 emission data is not yet available on the website. Table 5 shows emission data from each of the 3M Cottage Grove facilities for the years, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The data show the emissions from the incinerator have been relatively similar for each of these years. For example, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions have been 20 tons per year (tpy), 30 tpy, and 26 tpy over this period. The data also show that VOC emissions have been consistently higher at the Tape Manufacturing Plant and Materials Resource Division than at the incinerator. Every three years (i.e. 2008, 2005, etc.) permitted facilities are required to report annual emissions of additional compounds. 2008 data is not yet available so 2005 data for additional compounds is shown on Table 6 for each of the 3M Cottage Grove operations. Emissions from the Cogentrix plant which is located next to the 3M plant are also shown. Again, the data show that emissions from the Tape Manufacturing plant and Materials Resource Division are generally higher than from the other operations including the incinerator. SEH also evaluated heavy metal emissions from the incinerator. For this evaluation, SEH prepared a comparison of the allowable heavy metal emission rates with actual emission rates. The 3M Cottage Grove incinerator air permit limits the concentration of several heavy metals in the exhaust from the incinerator. The permit also limits the amount of exhaust gas from the incinerator to less than 40,000 dry standard cubic feet permit minute (dscfm). Using the concentration limits and the exhaust flow limits SEH calculated allowable emission rates based on continuous operation of the incinerator. Please note the following: 1) Many of these metals are limited as groups of compounds. For example, the total amount of arsenic, beryllium and chromium cannot exceed a concentration of 97 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug /dscm). 2) The federal limit for mercury is 130 ug /dscm. However, 3M is limited to a more restrictive concentration of 50 ug /dscm based on an agreement with MPCA. -11- Operation Name FacilitV ID 3M Cottage Grove - Abrasive Systems Division 16300017 3M Cottage Grove - Building 17 16300023 3M Cottage Grove - Building 133 - Formally TCM 16300059 3M Cottage Grove - Center Utilities 16300015 3M Cottage Grove - Corporate Incinerator 16300025 3M Cottage Grove - Film & Materials Resource Div. 16300022 3M Cottage Grove - Specialty Additives 16300002 3M Cottage Grove - Tape Manufacturing 16300080 Permitted facilities in Minnesota are required to annually report their actual "criteria pollutant' emissions to the MPCA. Every three years (i.e. 2008, 2005, etc.) permitted facilities are required to report annual emissions of additional compounds. MPCA makes this data available to the public on their website at: www.pca.state.mn.us/air/criteria-emissionsearch.cfm At the request of the Task Force, SEH totaled the annual emissions from each of the 3M operations at the 3M Complex for the three most recent years, 2005, 2006 and 2007 using the data available from the MPCA website. Note that 2008 emission data is not yet available on the website. Table 5 shows emission data from each of the 3M Cottage Grove facilities for the years, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The data show the emissions from the incinerator have been relatively similar for each of these years. For example, volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions have been 20 tons per year (tpy), 30 tpy, and 26 tpy over this period. The data also show that VOC emissions have been consistently higher at the Tape Manufacturing Plant and Materials Resource Division than at the incinerator. Every three years (i.e. 2008, 2005, etc.) permitted facilities are required to report annual emissions of additional compounds. 2008 data is not yet available so 2005 data for additional compounds is shown on Table 6 for each of the 3M Cottage Grove operations. Emissions from the Cogentrix plant which is located next to the 3M plant are also shown. Again, the data show that emissions from the Tape Manufacturing plant and Materials Resource Division are generally higher than from the other operations including the incinerator. SEH also evaluated heavy metal emissions from the incinerator. For this evaluation, SEH prepared a comparison of the allowable heavy metal emission rates with actual emission rates. The 3M Cottage Grove incinerator air permit limits the concentration of several heavy metals in the exhaust from the incinerator. The permit also limits the amount of exhaust gas from the incinerator to less than 40,000 dry standard cubic feet permit minute (dscfm). Using the concentration limits and the exhaust flow limits SEH calculated allowable emission rates based on continuous operation of the incinerator. Please note the following: 1) Many of these metals are limited as groups of compounds. For example, the total amount of arsenic, beryllium and chromium cannot exceed a concentration of 97 micrograms per dry standard cubic meter (ug /dscm). 2) The federal limit for mercury is 130 ug /dscm. However, 3M is limited to a more restrictive concentration of 50 ug /dscm based on an agreement with MPCA. -11- Table 7 shows the comparison of allowable emission rate to actual emission for several heavy metals. Actual emissions of each compound or group of compounds are less than their respective allowable emission levels. Table 7. Allowable vs Actual Emission Rates 3M Cottage Grove Incinerator Incinerator Exhaust Flow Limit': 40,000 dscfm Pollutant 2005 Actual Emissions lb/ r Permit Limits' u /dscm Allowable Emission Rate, lb/ r Actual/ Allowable Percent Arsenic Beryllium Chromium 0.0000024 0.0000018 2.0 Total 2.0 97 127 1.6 % Beryllium alone 0.0000018 10 /24 -hr 8.0 0.000023% Cadmium Lead 163 116 Total 279 240 315 89% Mercury 0.0000018 50 66 0.000003% Mercury NESNAP Limit 130 171 0.000001% Notes: ' Exhaust flow and emission limits are taken Pages A -25, A -26 and A27 of the 3M Cottage Grove air permit (16300025 -001). 2 2005 Actual Emissions taken from MPCA's website, www.pca.state.mn.us/air/criteria-emissionsearch.cfm • a., •: Through discussions with 3M, they have committed to providing an annual report to the City for the incinerator that will address the following topics: a) Total emissions levels. b) Compliance with MPCA operational parameters. C) Plans to reduce peak emissions levels of carbon monoxide. d) Compliance with 3M Environmental Targets. e) Procedures to minimize the effects of severe weather and power outages at the incinerator. 3M has also committed to working with the Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force to study air and water emissions from sources other than the incinerator at the 3M facility and explore means of reducing emissions levels. 12- On October 27, 2009, the Environmental Task Force reviewed the final report and provided the following recommendations to be presented to the MPCA in its consideration of the 3M request for a permit modification: 1) Commercial Incineration That 3M voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA permit modification and 2010 renewal for the incinerator which prohibits commercial incineration at the facility. Commercial incineration is defined as 3M accepting payment or other compensation for burning wastes generated by non -3M sources. 2) Non -3M Wastes Allowed That 3M voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA permit modification and 2010 renewal to accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content from non -3M sources. All non -3M generated wastes must have one of the following waste codes listed in the hazardous waste manifest: F001, F002, F003, F005, D001, and codes related to law enforcement wastes. 3) Limits on Non -31VI Wastes That 3M voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA permit modification and 2010 renewal to establish a maximum limit of non -3M wastes of 400,000 million BTU per year of wastes burned at the incinerator from sources within the United States. 4) Law Enforcement Materials Only materials from Minnesota law enforcement agencies will be accepted by 3M for processing at the incinerator. 5) Risk Assessment With the 2010 permit renewal, an update shall be prepared of the 2004 Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the incinerator. 6) Incinerator Inspections. The City requests that inspections of the 31A Corporate Incinerator which are conducted on a two -year basis be conducted in a more random and unannounced nature. -13- r. MititiOn controw Agency -07 Air Quality #1.07 • December 2008 Background This Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) fact sheet provides a basic overview about air quality permits, particularly a type of federal permit issued by the MPCA called a "Part 70" or "Title V" Permit. A Part 7 or Title V Permit is a federal air emissions permit issued by states, such as Minnesota, delegated to implement the Clean Air Act. This document also outlines ways in which interested citizens can learn more about a specific permit and participate in the permitting process. were required to obtain operating permits. In addition, various types of construction activities (adding new equipment, expanding the facility) required permits. What is a Part 70 permit? Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires that all major stationary (nonmoving) sources of air pollutants obtain a permit to operate. (A facility is "major" if it has emissions over certain thresholds.) Part 70 is the section in the Code of Federal Regulations where Title V is detailed. "Title V Permit" and "Part 70 Permit" are used interchangeably. What is an air quality permit ?' A permit is a regulatory document issued to a specific facility that contains legally enforceable requirements. An air emission permit spells out the process equipment (type of equipment used by a facility in its day - today operations), air- pollution- control equipment, and rules or regulations that apply to a specific facility. The air emission permit also includes monitoring requirements, based either on the rules that apply to the facility or on the MPCA's decision that certain monitoring requirements are needed to demonstrate the facility's compliance with the permit limits. Prior to the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, many states had air permit programs, but they were all different. It was possible that a facility that required a permit in Minnesota may not have needed a permit in a different state. Minnesota's air permitting program had emissions thresholds above which facilities The purpose of Title V was to establish a consistent pennitting program across the country, to reduce violations of air- pollution laws, and to improve the enforcement of those laws. Prior to 1990, there was no federal requirement that existing sources of air pollution have operating permits. The purpose of a Part 70 Permit is to gather all applicable air- pollution requirements for amajor stationary source into one site - specific, legally enforceable permit. A Part 70 permit is valid for five years; then it must be renewed. Does a facility receiving a Part 70 Permit receive new requirements? In general, the Part 70 Pen is meant to incorporate existing applicable state and federal requirements. It is not intended to create new requirements. However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Rd. N., St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 • www.pca.state.mn.us 651- 296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 TTY 651 - 282 -5332 or 800- 657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats Part 70 Permit will often include monitoring _requirements (testing, recordkeeping, etc.) that did not appear in previous permits and /or are not explicitly required under existing regulations. These monitoring requirements are forms of "periodic monitoring," a required part of the Clean Air Act's Title V operating permits program. Periodic monitoring includes actions deemed necessary for the facility to demonstrate compliance with rules or permit conditions. Can the state add requirements to the Part 70 Permit? Because the Part 70 Permit is issued under state rules, the MPCA can use its general authority under Minnesota Statutes to develop and include additional state -only requirements that are necessary to protect human health and the environment or to prevent pollution. "State - only" means that only the MPCA has the authority to enforce these state -only requirements; the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would not have any authority to enforce them or oversee any disputes about them. What is a Part 70 threshold? A facility needs a Part 70 Permit if its potential to emit air pollutants when it is operating at its maximum capacity is over specific emission thresholds. These thresholds are not limits. Facilities with emissions over the Part 70 thresholds simply must have a Part 70 Permit. In addition to these federal thresholds, Minnesota has lower thresholds that require a state permit. The table on this page shows what the Part 70 thresholds are. What is EPA's role in Part 70 Permits? The federal Part 70 regulations tell states what they need to do to develop air permits that meet the requirements of Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. In Minnesota, the air permitting rules can be found in Minn. R. ch. 7007. These state rules meet the federal requirements. Because the state rules are used to issue federal permits, EPA has the authority to review draft permits before they are issued. The EPA has a 45 -day period to review the permit. This will usually take place concurrently with the public comment period, although there are circumstances under which the EPA's 45 days will commence after the public comment period is over. The EPA is also responsible for reviewing, approving, and overseeing Minnesota's entire permit program. For permit conditions that are federally enforceable (i.e., not state -only requirements), EPA has appeal procedures that allow the facility or a citizen to outline objections to those conditions. Part 70 Permitting thresholds, based on potential to emit, in tons per year (TPY) Pollutant I Tres ld hho Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 100 TPY Carbon Monoxide (CO) 100 TPY Nitro en Oxides NO - 100 TPY Sulfur Dioxide (SO _ 100 TPY Fine Particulate Matter (PM,n) 100 TPY Very Fine Particulate Matter (PM _ 100 TPY Combined Hazardous Air Pollutants HAPs 25 TPY Individual HAPs 10 TPY each Lead 10 TPY What is the public's role in Part 70 Permits? Individuals or organizations are notified that a draft permit is available and invited to comment for 30 days. Citizens may request public information meetings during the 30 -day public comment period. Written comments on draft permits are seriously considered and some result in changes to the final permit. Comments are most helpful and likely to be incorporated into the decision, making process when they address specific items in the proposed permit or when they suggest specific additional permit requirements. Legally, the MPCA can not consider comments outside the scope of the permit, including public concerns about land -use, zoning, or environmental impacts unrelated to air emissions. When an individual or organization requests a public information meeting, one is usually held if the issues raised are pertinent to the permit. Unlike some other MPCA programs, there is no minimum number of requests required to hold a meeting. During such meetings, citizens can learn more about the permit, the process and the pollutants covered in the draft or talk to the staff about concerns or suggestions. If the public information meeting is requested to discuss issues not relevant to the draft permit or if there has already been a previous public forum for citizens, the MPCA may choose not to hold another meeting. The MPCA staff may instead contact commenter to discuss Citizens' Guide to Part 70 (Title V) Air Quality Permits • aq1 -07 - December 2008 lki mirincsuta Pollution Control Agency Page 2 whether concerns may be addressed more effectively outside of the Part 70 Permit process. If a public information meeting is held, staff will make every effort to respond to your concerns, either at the meeting or by getting back to you later. It is important to note that even though MPCA staff may discuss comments with you during a meeting or on the phone, your comments are not considered part of the public record unless they are submitted in writing. Comments must be submitted before 4:30 p.m. on the last day of the 30 -day public comment period, as specified in public notices. What other options do citizens or facilities have to influence the final permit? If discussions with permitting staff and a public information meeting do not resolve the concerns of interested parties, other options for raising new facts or information are available to the public. MPCA citizens' board The MPCA is unique among state agencies in having a Citizens' Board (Board) that considers issues of high public interest or controversy. The Board is comprised of citizens from all walks of life and all parts of the state. If you would like the Board to consider the permit, submit your request through the staff member listed on the public notice or contact the Commissioner's Office directly. The Board may consider the permit if the Commissioner or a Board member asks to have the matter put on the agenda. Requests for Board involvement in a Part 70 Permit should deal with specific concerns about the permit or new facts that the requestor feels were not taken into account by the staff. For more information about the Board process, see www.pca.state.mii.us/aboLit/board/1-OO.pdf. Contested case hearing Interested persons may also request that the MPCA hold a contested case hearing. A contested case hearing is somewhat similar to a trial, except that it is before an administrative law judge instead of a district court judge. Legal counsel usually represents the parties, although parties may represent themselves; witnesses are sworn and cross - examined; evidentiary rules apply; briefs are filed. A contested case hearing is much different from a public information meeting, where the purpose is for all parties to listen and gain understanding of each other's positions. The purpose of a contested case hearing is to resolve disputed material facts that are both relevant to a MPCA decision and within the MPCA's authority. The +- " decision whether to hold a contested case hearing, if one is requested, will be made under Minn. R. 7000.1900. Requestors should indicate the specific change in the permit they want or propose a resolution of the matter. The reasons why the requestor wants a change (which may be in the form of proposed findings) must be clearly stated and relevant to the specific permit. Failure to comply with these rules exactly may result in a denial of the contested case hearing request. EPA 45 -day review period As previously mentioned, EPA has an additional 45 days to review the draft permit, and will typically do that during the public comment period. However, if comments are received during the public comment period, after all comments have been addressed and public information meetings and Board Meetings held (if applicable), the MPCA may need to submit the proposed permit to EPA, either with or without changes, for an additional 45 -day review period. If you still have concerns at this point, you may contact the EPA during their 45 -day review period. To do that, send your comments to: Ms. Pamela Blakley, Chief Air Permit Section (AR -I8J) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, IL 60604 If you have additional questions about your options to influence the final permit, contact the MPCA staff person listed in the public notice for the permit. A sample public notice sent out to people on the interested parties list and published in a newspaper that serves the affected community, is included on the next page. If you are not satisfied with the final permit decision, you may requestjudicial review (Minn. Stat. § 115.05, subd. 11). To make this request, follow the procedures in Minn. Star. §§ 14.63 to 14.69. A petition must be filed with the Court of Appeals and served on the MPCA no later than 30 days after the date the final decision and order are received by external parties. Citizens' Guide to Part 70 (Title V) Air Quality Permits - aqt -07 - December 2008 Page 3 Minnesota Pollution " . �: connolAiiancy Can a citizen express concerns after the permit has been issued? You can express your concerns to the MPCA about any facility at any time regardless of a facility's permit status: Make a citizen complaint You can report specific pollution incidents you observe or experience by using the MPCA's on -line citizen complaint form at: www .pca.state.mn.us /complaints.cfm or by phoning the MPCA's Air Quality Complaint Line at 651- 296 -6300. Request a meeting with MPCA staff If you have concerns about a facility regulated by the MPCA, you may request a meeting with MPCA staff. Contact the MPCA at 651- 296 -6300 or 800- 657 -3864 to make your request. State the nature of your concern and the specific topics you wish to discuss. Granting the request will depend on staff availability and whether your concerns are within the MPCA's authority. The next step If there appears to be a problem with a permit, the ,MPCA may decide to request additional information from the facility or perform an inspection. Violations of Part 70 Permits may result in MPCA and /or EPA enforcement action. To learn about enforcement actions, go to: www.pea.state.mn.us/newseenter/enforeement.latmi. The MPCA can also re -open a permit for grounds listed in Minn. R. 7007.1600. Minn. R. 7007.1700 lists grounds under which the agency may revoke an air emissions permit. In very rare circumstances, emergency powers may be invoked by the agency under Minn. Star. § 116.11. Further citizen action Request that the MPCA Board Hear Your Concerns The MPCA Citizens' Board can decide whether to reopen, rescind, or reverse a decision of the Board or Commissioner (Minn. Star. § 116.02, subd. 6 (7). You may ask that the Board hear your concerns. To ask the Board to hear your concerns, you must provide information relevant to the action you wish taken by the Board. Board contact information is available at www.pea.state.mn.us/about/board/index.htm]. File a civil action Under Minnesota's Environmental Rights Act (Minn. Star. § 116B.10), a citizen can file a state civil action challenging an environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, stipulation agreement, or permit promulgated or issued by the agency. The citizen has the burden of proof to show material evidence that the environmental quality standard, limitation, rule, order, stipulation agreement, or permit promulgated or issued by the agency is inadequate to protect air resources in the state from pollution, impairment, or destruction. A citizen may also bring a federal civil action under section 304 of the federal Clean Air Act as amended in 1990. Further questions? For other questions, contact the MPCA at 651- 296 -6300 or 800 - 657 -3864. For permit information, visit the MPCA's air permit Web page at , A , ww.pca.state.iiin.us/air/periTiits/index.html. The Minnesota Department of Health's Environmental Health Division answers questions from the public regarding health risks from environmental health hazards. Call 651-201-4899. Citizens' Guide to Part 70 (Title V) Air Quality Penults • aqt -07 • December 2008 Page 4 �.. Wairwo l A aPallaCltifl . Caaexrotl genzy City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Wednesday, August 5, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Wednesday, August 5, 2009, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Loyas, Patrick McLoughlin, Matthew Porett Members Absent: Patrick Lynch Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director Tom Henning, SEH, Inc. Vickie Batroot, 3M Doug Stang, 3M 1. Introductions Members of the Task Force introduced themselves. Mayor Myron Bailey and Councilmembers Justin Olsen and Jen Peterson welcomed the Task Force. Mayor Bailey explained that the City Council has asked the group to study a range of environmental issues in Cottage Grove. In- itially the Task Force will work on the proposal by 3M to allow the burning of non -3M generated waste at the incinerator located at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. The Council is very interested in the recommendations on this subject from the Task Force. 2. Task Force Purpose Blin asked the Task Force if meeting on Wednesdays at 6:30 p.m. worked for most members. The Task Force agreed on the day and time for future meetings. Blin explained that eventually the group would meet once a month, but to expedite review of the incinerator proposal, during the first few months, meetings would be more frequent. The next meetings will be on August 19 and September 9. 3. Tour of 3M Incinerator Task Force members and staff traveled to the 3M Cottage Grove facility and toured the hazardous waste incinerator. rAff-I The meeting adjourned at the 3M facility at 9:00 p.m. City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Wednesday, August 19, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Wednesday, August 19, 2009, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Loyas, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, Chair Matthew Porett Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director Tom Henning, SEH, Inc. Greg Kvaal, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Vickie Batroot, 3M Chair Lynch opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. and briefly described the tour Task Force members made of the 3M Incinerator on August 5. 1. 3M Incinerator Permit Process Chair Lynch introduced Greg Kvaal of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). Kvaal described the proposal request submitted to the MPCA by 3M. The existing permit allows 3M to burn only 3M- generated waste at the incinerator. The volume of 3M waste has decreased to a point where they need to burn natural gas and oil to maintain operating temperatures. Due to concerns from the public, the MPCA has not begun the 45 -day public notice period for the proposed permit. The process is on hold to allow the City and others to gather facts and take a position on the permit request. Kvaal explained that 3M is currently permitted to burn hazardous wastes including solids, gases in cylinders, pumpable sludges, organic liquids, and aqueous liquids. The volume of 3M waste has decreased, requiring the burning of natural gas and oil to maintain operating temperatures in the incinerator kiln. 3M proposes to reduce the amount of natural gas burned by burning high - BTU waste solvents from sources outside 3M. The MPCA has also asked 3M to accept controlled substance waste from Minnesota police departments. Kvaal noted that 3M is not asking to modify any equipment or change any of the emissions limits or types of wastes which are allowed to be burned in the current permit. Henning asked if the increases in emissions were the actual amounts today compared to the actual amounts in the future. Kvaal explained that the comparisons were the actual amounts and the permitted levels. Cr1VIIUIIIT1U11Ldl I August 19, 2009 Page 2 Porett asked what constitutes particulate matter. Kvaal and 3M representatives described the particulate matter. Lynch asked what is the worst case example for accepting third party waste. Batroot answered that all waste would be subject to current permit limits. Lynch asked if emission levels would increase if the permit modification were approved. 3M rep- resentative answered that increases are compared to the current burning of natural gas. The levels would be at levels similar to those experienced in 2006. McLaughlin asked where the police waste is currently being burned. Batroot stated she believed it is now going to an incinerator in Illinois. Kvaal added that the waste codes, or types of waste, currently permitted to be burned by 3M include pharmaceuticals. Porett asked if 3M is permitted to accept waste from international sources. Kvaal responded that 3M waste for North America is permitted. 3M representatives added waste is currently received from 3M facilities in the U.S. and northern Mexico. Federal regulations are very restrictive on waste entering the U.S. It is also cost prohibitive to ship waste long distances. Levitt asked what types on non -3M wastes are proposed in the modified permit. Kvaal answered that if approved, "waste with fuel value" would be permitted. There was additional discussion that this would involve solvents and other high BTU wastes. Porett asked who would be liable for non -3M wastes. Kvaal responded that liability would rest with 3M. Gibson asked how non -3M waste would be tracked. Batroot stated that it would be the same system used today for 3M wastes. There was discussion about how testing is done to establish emissions limits. These tests are conducted every five years. Performance monitoring is then conducted to ensure that limits are not exceeded during normal performance monitoring. 2. 3M Incinerator Request Vickie Batroot, 3M Cottage Grove Site Director, presented the application submitted by 3M. She described the history of the incinerator and explained that due to changes in production methods fewer solvents are used resulting in fewer waste products. This has required the burning of more natural gas in the incinerator than used previously. The requested permit amendment would allow burning non -3M wastes as an alternative to natural gas. 3M has also agreed to accept controlled substances from police departments at no cost. The change would save non - renewal natural resources, save $1 to $2 million annually, and ensure the viability of the incinerator. Batroot described the incinerator operations and noted the Task Force had toured the facility on August 5. The incinerator operates under strict limits and operating parameters set by the fed- eral Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MPCA. These parameters ensure conti- nuous compliance with emissions limits and are monitored by a computer control system. If the cnvironmencai i asK rorce ivi nutes August 19, 2009 Page 3 system detects a parameter at or near a limit, it cuts off all waste feeds and will not allow waste to be fed until the value is acceptable. Batroot noted that the emission limits have been reduced twice in the past five years by the EPA and that with the installation of new pollution control equipment over the past ten years, emis- sion levels have been significantly reduced. The incinerator has a greater than 99.999 percent efficiency in destroying organic material, resulting in emission of less than 0.3 pounds per hour. For particulate matter, the removal efficiency is greater than 99.9 percent with less than 3 pounds per hour discharged. Metals discharged total less than 0.01 pounds per hour. Replacing natural gas with non -3M solvent waste would result in an increase of volatile organic com- pounds by 0.001 pounds per hour, an increase of less than 0.5 percent. Particulate matter would increase by 0.03 pounds per hour, a less than 1 percent increase. Metals would not increased by a significant amount. Batroot described an Ecological Risk Assessment conducted for 3M in 2004 which concluded that the incinerator did not pose a health risk to the community or the environment. Porett asked what would be the source for the non -3M waste. Batroot responded that they would receive waste from Waste Resources and Reclamation, Inc. in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. 3M is asking, however, not to be limited to a single source. Lynch asked if 3M would only receive the minimum amount of wastes necessary to maintain operating temperatures in the kiln. Batroot responded that they would take only what is needed to operate the incinerator. She noted that there is a cost to 3M in receiving and processing waste so there is no incentive to accept more non -3M waste than necessary. Porett asked by 3M would not charge to burn non -3M wastes. Batroot replied that there are ad- ditional requirements, specifically on wastewater treatment, which come with accepting fees and it would raise questions about commercial incineration. McLoughlin asked for a description of current wastewater treatment. Batroot responded that 3M has its own treatment system which discharges into the river. Kvaal added that the incinerator is a relatively small contributor to the wastewater stream at 3M Cottage Grove. Henning asked what share of total emissions at the plant comes from the incinerator. 3M repre- sentatives responded that the incinerator is a small part of total emissions. The Task Force asked where 3M disposes of waste ash for the incinerator. 3M replied it is de- posited in a hazardous waste landfill. Isker asked how much outside solvent material would come into the incinerator and how it is transported. Batroot responded that it would be about one tanker truck load per day. It would be hauled by hazardous waste carriers. This compares to about 100 -125 trucks per day for the entire site. Porett asked if studies have been done on how to capture waste heat from the kiln. Gary Garner of 3M responded that the old incinerator had heat exchangers but maintenance costs out- weighed the benefits. Also, Cogentrix now supplies steam to the 3M facility. cnvronmenrat i. August 19, 2009 Page 4 Levitt asked if there had ever been an environmental study of emissions from the entire site. Garner replied that an extensive study had been done in 1994. It found there were no impacts to the surrounding area from the site. Henning asked if there were timing issues in review of the 3M proposal. Batroot responded that they would like resolution as soon as possible since 3M is spending about $150,000 per month in natural gas. Kvaal added that there are also some issues with the federal Resource Conser- vation Recovery Act (RCRA). Porett thanked Greg Kvaal and Vickie Batroot and others from 3M for appearing before the Task Force to present information and answer questions. Porett said that at the next meeting if would be helpful if staff could present the concerns which have been raised in the community about the proposal. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 PM Minutes taken by Howard Blin City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Wednesday, September 9, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Wednesday, September 9, 2009, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Loyas, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, and Chair Matthew Porett Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director Tom Henning, SEH, Inca Bill Long, 3M Gary Garner, 3M Vickie Batroot, 3M Bill Nelson, 3M Mike Nash, 3M Tom Ashenmacher, 3M Bob Siegel, 3M John McCool, Community Development Chair Porett opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1. August 19, 2009 Meeting Minutes Chair Porett asked if there were any corrections to the Environmental Task Force's minutes for the August 19, 2009 meeting. A correction was made on page 3, second paragraph from the bottom of the page. The last sentence should read as follows: "This compares to about 58 100 -125 trucks per day for the entire site." Being no other corrections, Chair Porett stated that the minutes are accepted with the change on page 3. There were no objections. 2. Review of Concerns Regarding 3M Incinerator Proposal Chair Porett referred to Blin and Levitt's memorandum addressed to the Environmental Task Force members dated September 2, 2009. The first item for discussion was: Increase in Emissions — Blin stated that the volume of 3M waste that is burned at 3M's incinerator has decreased in the past, thus the emissions levels from the incinerator have also decreased. Blin stated that 3M is proposing to burn other non -3M waste, but the total amount of waste to be burned is still less than what is allowed by their current MPCA permit. GI NII VI II I ICI ILi l 1 dW September 9, 2009 Page 2 Porett asked how much additional waste or solvents are needed to offset the amount of natural gas 3M must burn to maintain the incinerator's operating temperatures. Bill Nelson replied that it would be hard to quantify because solvents and other wastes have different burn characteris- tics. McLoughlin asked if the emission limits were established in the 1970's. Henning explained that permits issued in the 1970's are no longer valid and the current emission rates are much lower than the emissions in the 1970's. The current permit is about five years old and is proposed to be renewed. Levitt asked if the emission limits are changed at the time a permit is renewed. Henning said the limits would change only if the regulation standards change. Levitt asked if the regulation standards changed within the permit period, does the permit holder have to abide by the new standards or can they still operate under the permit requirements. Henning said the new standards would apply. Control Over Non -310 Wastes — Blin explained that concerns have been expressed at various public meetings or discussions concerning the incinerator and what is being incinerated. 3M knows the types of wastes they generate, but concern has been expressed for other non -3M hazardous materials or wastes that are transported to and incinerated at the 3M Cottage Grove site. Blin stated that 3M tests all the waste before it is burned. Ashenmacher explained that there is no difference in regulations for 3M waste and non -3M waste. Porett asked what constitutes a waste stream and is that a partic- ular waste, waste from a particular facility, or particular shipment. Ashenmacher replied that a feed stream is a particular waste stream. All waste is tested to verify the type of material to be burned and is assigned a unique identification number that is entered into their waste stream profile system. This number is unique to that particular waste and helps identify what the ma- terial is and where it came from. The waste stream is tested each time before it is incinerated. Future Conversion to Commercial Incineration — Blin reported that there are concerns if the 3M incinerator becomes a commercial incinerator, whereby the amount of waste from non -3M waste streams is more than 3M's wastes. Batroot explained this permit renewal process does not change their permit status to commercial incine- ration and that 3M has no intention in pursuing a commercial incineration status. A question was asked if the MPCA issues a different emissions permit if the incinerator is deemed a commercial incinerator. Blin explained that there are multiple MPCA permits for the 3M Cottage Grove facility and believes that MPCA does not distinguish any difference between a corporate incinerator and other commercial incinerators. Isker asked if MPCA's permit is writ- ten in such a way that it does not distinguish 3M's incinerator as a commercial incinerator and that they do not charge or collects fees from other waste generators that are not part of 3M's operations. Blin said this would be something to ask MPCA. Emission Levels are Higher at Night — Blin explained that the incinerator emission monitors are operational during burning and reports on incinerator emissions are available. Henning explained that there are two types of monitor- ing: 1) monitoring the emissions released up the stack; and 2) monitors that monitor the opera- tion and control equipment to make sure it is working properly and reporting data accurately. cnvironmeniai t asr September 9, 2009 Page 3 This information documents temperatures, burn - times, pressure, and other operating require- ments during the entire time the incinerator is operating. Levitt asked if the monitoring data would flag any abnormal emissions. Henning said 3M is required to file a six -month monitoring report that either provides the data or shows when emis- sions were outside the permit range. Siegal offered Henning an opportunity to review the day- time versus night -time emission readings for comparison. Emissions Control Equipment — Henning explained that the incinerator typically has some type of a rinsing cycle and that it is not uncommon for the system to have several chambers for the emissions to be released. Portions of the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) might be temporarily shut down during the cleaning /rinsing cycle, but at no time is the ESP completely shut off. Garner explained that their system uses a series of plates to regulate water that is used to clean the plates. This is necessary to maintain the efficiency of the incineration process. Levitt asked if there is a time when emissions are shut down to clean the chamber. Garner said they cannot shut down the system any time there are emissions. Blin asked what would happen in a catastrophic failure. Garner explained that the process control system will detect a failure and the system would shut off automatically. The problem would be evaluated to determine what caused the system to shut down, leave the material in the kiln, or remove the material out faster by dropping it into the water. Once the problem is identified and corrective measures taken, the system could be restarted. Incineration can not resume until the entire system was back online. Removing the material out of the kiln is done by the rotational speed of the kiln and gravity. Blin asked if it is common for the ESP to fail. Garner did not recall that their ESP system has ever failed or ever shut down while the rest of the system was operating. Siegel reported that there have been power failures which resulted in the entire system shutting down, except for the emergency equipment. During this time, no waste material is added to the kiln until everything is back in working order. Levitt asked if there is a secondary system or scrubber mechanism. Siegel explained that there is a whole series of pollution control equipment. If any part of the system is not operating, the system will automatically stop feeding waste into the kiln. Waste material in the kiln will still be treated, but not as efficiently. Length of Time for Storing Waste Materials — Levitt asked how long waste materials are kept on -site for incineration. Henning explained that a hazardous waste permit requires the permit holder to retain a record of all materials stored on- site for incineration. Siegel reported that 31VI's permit allows materials to be stored on -site up to one year. Bulk waste is generally burned within a couple days and 12 months is the limit for storing hazardous waste. Siegel explained that the waste permit limits the amount of waste that can be stored in each designated storage area. Waste is stored in trailers. Bulk solvents with a high heat content when burned are needed to get the right BTU's in the kiln. Batroot said the volume of that solvent waste is about one tanker truck per day. Blin stated that there have been concerns that 3M stores wastes for long periods until enough waste material is available to operate the incinerator. Batroot explained that they mix a variety of waste materials to help reach an optimum BTU level in the kiln. Siegel stated that it is not feasi- tnV ronmental I asK I - orce iviinuies September 9, 2009 Page 4 ble to shut down the incinerator for purposes of storing large quantities of waste materials. Loyas asked how long waste material is burned once it is tested and if any of the waste chemi- cal make -up changes if stored for a long period of time. Ashenmacher said it would generally be burned within an hour after the material is tested. Blin asked what happens to waste material if the test results are different than what the shipper describes the material to be. Ashenmacher explained that they will evaluate the test results and compare the information with the unique identification codes to understand what the waste material is and will contact the shipper to find out what happened. If it is determined that the waste material is something that 3M does not want to burn, the waste material is sent back to the shipper. Compliance Monitoring — The group discussed the idea of an MPCA employee stationed at 3M's incinerator to ensure that the incineration operation is compliant with the permit requirements, but concluded that moni- toring, testing, and data reporting already occurs and is filed with MPCA. Siegel stated that the MPCA has the right to show up unannounced at anytime to check the incinerator and 3M's records. Additional Monitors for Emissions — Blin reported that it has been suggested that emission monitors should be installed at 3M's property perimeter to measure emission levels. Henning said this could be done, but suggested that the monitors should be designed to detect certain types of pollutants because it would be difficult to measure all pollutants. Monitoring certain pollutants does not identify the source, but is an indicator of what is in the air. Lethgo asked how the best location for a monitor is determined. Henning reported that MPCA has air monitors within the Twin Cities, but was unsure of what they are monitoring, how many monitors exist, and where they are located. Porett requested that more information on MPCA's monitors in the metropolitan area be provided to the group. Perceptions of the 3M Incinerator — Blin explained that 3M owns a considerable amount of land around the 3M Cottage Grove plant. This additional land provides a buffer from other properties. Most of the land is agriculturally zoned and is used for agricultural purposes. The Mississippi River is south of the plant site and the River Oaks Municipal Golf Course is to the east. Proving that the incinerator adversely im- pacts surrounding property values would be difficult, especially in today's stressed economy. McLoughlin said the water contamination issues caused by 3M PFCs probably did not help land values in the community. Incinerator's Stack Height — Blin reported that the new incinerator was constructed in 1995. The previous incinerator stack height was approximately 200 feet and was replaced with a new stack that is 150 feet in height. Questions have been asked if the new stack is too low to properly disperse emissions, espe- cially during periods of air inversions. Henning reported that the MPCA does a dispersion study. Air inversions, meteorological condi-;, -- tions, and many other factors must be modeled to adequately address air dispersion. Siegel ex- plained that a lot of engineering is necessary to design the proper stack height. cnvironmemai t asr September 9, 2009 Page 5 Porett asked that the MPCA be contacted to find out if they perform or review the modeling for determining 3M's stack height. Public Notice of Annual Emissions — Levitt explained that more communication and information relative to the incinerator emission data is necessary to help educate residents. Gibson asked if Ms website provides any infor- mation regarding 3M Cottage Grove's emissions. Henning reported that all reports filed with MPCA are available on MPCA's website. Porett said that the reports have too much information and contain a lot of data that the average resident may not understand. Levitt suggested that a summarized version with graphs and charts that describes most of the particulate matter from the incinerator's emissions and comparing it with previous years would help residents better understand the information. Batroot reported that 3M periodically publishes a brochure titled Cottage Grove Update. This flyer provides information and explanation of certain operations and activities at their site. Batroot accepted the idea of providing more information in future publications. MK*RiL -9 Blin reminded Task Force members that they can send their questions via email to Jennifer Levitt or Howard Blin. He reminded members that the Environmental Task Force will have another meeting on September 23, 2009, that will allow residents an opportunity to comment or ask questions on Ms incinerator proposal. Levitt explained that the Task Force is not expected to respond or have answers at the open house, and public comments received will be included in the report that will be presented to the City Council. Blin suggested that the Task Force meet again before their report is finalized. The report and recommendations should be presented to the City Council at one of their meetings in October. Porett commented that he had noticed that Ms highest emission levels were in 2006. Batroot explained that was a year when they had adequate internally produced high BTU solvents, and they are using that year as their base line regarding their incinerator proposal. Porett stated that it is his understanding that 3M made some processing changes and asked for additional infor- mation explaining the reduction in the amount of solvents. Batroot agreed to provide a written summary explaining the various programs and processing changes. Ashenmacher reported that a lot of adhesive materials are produced at this site. In the process of manufacturing these adhesives, solvents are used to clean the equipment. The price of sol- vents in 2006 and 2007 was relatively inexpensive and the waste solvents were incinerated. With higher petroleum prices, 3M is making an effort to reduce the amount of waste solvents and improve their recycling efforts to reduce the amount of hazardous waste that must be burned. Porett asked if there were any additional questions or comments. There were none. 4. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Wednesday, September 23, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Loyas, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, and Chair Matthew Porett Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director Bill Long, 3M Gary Garner, 3M Vickie Batroot, 3M Bill Nelson, 3M Mike Nash, 3M Tom Ashenmacher, 3M Bob Siegel, 3M Cottage Grove Mayor Myron Bailey Cottage Grove Councilmember Justin Olsen Cottage Grove Councilmember Jen Peterson Cottage Grove Councilmember Pat Rice Washington County Commissioner Myra Peterson John McCool, Community Development General Public Chair Porett opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1. Presentation on 3M Incinerator Proposal Blin presented a slide show that identified the location of the 3M Cottage Grove incinerator site, repo ted that the incinerator operation began in 1971 with incinerator upgrades between 1996 and 2005. Blin explained that hazardous wastes generated by 3M facilities in North America are burned at the 3M Cottage Grove site and that the amount of 3M waste has decreased, thus requiring them to burn natural gas and oil as a fuel source. 3M is proposing to amend their permit to allow burning high -BTU solvents from sources outside 3M. Blin stated that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency must approve the amendment to 3M's permit and Washington County must approve an amendment to their solid waste permit. The City's role in the process is advisory to MPCA. The Environmental Task Force has toured 3M's incinerator and presentations have been given to the Task Force from 3M and MPCA. The incinerator operations were described, and it was reported that the emission levels from 3M's incinerator are within the limits set by MPCA and Environmental Protection Agency. The change °" cnvitvtiniernai ldbK September 23, 2009 Page 2 in total emissions by replacing natural gas and oil fuel sources with non -3M solvent waste results ` in an increase of VOC's by 0.001 pounds per hour ( <0.5% increase), increase in particulate matter by 0.03 pounds per hour (< 1% increase), and no change in metals. 2. Public Forum Chair Porett invited anyone wanting to speak on 3M's incinerator proposal to go to the podium and asked that they state their name and address for the record. Ron Purcell, 9499 — 79th Street South, Cottage Grove, said he is a 30 -year resident of Cottage Grove and a 3M employee for 32 years. The past ten years he has been at the 3M Cottage Grove site. Purcell said he knows how 3M operates the manufacturing facilities and believes what they say. 3M has been a good corporate partner in the community and contributes to community needs. Mary Wiens, 8726 Hamlet Avenue South, Cottage Grove, said she is a 22 -year resident of Cottage Grove. She stated that she has concerns for the adverse impacts 3M Cottage Grove has on the community and is responsible for hazardous chemicals found in private and public water supply systems in the community. Wiens said 3M should bear the expense to install water filtration systems. She opposes the incinerator proposal because more hazardous waste will be burned at the 3M Cottage Grove incinerator, more hazardous waste will be transported to the site from facilities outside Cottage Grove, and more pollution will be created. Wiens asked the Task Force not to support 3M's proposal. Lauren Sirotiak, 8465 — 110th Street South, Cottage Grove, distributed a photograph showing emissions from one of 3M Cottage Grove's stacks. He explained that 3M initially denied that their incinerator discharged dark - colored smoke, but now that the photograph was shown to 3M, they said it was an isolated incident and a report would be given to him. Sirotiak reported that he still has not received the report. He opposes 3M's proposal to transport more hazardous waste into the community. His concerns include the type of containers trucks and trains that might be used to transport hazardous waste, the routes used to deliver hazardous materials to 3M Cottage Grove, the time of day hazardous material is handled, the type of storage facilities used to store hazardous materials, and the amount of hazardous materials that will be stored at the 3M Cottage Grove site. Sirotiak explained that they were told not to drink water from their well. Bottled water was delivered to their home, but no water filtration system has been installed. He asked the Task Force members not to support 3M's proposal. Helen Waidelich, 8011 — 113th Street South, Cottage Grove, stated that various types of cancers have affected many of their neighbors and many of the private wells in the neighborhood are contaminated from 3M's PFCs. Ms. Waidelich thought 3M was not allowed to burn more hazardous waste based on Senator Katie Sieben's letter. Chad Magle, 11301 Inman Avenue South, Cottage Grove, said he purchased his property in 2001. In 2006, he received a letter from MnPCA telling him not to drink water from their well. Magle said their water was tested about two months ago and MnPCA sent another letter - informing him not to drink or cook with water from their well. Magle said 3M continues to pollute - the environment and they should not be allowed to burn more hazardous waste. Environmental Task Force Minutes September 23, 2009 Page 3 Trish Thompson, 11733 Leeward Avenue South, Hastings, stated that she has been a resident in Cottage Grove for 39 years. Thompson said she had worked at the 3M Cottage Grove site and" understood that 3M could only burn their own hazardous waste. She said there are many neighbors with cancer in their neighborhood. Jay Schmitt , 11160 Kingsborough Trail South, Cottage Grove, asked what bringing more solvents to burn do for the city and stated that there has been an increase in noise pollution. He said there should be a decrease in emissions of pollutants. Keith Anderson, 11450 Kingsborough Trail South, Cottage Grove, said he bought his property for about four years before building on the lot. They have installed an electronic air filtration system because they have concerns for pollution from the 3M Cottage Grove site. Nancy Przybilla, 7764 Jocelyn Avenue South, Cottage Grove, asked if the Cottage Grove volunteer fire personnel have been trained for fighting hazardous waste fires. She suggested that no more tankers of hazardous materials should be delivered to the 3M Cottage Grove site because 3M will continue to bring more and more. She expressed concerns for all the hazardous waste and pollution created by 3M and felt her family should move for health reasons. Przybilla stated that citizens can't drink the water because of 3M contaminants in the water. John Swenson, 7903 — 113th Street South, Cottage Grove, stated that he is a 45 -year Cottage Grove resident. He said 3M has polluted the Mississippi River by discharging waste materials into the River, polluted groundwater whereby some Cottage Grove residents are advised not to drink the water, and continues to pollute the air from numerous stacks located at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. David Woltering, 9140 Jasmine Avenue South, Cottage Grove, stated that he has worked for 3M for 29 years and believes that 3M's operations are within permit requirements. Rolland Anderson, 8245 Belden Boulevard, Cottage Grove, said he works at the 3M Cottage Grove site and offered to talk with anyone that had questions about 3M's operations. Floyd Ott, 12037 Point Douglas Drive South, Hastings, opposed 3M's proposal to increase the amount of hazardous waste material to be incinerated because too many people live nearby and air pollution should be reduced. Cottage Grove City Councilmember Justin Olsen thanked the Task Force members, city staff, and 3M for evaluating the facts for the proposed incinerator permit. Councilmember Olsen also reported that the City of Cottage Grove has hired a consultant to assist in the review of 3M's proposal. Patti Halbakken, 8256 — 113th Street South, Cottage Grove, said she worked for 3M but has concerns for emissions coming from the incinerator. Blin and Levitt summarized the following facts CnV rOnmental 1 asK September 23, 2009 Page 4 • An environmental impact study for 3M's incinerator was prepared in 2004 and submitted to various state and federal agencies for review. • 3M represents that a tanker truck normally delivers liquid waste once per day. • Hazardous waste and solvent materials will be stored on site in the manner as waste materials are already stored onsite. • Noise issues will have to be further researched. Cogentrics electric power plant is nearby. Both facilities are subject to noise levels regulated by the MPCA. • Odor might be coming from other facilities at the 3M Cottage Grove site. • The current incinerator permit does allow the delivery of hazardous wastes from other 3M facilities that are not located in Minnesota. • Certain public safety agencies had approached 3M about burning confiscated materials and 3M has agreed to perform that service. Rolland Anderson, 3M employee, stated that there are a lot of trucks coming and going from the 3M Cottage Grove site. Not all trucks are hauling hazardous waste. Most of the trucks are hauling raw materials and products. County Commissioner Myra Peterson asked if there are other incinerators in the metropolitan area that would burn materials confiscated from public safety agencies. Nobody knew where or what the costs are to incinerate these materials. Tanweer Janjua, 6982 Timber Ridge Hollow South, Cottage Grove, asked if there are any incentives to the City of Cottage Grove to allow 3M to burn hazardous wastes at the 3M Cottage Grove site. Porett stated that he is unaware of benefits. Blin said there are no monetary benefits. Porett asked if anyone else wanted to speak or address any issue that had not already been presented. There was nobody. 3. Discussion Porett explained that the Task Force will continue to review and obtain additional information relative to 3M's proposal to burn non -3M hazardous waste. He announced that the next Task Force meeting is scheduled for October 14, 2009. Blin stated that the Task Force's agenda might be posted on the City's web page in advance of the next meeting and all meetings are open to the public. A recommendation from the Task Force concerning 3M's incinerator proposal will be presented to the City Council at a future Council meeting. 4. Approval of the Minutes Chair Porett asked if there were any corrections to the Environmental Task Force's minutes for the September 9, 2009 meeting. Being no corrections, Chair Porett stated that the minutes are accepted as mailed. There were no objections. 6Met+l[.'i[t7i1 The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Lnv ronmental 1 asK hOrce lwnutes September 23, 2009 Page 5 Meeting Reconvened at 7:55 p.m. Environmental Task Force members Porett, Lethgo, McLoughlin, Gibson, and Isker convened in the Conference Room A at City Hall. Also in attendance were Jon Avise, South Washington County Bulletin; Howard Blin; Jennifer Levitt; and John McCool. Task Force members requested that additional information be researched in advance of the next meeting. This information pertained to the following: • Background information regarding the incident pictured in the photograph presented by Lauren Sirotak. • Look at air emissions and noise issues from 3M Cottage Grove site. • Update on PFC's and identify which properties were advised not to drink their water and which properties have water filtration systems. • BTU values between natural gas and solvents. • Check to see if 3M has had any permit violations. • Information relating to 3M's and City's hazardous response training and procedures. Meeting ended at 8:20 p.m. City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Wednesday, October 14, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Wednesday, October 14, 2009, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Loyas, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, and Chair Matthew Porett Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Howard Blin, Community Development Director John M. Burbank, Senior Planner Tom Henning, SEH Bill Long, 3M Gary Garner, 3M Vickie Batroot, 3M Bill Nelson, 3M Mike Nash, 3M Bob Siegel, 3M Chair Porett opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1. Overview of PFC's in Groundwater Levitt presented a slide show that identified issues related to PFC containments and current groundwater testing and modeling results related to identified contaminants. She talked addition- ally on the 3M barrier wells and their operation. 2. Review of 3M Emission Information Tom Henning, the City's consultant from SEH presented information on air emissions and permit- ting for the 3M Cottage Grove Facility. He identified the operations at the facility as: • Abrasive Systems Division • Building 17 • Building 133 - Formally TCM • Center Utilities • Corporate Incinerator • Film & Materials Resource Division • Specialty Additives • Tape Manufacturing Environmental I asK t Minutes October 14, 2009 Page 2 Henning stated that he reviewed MPCA files for 3M Cottage Grove for years 2006 -2008, and re- ported an analysis of annual emissions in tons per year. He presented the following tables based on his research. Emissions from Combustion Figure 1. Comparison of Combustion Emissions ■ Nitrogen Oxides a Carbon Monoxide 140 120 i. c 100 N 0 80 N N W 60 N_ 40 Q OR 7 3M -Total 3M- Inch Cogertdx 3M -Total 3M- Inch cogentrix I 3M -Total 3M-Incin. Cogentrix \Inhfeln rlxn�nin Cnm nnnnrlc u v v u c October 14, 2009 Page 3 3M Cottage Grove VOG Omissions (tons per ear) 3M CG Total 3M Incinerator Cogentrix 3M Operation 2005 VOC 2006 VOC 2007 VOC 1,600 0.4 Emissions Emissions Emissions Abrasive Systems < 1 < 1 < 1 Building 17 4 6 7 Building 133 < 1 < 1 1 Center Utilities 4 < 1 < 1 Corporate Incinerator 20 30 26 Materials Resources 50 50 53 Specialty Additives 1 2 2 Tape Manufacturing 720 45 47 Totals = 801 135 137 2005 Emissions, pounds /yr Pollutant 3M CG Total 3M Incinerator Cogentrix 1,2- Dichloroethane 2,400 - - Acetaldehyde 1,600 0.4 0.3 Ethylbenzene 1,000 - 11 Formaldehyde 12,300 4 52 Methanol 4,100 - - Methyl Ethyl Ketone 13,900 - - Toluene 349,000 - 46 Vinyl Acetate 8,800 - - Xylene 9,000 - 22 Allowable versus Actual Emissions 3M Incinerator Pollutant Arsenic + Beryllium + Chromium Beryllium Cadmium + Lead Mercury Allowable 2005 Actual Ib /yr* Ib /yr 127 2 8 0.000002 315 279 66* 0.000002 cnv ronmencai October 14, 2009 Page 4 Henning covered the night and day operation monitoring information, the inspection compliance reporting, and deviation reports. He summarized his presentation with the following comments 1) Incinerator operated in compliance with air permits. 2) Emission tests demonstrate compliance. 3) Incinerator operation does not vary between day and night. 4) Incinerator does not require a Risk Management Plan. 5) For many pollutants, emission levels are greater from other divisions at CG facility Chair Porett asked if there were any questions. Trish Thompson, Pine Coulee, stated that she had concerns about the age of the data Rita Isker asked if the waste ash is part of the emission volume. Bob Siegel, 3M, reported that the air emissions numbers are from the stacks only. Barbara Gibson questioned if the reported emissions were close to the permitted limits. Henning responded that there were margins between the limits and the emissions. 3. Response to Other Questions Raised at the September 23 Public Forum Blin covered incident response information and the information on the color stack emissions re- ported in 2006 raised at the public forum. Levitt gave information on reports of noise issues. Blin stated that the east side of the site would have noise monitoring completed by SEH, and that the City would search for sources if City, State, or Federal standards were exceeded. Isker asked if there were sickness clusters evident in the City. Blin responded no, and that it is rather hard to track based on a mobile society. Porett asked if anyone else wanted to speak or address any issue that had not already been pre- sented. Nobody else spoke. 4. Other Porett stated that he felt that the Task Force was at a point where they could start discussing and formulating a formal recommendation concerning 3M's incinerator proposal to be presented to the City Council at a future Council meeting. Blin covered the City's authority related to the existing 1970's conditional use permit (originally special use permit) for the incinerator. He stated that the City Council will be making an official comment at the end of the MPCA public comment period. Porett stated that after looking at the data reported by Henning, he has some concerns. He stated additionally that he fears the requested permit modification would lead to a commercial incinera- tion operation. His final comment was that the ultimate recommendation needs to be a compro- mise that is fair to the citizens of Cottage Grove and to 3M. �11VIIU11111UJIL01 10 October 14, 2009 Page 5 Michelle Ramirez, 8577 Greenway Ave, asked if there has been enough research yet to make a •ecommendation. Porett stated yes as much as a volunteer board can accomplish. Blin re- sponded that the MPCA has the standards and means to monitor the facility. Ramirez stated that she had some news articles to submit to the Task Force. Matthew Loyas stated that a lot of the comments at the public forum were focused on PFC's, and that he would like to make sure that the Task Force separates the air emission and groundwater contamination issues. He stated further that he sees a public distrust of 3M. Porett stated that he would like to see the gap reduced between the permitted emissions and cur- rent operating emissions. Gibson commented that perhaps the emission allowances for the incinerator should be reconsi- dered at the time of the 2010 permit renewal date. Blin stated he would compile a history of the permitted emission levels. Isker stated that she would like to see additional continual monitoring sites near adjacent residen- tial areas. Blin said he would bring a response back to the Task Force on the additional moni- toring. Levitt asked if the Task Force had specific VOC concerns. Porett stated that the VOC emissions from the other production operations at the facility are of a concern to him. He questioned if the comparison of the BTU difference between solvent and gas has been identified yet. Loyas asked where the ash was disposed. Blin reported out of state Blin asked if the Task Force had any issues with the burning of public safety disposal items at the incinerator. The Task force did not identify any issues with Blin's question. Blin stated he would ask the absent Task Force members the same question. He reported that the next meeting would be on Tuesday, October 27. 4. Approval of the Minutes Chair Porett asked if there were any corrections to the Environmental Task Force's minutes for the September 23, 2009 meeting. Being no corrections, Chair Porett stated that the minutes are accepted as mailed. There were no objections. 5. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:34 p.m. City of Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force Tuesday, October 27, 2009 The Environmental Task Force met on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 6:30 PM in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Christ( Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, Others Present: Howard Blin, Community Jennifer Levitt, City Engir Tom Henning,SEH Inc. Gary Garner, 3M Vickie Batroot, 3M Bill Nelson, 3M Mike Nash, 3M Tom Ashenmacher, 3M Bob Siegel, 3M Jim Kotsmith. 3M Bob Siege, 3M Cottage Grove Councilmemb( John McCool, Community De' Jon Avise, South Washington Chair Porett opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1. 3M Conditional Use Permit -:PFC Cleanup Sites n Olsen my Bulletin Matthew Loyas, tthew Porett Blin reported that the Planning Commission reviewed 3M's conditional use permit application at the Planning Commission meeting on October 26, 2006. He explained that the Planning Commission is recommending that the City Council approve the application to allow the cleanup of PFC's in two areas of the 3M Cottage Grove site. Jim Kotsmith, a 3M employee, gave a power point slide presentation titled "PFC Remediation Update." Kotsmith stated that the PFC remediation objective is a two -step approach. The first step was installing two groundwater extraction wells in the vicinity of the D1 and D2 dump sites to determine how many more wells will be needed for adequate monitoring. Both of these wells were installed in October 2008 and an aerial photo showed one well at the south- east corner of 3M's wastewater treatment ponds and the second well west of the East Cove area. The second step is removing contaminated soils and sediments in areas identified as - D1, D2, D9, and East Cove. l, I V II V I "I IGI ILQI 1 G October 27, 2009 Page 2 Kotsmith briefly updated Task Force members on the following topics: • Groundwater Extraction System Pilot Test — October 2008 • MPCA Feasibility Study Approval — February 2009 • MPCA Public Meeting — May 27, 2009 • MPCA MN Decision Document Issuance — August 2009 • Interim Response Action Approval, D1 /D2 — September 2009 • Initiate D1 1D2 Soil Removal — December 2009 Kotsmith explained that 3M and the Minnesota Pollution C an agreement to clean up dump sites where PFC's had work that already has been completed and the excavation in December 2009, future activities include: • Remedial Design /Remedial Action Plan Approval — ■ Initiate D9 Excavation — 2010 ■ Initiate Groundwater Well Installation 2010 • Water Treatment Building Construction`— 2010/201 • Initiate Cove Sediment Removal = 2011 Henning asked if the future water treatmi yes, but the plant can't be built,until they process will take time to complete' and is; 11 6 0MIMMS at ncy (MPCA) entered into )sited. In addition to the is scheduled to be done (water. Kotsmith said designing if for. That Porett asked if the four areas 'd( Kotsmith said yes based on thi work that was done in 2005 a where PFC's are ,located on the :artier are the only areas where PFC work is needed. ent with MPCA in May 2007 and on the initial study in investigating the entire 3M property to determine Porett asked why barrier wells are needed<once PFCs are removed from the dump sites. Kotsmith explained that PFCs have migrated throughout the soils and not all of the PFCs can be removed from the excavation process. It will'take time for the PFCs to work themselves out of the system. The groundwater extraction system is intended to prevent PFCs from entering further into the environment. Loyas asked how deep the two welis are that were installed last year. Kotsmith said they are between 60 to 80 feet deep. Blin asked where the contaminated soils will be taken. Kotsmith explained that the material will be hauled to one of two sites depending on contamination levels. Most of the material will be below the MPCA's soil reference values and will be hauled by truck to the SKB waste dis- posal site in Rosemount. Material with higher values will be hauled to a waste treatment plant in Michigan. Both facilities are designed to properly process hazardous waste materials and waste disposal. Lethgo made the motion accepting the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council that the conditional use permit be granted to allow approximately 19,000 cubic yards of material to be excavated at 3M sites named D1 and D2. Gibson seconded the motion. It CI I V II V I II I ICI Rdl 1c October 27, 2009 Page 3 was asked if the motion included the conditions of approval listed in the October 26, 2009 planning staff report. Lethgo and Gibson affirmed. The motion passed unanimously (7— 0 vote). 2. Incinerator Permit Modifications Blin presented the "Report on 3M Incinerator Proposal, October 2009," and explained that the report is a summary of discussions, presentations, and the facility tour the Task Force has been worked on since June 2009, Blin said 3M had voluntarily suspended their request to modify their existing MPCA permit that expires in 2010 to allow the City the opportunity to re- view issues related to the incinerator and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Blin explained that the report includes a description of the incinerator 3M's request to modify their air emissions and hazardous waste MPCA permit, a� description of the MPCA permitting process, and analysis of emissions monitoring data ,,Blip sad that Ws request is for the pur- pose of accepting and processing non -3M generaied,hazardous.wastes with'ihigh fuel values to fuel their incinerator and that the existing permit expires in'2010. The Task Force was asked to make recommendations to the_City,.Council ubsequ Sently: their recommendations and comments would be forwarded to MP,GA,�wHich will, therrconsider modifications to 3M's existing permit. At that time, 3M will probably re- activate ti e r pe"imit modification request. Listed below were suggestions made to the, Task Force to "consider in making a recommenda- tion to the City Council on the All' incinerator proposal t 1. Commercial Incineration — That 3M voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA permit mod- ification and 2010 renewal for the incinerator which;, prohibits commercial incineration at the facility. Commercial incineration is defined as 3M. accepting payment or other compensation for burning wastes generated by non 7 3M sources.' Blin explained the MPCA issues renewals for the incinerator emissions permit every five years. 31VI's request to modify the permit is,an opportunity for the City to be more vigilant in reviewing future permits and the recommendations to the MPCA could be inserted in the 2010 permit renewal. Pdett clarified that the upcoming permit renewal is for a five -year period that would prohibit commercial incineration, but no guarantees for future permits. Blin stated that was correct. Porett clarified that the only way it could be guaranteed would be for 3M to voluntarily open," p the land use permit approved in the 1970's. McCloughlin asked if 3M is willing to do that. Blin said 3M is not interested in opening up the land use permit. Gibson asked if the land use permit was opened for review, does that allow all aspects of permit to be reviewed or only to specific issues. Blin said that it would technically open the entire land use permit and any new conditions could be inserted. He explained that the current permit is an important land use issue that was reviewed in the 1970's and the con- ditions approving that permit were base on facts presented at that time. Porett stated that he would like the Task Force to recommend that the City ask 3M to vo- luntarily open up their land use permit to prevent commercial incineration in the future. He L-I IYII VI "I IGI I1Q1 October 27, 2009 Page 4 explained that in doing this, the general public can be assured that the 3M incinerator is not a commercial incinerator. Porett proposed that the Task Force amend the recommendations presented by staff to in- clude a recommendation to the City Council that they request 3M to open up the land use permit to prohibit commercial incineration. Gibson asked if that includes the recommenda- tions presented by staff. Porett said correct. Blin explained that even if 3M agreed to open the land use permit, these recommendations would be redundant. If 3M does not agree to open the land use permit, then recommendations for the MPCA permit renewal would be the other alternative. Isker asked why 3M does not want to open up the Ian( 3M, as a corporation, cannot speak for future 3M leade is an acceptable commitment. Batroot stated that some to five years, Permit processes currently offer the City nity to comment on changes to their permits without re Batroot said it is not necessary to open up the r ni; process to manage or regulate the incinerator permit their existing permit. Isker asked when the land use permit rator issue. Blin reported that the lane that permit was specifically tdallow 31 the City does not have the .authonty to the MPCA does. It wass suggested t include a provision in the proposed pe the 3M Cottage Grove site. After further disc Council that it re ration. By a vote permit. Batroot explained that and that,a five -year timeframe )rocessesmight change in two the general an opportu- ig the original ) and use permit. permit when the' appropriate wo"rKwith MPCA o n modifying inp if that l5blemit pertained to the incine- was•approv ed by the City in 1970 and ct am,,ncinerator He also explained that to prec1ude'ommercial incineration, but mendation from the City that the MPCA that prohibits commercial incineration at i, a motion was;made that the Task Force recommend to the City the special use permit be amended to preclude commercial incine- yes to 4 nays (Gibsopf. Isker, Lethgo, and Lynch), the motion failed. Lethgo moved to accep. commercial incineration. ition as written in staff memorandum relating to the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Non -3M Wastes Allowed — That 3M voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA permit mod- ification and 2010 renewal to accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content from non -3M sources. All non -3M generated wastes must have one of the following waste codes: F001, F002, F003, F005, D001, and codes related to law enforcement wastes. Henning explained that one of the most common characteristics of hazardous waste is that it is ignitable. The suggested codes are primarily bulk solvent wastes. Codes listed in the hazardous waste manifest are the most descriptive codes for hazardous waste materials and the code never leaves the material. Isker asked if there are any chemicals that should not be incinerated. Henning said not really. CIIVIIU[1111C11tdl Id October 27, 2009 Page 5 McLoughlin asked if 3M had agreed to prohibit commercial incineration and accept only bulk wastes with high BTU content that have waste codes previously described. Blin said yes. Porett asked for a motion concerning the waste codes and law enforcement wastes. Lynch moved to tighten up the language because wastes can have many codes and reinsert lan- guage that the wastes mainly consist of codes noted in the staff's suggestions. Henning explained that there is a form that follows the lifetime of the waste called a hazardous waste manifest and there is only room for six codes. Henning suggested it is a good dis- tinction to refer that the waste must be one of six codes on the manifest. Lynch withdrew his motion and accepted the recom randum. It was suggested that the "hazardous waste recommendation. Recommendation #2 was modified to read as fol voluntarily include a condition in any MPCA perm only bulk wastes with high BTU content 6on-non• nifest must have one of the following, waste do( codes related to law enforcement wastes: Porett asked if the revised is i in the staff memo - be referenced in the Wastes Allowed — That 3M and 2010 renewal to accept d.the hazardous` "waste ma- il; F003,,F005, D001, and no objections. 3. Limits on Non -3M Wastes = . 3M "vo'luntarily include a conditioi` in any MPCA permit mod- ification and 2010 renewal to establish ai maximum limit of non -3M wastes of 400,000 million BTU per year of wastes burned at the incinerator. Blin explained that 3M has said that one to two bulk tanker trucks per day are about the equivalent of�the suggested 400;000 million BTU limitation. Gibson asked if the suggested BTU limitation is not enough material to efficiently burn waste in the incinerator, would they be allowed to accept more waste. Blin said 3M and MPCA would need to discuss the process to modify the permit. It was suggested that the recommendation should include wording that only waste gener- ated within the United States can be burned. Porett asked how that can be verified. Henning explained that if it is 'part of the permit condition, then there are record keeping requirements associated with that. Relative to the number of truck loads of solvent waste, it was generally understood that one to two truckloads per day could be burned. McLoughlin asked what caused the in- crease in the number of truck loads because he understood it to be only one truck load per day. Batroot remembered saying about one truck load per day in addition to the 100 to 125 trucks that also travel through the gate. Batroot explained that they have looked closer at this and determined that it is 1.5 trucks of solvent waste per day, but they are asking for up to two truckloads per day with an average of 1.5. October 27, 2009 Page 6 Porett asked if there was any more discussion. Being none, Recommendation # 3 was ac- cepted with the inclusion that only waste generated within the United States can be burned. 4. Law Enforcement Materials — Only materials from Minnesota law enforcement agencies will be accepted by 3M for processing at the incinerator. Blin explained that MPCA approached 3M to see if they would accept and incinerate mate- rials from law enforcement agencies. Blin said the City does not want the 3M Cottage Grove site to become a depository for the entire nation. For this reason, it was suggested that the law enforcement materials only be from within Minnesota,,, Isker asked if 3M security will be responsible for the materials delivered to the site or will the law enforcement agency transporting the materials remainwith the materials until they are in- cinerated. A 3M representative assumed that the law enforcement agency responsible for properly disposing the material will remain with the" material until it is burned%':' Porett asked if Recommendation # cations were made. or modifi- 5. Emissions at Remainder of 3M Cc Cottage Grove Environmental Task other than the incinerator at the 3M fi Blin stated that during the'p; permits for other 3M proces from these other facilities N control equip, ment was inste suggestion is to discuss with reduced, and a commitment Lynch stated that this're< should not be included in a commitment by 3M and age Grove Facility — 31vi will agree to work with the =once to study air and water emissions from sources , ,ility and explore means of reducing emissions levels. evaluating -the incinerator permit, many other emission ties were discussed. Blin said that the emission levels going down over time because sophisticated pollution educes the amount of emissions. The purpose of this future the details of those emissions, how they can be na a studv on emissions not related to the incinerator. relevant to the incinerator permit renewal and is to the City Council. Blin explained that this is working on other emission sources. McLoughlin made the motion fto recommend that 3M voluntarily reduce their toluene and VOC emissions at all the 3M Cottage Grove facilities. isker stated that this recommendation is not related to the incinerator permit. Porett suggested that Recommendation # 5 not be in- cluded as a recommendation to the City Council, but offered as information to Council that the Task Force will address this matter at a later date. Blin explained that staff will include in the report to the City Council that the Task Force will meet in the future with 3M to address these other emission sources on the site. Isker made the motion to drop Recommendation #5. Gibson seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously accepted. 6. Risk Assessment — With the 2010 permit renewal, an update be prepared of the 2004 Eco- logical Risk Assessment for the incinerator. October 27, 2009 Page 7 Blin reported that in the 2004 Study, the summary described little to no health risk from the incinerator emissions. Since that time, the emission levels have decreased and he would guess that the level of health risk would be even lower. Blin said it may not be necessary that the 2004 Study be completely redone, but if some emission level analysis was performed since 2004, it will help the City to better monitor the 3M emissions. Gibson asked how long it would take to complete an ecological risk assessment and would the preparation of an assessment delay the incinerator permit renewal process. Blin re- sponded that the City would need to discuss how the assessment gets done with MPCA and re- stated that the City is not asking for the study to be completely, redone, just an analysis of existing and projected emission levels. Gibson said that we have the emission levels in 2004 and believe the levels might go up to the 2006 levels, more solid wastes will be burned. She asked what the information will show. Blin replied the information will provide a trend that can be used to compare emission levels and help answer public, inquiries relative to health risk factors. It was explained that the 2004 Study is actually two logical Risk Assessment and the other Screening -Le Porett recommended that the 2004 l renced in Recommendation #6. There accepted with the 2004 Human Health. 7, Annual Report — 3M will provide to the following information on the incir Eco- Health Risk Assessment study also be refe- io further discussion.-,Recommendation #6 was sment study 'addedao the recommendation. an annual report which at minimum will include a) Total emissions levels. b) Compliance with MPCA operational parameters. c) Plans to reduce peak emissions levels of carbon monoxide. d) Compliance with 3M Environmenta(Targets. e) Procedures to minimize the effects of severe weather and power outages at the inck nerator. Blin explained that 3M offered to prepare an annual report to help monitor the emission levels at the site. Levitt reported that MPCA provides inspection services on the incinerator operation every two years. Upon review of the MPCA records, the inspections were not at random and consis- tently performed in June as announced inspections. She suggested that the Task Force may want to consider adding another comment requesting MPCA to make unannounced inspec- tions at varying dates. Lethgo asked if staff and 3M had previously discussed and if 3M agreed to all the recom- mended conditions. Blin said yes. isker liked the annual report recommendation and suggested that 3M's annual report be used as a model for other businesses or industries in the community. Blin clarified that such a re- October 27, 2009 Page 8 port would only be from industries that are required to have emission permits. Porett sug- gested that would be good information to receive for future meetings. Porett asked if there is any objection to include a recommendation to the City Council that the City request that MPCA's inspections of the 3M Corporate Incinerator which are conducted on a two -year basis be conducted in a more random and unannounced nature. This recom- mendation was unanimously accepted. Porett said the suggestions numbered 5 and 7 in staffs memorandum will not be recommen- dations but merely provided to the City Council as general information. In deleting these two suggestions and adding one new recommendation, six recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council. Porett requested that the final version of the each Task Force member. 3. Other Business The next meeting was tentatively 4. Approval of the Minutes Chair Porett asked if there were'any correctior for the October 14, 2009 meeting. Being no co are accepted as mailed. There were no objectio to the Council be sent to I Task Force's minutes stated that the minutes The meeting .-F,' . -. Howard Blin From: leslieschmitt@comcast.net Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2009 4:19 PM To: Howard Blin Subject: 3M Incinerator Proposal Dear Howard I would like to be known to oppose the permit modifications of the state issued air emission and hazardous waste that 3M is seeking for their incinerator. If 3M is allowed to bring in non -3M generated hazardous waste, all control will be lost of what is burning and what is emitting from their incinerator. Cottage Grove's ground water is contaminated by 3M. Should they be allowed to contaminate more through burning hazardous waste? The River Oaks neighborhood is very close to this incinerator. If 3M is granted this permit variance, this will greatly reduce the value of the homes in our neighborhood. Who would want to live in a neighborhood with a commercial incinerator burning virtually in their backyard? This incinerator is extremely loud. Can 3M promise Cottage Grove, and their close neighbors in River Oaks and other surrounding developments, that they will greatly reduce or eliminate the noise generated by this incinerator, as well as not allow ANY hazardous emissions to exit their burning facility? 3M needs to be a good neighbor. We aren't allowed to burn our own garbage in our own backyar 3M should not be allowed to burn non 3M generated hazardous waste in their backyard, or ours! If 3M is granted their request, and their incinerator kicks up its burning, 3M should be required to buy all of the properties they affect so we can live someplace free of contaminates and noise. When a new runway was added at the St. Paul /Minneapolis airport, properties were purchased, and others soundproofed. What is 3M going to do for their neighbors whose lives they disrupt with their noise and contaminates, and property values they destroy, because they don't want to pay for natural gas? I ask that the Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force fight this modification request . Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. Leslie Schmitt 11160 Kingsborough Trail Cottage Grove, MN 55016 651 - 480 -2250 Z'his email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email For more information please visit http:/ /www.messagela 9/17/2009 i ¢ac i vi i Howard Blin From: Leslie Seivert [leslieseivert @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 12:57 PM To: Howard Blin Subject: 3M Incinerator Proposal This e -mail is to comment on the 3M incinerator proposal. 3M has not even started cleaning up their PFCs mess in Cottage Grove and they want to take on other companies hazardous waste. That is outrageous! They can't even take care of their own. We live in Langdon and thanks to 3M we don't know what our future is, health -wise or financial. No one knows what the PFCs are doing to our bodies and we couldn't give our house away with contaminated water. What chemicals are being released when hazardous waste is being burned? No filter is 100 percent. It's bad enough having 3M poisons, now we will have other companies. The city of Cottage Grove needs to stand up to 3M. They are destroying our city. Leslie Seivert 9747 Miller Road Cottage Grove Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http: / /mail.yahoo.com This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit littp : / /www.messagelabs.com/email 9/18/2009 To the City of Cottage Grove , Sept. 21 ,2009 My name is John Swenson and I live at 7903 113th Street South , I have resided at this address since 1964. 3 M has placed hazardous waste into the ground and tl4e 6Fee r. Mississippi River and as a result my well water is unfit to drink. 3 M is now asking to put hazardous waste into the air, when is it enough, we can't drink our water or swim in the river now they want to make it so we can't breathe the air. My understanding is that we elect the Mayor and city council to protest our health, welfare and safety in Cottage Grove. If we allow 3M to keep polluting the enivonment at the rate they have been doing this will become an unfit place to live. I think that the city and State of Minnesota has turned their back to this situation long enough , it is time to stand up and say no. lJcu ��j�h�s From: Jennifer Levitt Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 12:21 PM To: Ryan Schroeder; Howard Blin Subject: FW: City Council, please listen to us re: 3M hazardous waste request FYI From: Trish Thompson [mailto:thethompson4 @juno.com] Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 11:37 AM To: myronbailey @aol.com; grossklaus @comcast.net; olsenforcg @aol.com Cc: Jennifer Levitt; kandghasting @comcast.net; mr8284 @qwest.net Subject: City Council, please listen to us re: 3M hazardous waste request Mayor Bailey and Council People: Here is a letter written by my wonderful neighbor, Bets Thorkelson. Though it is sent via e -mail, it comes directly from her heart. I have Bets's permission to forward this to you. Could one of you provide a copy of this to Pat Rice as I am not privileged to have his e -mail address. Perhaps the Task Force members could be copied as well --please! Thank you for your ongoing concerns and for your listening ears. Trish Thompson 11733 Leeward Avenue — Pine Coulee I live at 11795 Lehigh Ave (Pine Coulee) Thank you for the opportunity to speak last night, however, as a very "emotional" breast cancer survivor, it's difficult for me to speak in front of a crowd so I hope you will please hear what I have to say and forward to the task force as well as other council members. For years, I have felt Cottage Grove, Hastings and surrounding communities have had way too much cancer (to name just one disease). Not just because of 3M, however, we have Koch Refinery, Ashland Oil, Endres Processing, Prairie Island Nuclear Plant ... to name a few. Because of that, we switched to bottled water 8 or 10 years ago and most recently to a reverse osmosis system. After my diagnosis four years ago, I contacted the MN Dept of Health and was assured the wells in my area tested clear of the PFC's found in neighboring wells. Because of my concern for our children, I had my blood tested and to my relief, I tested negative. When I asked the lady at the MDH about the "environment ", after a long pause, I was told "the jury is still out" 1 have not checked back with them to see if the jury is still out as I suspect it will be the same answer. I told the lady that of only 9 homes on my block, 10 of us have had cancer with only 2 of us left to talk about it. She asked what kinds of cancer and then told me "if it were all one kind, there would because for concern ". She also 9/28/2009 stated, "if we live long enough we will all most likely get cancer ". I don't consider the ages of 51, 41, 49, 55, 50, 62, old agent Simply put, it was like talking to a brick wall. That's the statistics on just my block that I'm aware of!!! For 21 years my neighbor and I have been walking 2 miles 5 days a week, so we breathe this so called "fresh air" a great deal!! Many times I have said to my neighbor "do you smell that awful odor? To me, it smells like the "ether" that was used years ago to knock people out for surgery. At times when I drive past 3M I can smell that same odor, so despite what we are being told, the odor does indeed come from 3M. What 3M is asking to do, is by today's environmental standards, a CRIME and they should not be allowed to haul in others hazardous waste to burn, nor should they be allowed to continue burning their own hazardous waste in our community!! As a voted council member of this community it is your DUTY to tell 3M, absolutely NO to their request! Thank you for your time. Warm Regards, Bets giorke&on R PHH Home Loans / Doreen Drake Team 651 - 282 -9644 (Direct) 651 - 276 -3141 (Team phone) 651 - 227 -3497 (Fax) bets thorkelsonr7c phhon Fine .com Thank you for your support to 2009 Twin Cities Breast Cancer 3 Day Walk (60 Miles). To follow my blog or progress click on ht / /www the3day orygoto /betsthorkelson Cheap Diet Help Tins. Click here. This email has been scanned For more information please the MessaoeLabs Lmail Security System. It http : / /www.messagelabs.com/email 9/28/2009 4 ; 651 - 457 -0677 September 21, 2009 Minnesota Sheriffs' Association Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association 1951 Wood Lane Drive Woodhury, MN 55125 Mayor Myron Bailey Cottage Grove City Hall 7516 — 80`' Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 RE: PCA Permit for 3M Hazardous Waste Disposal Dear Mayor Bailey: 651 - 451 -7216 The Minnesota Sheriffs Association and the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association have reviewed and discussed the need for a drug disposal facility located within the State of Minnesota. At the present time, the closest facility for the disposal and incineration of illegal drugs and other related materials is located in Illinois. This disposal method is very costly for our cities and counties in the State of Minnesota. It is my understanding that 3M has applied for an expansion of their current disposal /incineration permit and under the new permit, 3M has agreed to dispose of law enforcement illegal drugs and other related hazardous materials at no charge to our local units of government. As you can see this is a definite cost savings to all cities and counties in the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police Associations Board of Directors have voted to support the 3M request for amended use of their existing incineration facility. This amended permit would give Minnesota Law Enforcement agencies a cost efficient and effective drug disposal system located right in our own state. We are asking your City Council to also support this application. Sincerely, James Franklin Executive Director Minnesota Sheriffs' Association Harlan Johnson Executive Director Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association Wh at's Inside? Smoke Alarms ....... ..............................2 rrr Halloween Parade ........ ......... Z Police Reserve ..... ..............................2 Commission Openings. ................. .2 Volunteer Opportunities ....................2 Yeshiva High Emory Nomination........ 2 River Oaks Golf Course .......... .......... .' Winter Parking, Compost Site ..... ........ 2 FacingRace, Winter Reminders Human Rights /Poster Contest ... ...2 Ice Arena & Skating___ .. ._3 _. V: f i3rt,+ Floor Even "ts � The ice Arcpn has 13 sq/St ofopen "cbnccete floor to be rented out from ;May - ' 11eaS i The floor can 63 used mWetic activities and,ihucb f : more, The facility can be rented by the hour or by the day. Ca11651,45$.3400 to book. your next event. Sept. 17th s of -all ages are invited to lemonstrations of Public plows, dump trucks, trac- the Recreation & n'g Frog, and the Guardian will be a special appear - him us on Septem- 2009 3:00 - 7:00 8635 West Point in Cottage s, pop and chips will be sold for C otta g e o C ouncil Appr Levy /Budget Under state law Cities must adopt a preliminary tax levy each September notices can be mailed to property owners by the county in the fall. The final levy will be adopted after a December 2, 2009 bearing at which time interested parties can provide comments. The final budget and tax levy cannot increase above the levels set in Septem- ber, 2009. General Fund Expenditures: 2005 Actual: $12,506,689 2006 Actual: $12,463,170 2007 Actual: $12,565,146 2008 Actual: $12,233,430 2009 Budget: $13,254,600 2010 Proposed: $12,789,050 CG General Food apenditures Actual and Proposed 2005 -2010 $13.400.000 $13,200.000 $13.000.000 $12.600.000 $12.600.000 512,400.000 $4,200.00 $12.000,000 $11,800.000 $11.600,000 Cottage Grove EDA to Host The preliminary general fund budget First Annual Deal Estate 9,050 which includes spending $ fro is a 3.51% decr from the 2009 �rUF�l budget. The preliminary 2010 tax levy -A.. "Profit -from Experience in Cottage Grove" is $12,155,000 which is a 2.3 de- real estate forum will be held on Wednesday, crease from the 2009 tax levy. As pro October 14" at River Oaks Golf Course in Cot - ; - posed, it is anticipated that over 75% of tage Grove for area residential real estate residential property owners will see the agents. The forum is designed to provide infor- property tax they pay to the City decline " ma ion on oeal goverm ne to area realtors, and - -mom- what -they paid in 2009. - - the 4 hour forum will include 3 continuing edu- Recent Cottage Grove budgets have cation credits. The fomm's objective is for real- been stable. The 2010 proposed general toil to hear from a representative from Inde- fund budget includes spending that is pendent School District 833, the Cottage Grove only 2.22% alcove that which was spent Chief of Police, as well as local housing and, in 2005! development officials. Two core areas of focus will be presentations from Washington County, — HRA and U.S. Department of Housing and Ur -' Iae Eq or�.l!_ on 3M ban Development. Through presentations, pl' question and answer sessions, realtors will learn. nerator Proposal r 3Mproposing of services and programs of interest to their ctt- to modify the state is- ents. R.S.V.P. - Jesse Swenson at 651.458.2833 or i gwensona,cottage- arove.o r!?. Forum Details: - Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:30 a.m. -. Noon Location - River Oaks Golf Course 11099 South IIwy. 61 in Cottage Grove, MN Cost - $10.00 per person. sued air emission and hazardous waste permits for the .3M Corparate incinera- tor located in Cottage Grove. The pro- posed pennit modifications would allow 3M to accept and process non -3M gen- erated 'hazardous :waste: ? 3M is seeking the permit modifications to allow waste products to serve as a fuel source in the incinerator to replace the natural gas The property tax levy snakes up the most significant portion of general fund reve- nues. This results primarily from the State eliminating all Local Government Aid (LGA) from the Cottage Grove budget in 2003 and all Market Value Homestead Credit Aid (MVHC) its 2010. The MVHC elimination reduced non - property tax revenues by $584,000 in 201O.' and Cant - 'aui, most - greater Minnesota cities and almost half of the Twin Cities' suburbs continue to =ceive LGA and MVHC payments from the state to reduce property tax bills in those communities while, generally, the -------------- -------- currently used. The Cottage Grove Environmental Task Force has been studying the proposal for the past two months. The Task Force is inviting Cottage Grove residents to com- ment on the proposal at its meeting. at 6:30 PM on Wednesday, Septembe 2009. Written continents or quest..,.; may also be submitted to Howard Blin, Community Development Director, at 7516 80 Street South, Cottage Grove, or by calling 651.458.2827. w N a A d Z a m 6 3 000 0 3000 • 0f 651- 457 -0677 September 21, 2009 Minnesota Sheriffs' Association Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association 1951 Wood Lane Drive Woodbury, MN 55125 Mayor Myron Bailey Cottage Grove City Hall 7516 — 80`' Street South Cottage Grove, MN 55016 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155 RE: PCA Permit for 3M Hazardous Waste Disposal Dear Mayor Bailey: 651 -451 -7216 The Minnesota Sheriffs Association and the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association have reviewed and discussed the need for a drug disposal facility located within the State of Minnesota. At the present time, the closest facility for the disposal and incineration of illegal drugs and other related materials is located in Illinois. This disposal method is very costly for our cities and counties in the State of Minnesota. It is my understanding that 3M has applied for an expansion of their current disposal /incineration permit and under the new permit, 3M has agreed to dispose of law enforcement illegal drugs and other related hazardous materials at no charge to our local units of government. As you can see this is a definite cost savings to all cities and counties in the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police Associations Board of Directors have voted to support the 3M request for amended use of their existing incineration facility. This amended permit would give Minnesota Law Enforcement agencies a cost efficient and effective drug disposal system located right in our own state. We are asking your City Council to also support this application. Sincerely, James Franklin Executive Director Minnesota Sheriffs' Association Harlan Johnson Executive Director Minnesota Chiefs of Poiice Association