Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-21 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # A DATE 7/21/10 PREPARED BY Community Development Howard Blin ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on May 12, 2010. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on May 12, 2010. BUDGET IMPLICATION $N /A $N /A N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT FUNDING SOURCE ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION DATE REVIEWED APPROVED DENIED ❑ PLANNING ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC SAFETY ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ PUBLIC WORKS ❑ -❑ ❑ ❑ PARKS AND RECREATION ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY ❑ ❑ ❑ ® ENVIRONMENTAL 7/14/10 ❑ ® ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meeting on 5/12/10 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: (APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER s 11 to City of Coftage Grove UleclTes Mag 12 201 t The Environmental Commission met on Wednesday, May 12, 2010. Prior to the meeting, the Commission toured the 3M Remediation Site at 3M Cottage Grove starting at 5:00 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 80th Street South. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Matthew Loyas, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin Members Absent: Christopher Lethgo, Matthew Porett Others Present: Jen Peterson, City Councilmember Howard Blin, Community Development Director Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer John McCool, Senior Planner Call to Order McLoughlin opened the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Approval of Agenda McLoughlin stated that the order of the agenda has been reversed. A motion was made and seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously. r�,.,, No one spoke. Water Conservation Ordinance Amendment Levitt summarized the proposed water conservation ordinance amendment. She stated that nearly 54 percent of water usage in the city is for irrigation of landscaping. She explained that the ideal times to water lawns are prior to 8:00 a.m. and after 7:00 p.m. The proposed ordinance amendment maintains the even /odd watering ban that is currently in place and restricts watering from noon to 4:00 p.m. These restrictions are only for those who receive municipal water, not those with wells. She also explained that there are other times when watering is not necessary or desirable, including during the heat of the day, windy conditions, when it is raining, and freezing temperatures. Exempt activities include using the sprinkler for kids' play activities, car washing, watering gardens, and watering new sod installation. Another ordinance changes per- tains to declaration of an emergency. Rather than convening the entire City Council to initiate restrictions on watering, it is proposed to allow the Public Works Director to make the determi- nation to call a water emergency, which enables the city to respond quicker. Environmental Commission May 12, 2010 Minutes Page 2 McLoughlin stated that the memo states between noon and 5:00 but the ordinance states noon and 4:00. Levitt stated that change was made at the staff level after last month's meeting. McLoughlin had questions about the format of the proposed ordinance. Levitt responded that the format will be finalized prior to going to the City Council. McLoughlin then asked how staff plans to let the community know about the changes. Levitt stated that there would be informa- tion in the city's newsletter that is sent with the water utility bill, on the cable access channel, and possibly in the local newspaper. Gibson asked if the odd -even and the noon to 4:00 p.m. restriction would be in effect all the time and if the emergency regulations have additional restrictions. Levitt responded that the odd - even and noon to 4:00 would be year round and during emergencies, the Public Works Director, based on the severity of the conditions, could strictly enforce this ordinance or potentially bring additional measures. McLoughlin stated that he would like to strike the term "ban" and use the term "restrictions." Also, under Exceptions, he would like to remove the word "establishment" so it just reads "after planting," because "establishment" is not defined. Levitt stated that staff will make those changes prior to going to the ordinance going to the City Council. Isker made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment with the changes noted above. Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. LS Power Air Emissions Permit Blin explained that LS Power has requested a modification to their existing permit with the Minnesota PCA to allow them to exceed the limits on carbon monoxide at start up, which is de- fined as a 120 - minute period. They are asking to be allowed to emit up 1,900 pounds per hour at start up. Their overall emissions level of 99 tons per year would not change. He stated that there is a report from the city's consultant to the Environmental Commission, which covers LS Power's application to the MPCA and their response to the permit. He stated staff is satisfied with the MPCA's response, noting that they are revising the proposed permit to reflect that 1,900 pounds per hour of carbon monoxide is only able to be released during the start up period and not throughout the day and that the overall emissions level does not change. Lynch noted that the MPCA's response says that the combined gas cycle turbine undergoes start up as fre- quently as five days every week of the year and he asked if the 99 tons per year limit would be enough Blin stated that staff would ask for clarification from the MPCA about that calculation. Isker asked if there was a malfunction during the start up, would they have another two -hour time frame for start up during that 24 -hour period. Blin responded yes. Isker asked how often that would happen. Blin stated he would ask how often they can start it up. McLoughlin asked for responses to these questions before the Commission makes their recommendation. McLoughlin noted that some members of the Commission, together with some City Council - members, toured the 3M Cottage Grove remediation site earlier in the evening. Environmental Commission May 12, 2010 Minutes Page 3 Mark Gates, 3M Corporate Environmental Programs, provided an update on the ongoing re- mediation work under the 3M /MPCA consent order. Lynch and asked if activated carbon is a treatment for PFCs. Gates responded yes. Lynch asked if 3M has an existing activated carbon filtration building on site. Gates responded the activated carbon system that is on the site is used for the plant's wastewater discharge. He explained that they are assessing options to add on to the existing plant wastewater treatment carbon system for treatment of the increased vo- lume of water or to establish another location that would treat this water before discharge. Lynch asked if the current facility is at peak capacity. Gates stated that he does not know but it was probably not sized for that additional volumes are anticipated. Isker asked if there is any possi- bility that there could be higher levels of PFCs underneath the cove area where they are re- moving sediment. Gates stated that their consultant, Westin Solutions, has been doing sampling within the cove area over the last few years so they know to what depths the impacted sedi- ments are. Isker asked how far down was that. Gates responded approximately seven feet. Katie Winogrodzki, Project Manager for the Woodbury remediation site for 3M, discussed the water management issues at the Woodbury site and how it relates to the remediation system that is going to be installed at the Cottage Grove facility. Lynch asked if the decreased pumping buys increased monitoring at least in the initial phases to determine that it is feasible. Winogrodzki responded that the process is going to be phased, and the first phase should demonstrate that things that are happening in the field happened as cal- culated. They will take ground water level measurements monthly to ensure that things are re- sponding the way they anticipated that they would. Lynch noted that the Woodbury site is years ahead of Cottage Grove and asked if reductions in PFCs from the Woodbury site have been noted. Winogrodzki stated that they have only analyzed for PFCs in the last five years partly be- cause the concentrations in the barrier wells are fairly low and their deduction limits did not allow them to see it until 2005 which was the first time they actually took a PFC sample. It has re- mained fairly steady over the years that they have sampled, but these are not fast responding systems. The schematic makes it look like groundwater is moving quickly but the reality is the hydraulic conductivity is actually a quarter mile every ten years, so it takes a long time to see a change in the subsurface. Isker asked if 100 percent of the water that is generated from these wells and brought down into the site is used in the process. Winogrodzki responded during peak demand, which occurs in the summer months, the water demands increase so 100 percent is used. However, the rationale behind the 30 percent reduction from a facility standpoint is that on annual average they could probably reduce it by 30 percent. The difficulty is they need to have supplemental water within the Cottage Grove facility to make up for that so they need to work in tandem. Levitt asked about the slide that shows the capture zone of the wells at the Woodbury site and if Well B4 does not have any PFCs in the pump out water. Winogrodzki responded that it is that Well B2 does not have PFCs. One of the first phases for the 25 to 30 percent reduction is to shut off B2 and slow down B3. B2 is a low production well and was constructed before pump and treat was even a technology; the permit from 1967 actually states experimental hydraulic containment of contaminants. Levitt asked if it would be possible to get a graphic that shows the new proposed capture zone. Winogrodzki stated that the MPCA has posted their request to re- duce the pumping and that has a graphic. Levitt stated that one of the concerns Woodbury had expressed is that the plume of PFCs from the site shows a finger that goes to the north toward the former northeast disposal area. Their concern is why that traveled north when the flow of Environmental Commission May 12, 2010 Minutes Page 4 water is to the south. She asked for an explanation of that anomaly. Winogrodzki stated that the former northeast disposal is actually the epicenter of what they are seeing and it was where acids and tars were placed. This is the beginning of the plume and that long finger -like plume actually goes in the direction of groundwater flow. McLouglin asked if 3M has a contamination removal plan in place in case drinking water levels are exceeded. Winogrodzki stated that it is hard to plan for something that they don't foresee but if anything changes they are in a great position to address it because they are already providing capture for the contaminants that exist today. Results of 3M Incinerator CMT Test Levitt summarized the 2009 Comprehensive Performance Test, which was completed in Jan- uary 2010 and reported to the MPCA. Approval of Minutes — March 10, 2010 and April 14, 2010 A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the March 10, 2010 and April 14, 2010 meetings of the Environmental Commission. The minutes were declared approved. Other Business Blin stated that the next meeting of the Environmental Commission will be June 9, 2010. The meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m.