Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-16 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # ° DATE 2/16/11 .1 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 January 12, 2011. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on January 12, 2011. 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 2/9/11_ ❑ ® ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: MOTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meeting on 1/12/11 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS 1 City Administrator Date COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, January 12, 2011 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on January 12, 2011, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Barbara Gibson, Rita Isker, Patrick Lynch, Patrick McLoughlin, David Olson, Matthew Porrett Members Absent: None Others Present: Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Thomas Henning, SEH, Inc. Howard Blin, Community Development Director Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Tom Dye, Bonestroo Call to Order Porrett called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda It was asked that a discussion on the Sustainability Task Force Report be added to the agenda. With that addition, the agenda was approved. Additional Agenda Items None New Business 5.1 Presentation by Friends of the Mississippi River Whitney Clark, Executive Director of the Friends of the Mississippi River, gave a presentation about the Mississippi River, the work of this organization, and specific issues related to Cottage Grove. It was asked if Cottage Grove has looked at the Blue Star Award Program. Levitt responded that staff has reviewed the analysis for the program, and she feels strongly that the City of Cottage Grove will be able to meet the objectives of that award. The City has made a substantial invest- ment in stormwater practices over the years. There was a question regarding the position of the Friends of the Mississippi River on the bridge /bike path between Inver Grove Heights and St. Paul Park. Clark responded that the plan was to create a pier and promenade from a couple of sections of the old bridge on the Dakota Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 2 County side but it will not connect all the way to Washington County; the Washington County section of the swing bridge has been removed. Clark stated that his organization was supportive of converting the bridge to a park use, and they worked with the County on those plans. It was asked if the Friends of the Mississippi owns, or through a trust owns, access to the River. Clark responded that his organization does not own land along the river; they have been ag- gressively raising funds to contribute to conservation and permanent protection of properties along the river. Do they have a lobbyist on staff? Clark responded that it is usually him but they occasionally engage other lobbyists as well if there is a particular issue they are working. For instance, they engaged a contract lobbyist for the critical area legislation. What sort of technical staff do they have? Clark stated they have staff with expertise in everything from water policy to restoration ecology to land protection and land management. It was asked if the organization has any specific programs, goals, or initiatives that involve Cottage Grove's portion of the river. Clark responded that they are working with some private landowners along the river in Cottage Grove to help them understand their conservation options. They have done a fair amount of restoration and management on some parcels along the river, including the 3M Cottage Grove plant. They have a 10 -year relationship with 3M where they have paid them to do specific restoration and management tasks on some of the high - quality prairie and savannah areas on their property. They are working with Flint Hills Resources, which owns a lot of pristine bluff acreage. They are serving on the Technical Advisory Committee for the Nelson Mine EIS. They have also held a workshop on MNRRA. Clark stated that they are a willing partner so if there are opportunities to work together and collaborate, he would be inter- ested to hear it. It was asked if the organization partners with any federal agencies. Clark responded the Na- tional Park Service has a significant federal presence in the 72 -mile corridor and they work closely with them on a number of initiatives. The Park Service has relied on the Critical Area Framework as their research management framework since their inception. His organization has received federal grants for natural resource restoration. It was asked if the City can use the Friends of the Mississippi when addressing issues pertaining to the River. Clark stated that they would be pleased to work together. It was asked if they ever reach out to other Commissions, such as this Environmental Commission. Clark responded yes. They would like to understand the Commission's concerns and prospective on issues. Blin stated that this will be the first in a series of reports on the air monitoring program we are currently conducting at the 3M Cottage Grove facility. The monitoring, which started in October, is being conducted by the City of Cottage Grove through our consulting firms SEH and Pace Laboratories, with the majority of the funding provided by 3M. There have been six samples so far, and there will be about 30 a year for two to three years. Thus far, the monitoring has not shown any areas of significant concerns. All of the chemicals being testing for are far below the health benchmarks established for those chemicals. The samples from our monitor are being compared to monitors that the MPCA operates throughout the Twin Cities area. Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 3 Tom Henning with SEH provided a presentation on the results from the ambient air monitoring program at 3M Cottage Grove. He explained that the methods being used to collect and analyze the samples are similar to those used by the MPCA at its ambient air monitoring stations. We are also matching their procedures, methodologies, and days to sample to better compare with their results. He stated that there are two samplers: one collects total suspended particulates (dust) and analyzes those materials for 15 metals and the other analyzes the samples for 50 volatile organic compounds. Olson asked for further information about parts per billion. Henning explained that it measures volume. As an example, if a container holds six liters, if there is one part per billion, there is six billionths of a liter of volume of that compound. Henning stated that the results he will be highlighting are those that were found regularly. It was asked if there was significance in that on October 23 everybody seemed to have a bump up. Henning stated that he does not know what happened that day, but perhaps it was drier day with more dust in the air. He stated that most readings were well below the benchmark levels and were comparable to the MPCA data. Lynch asked if there were any start ups, shut downs, or malfunctions on the incinerator over this time period. Henning responded he does not know. Lynch explained that the reason for the question is that in the first four samples there were barely any metals and then on December 4, while they are in very low concentrations, all sorts of metals were detected. Henning stated that for some reason the lab got an extraordinarily low detection limit on December 4. So while the concentrations were detected, they are at much lower levels. It was suggested that it would be helpful in the future to add in the table the performance of the laboratory equipment based on their quality control. McLoughlin asked if, because things like temperature inversion and wind may affect the moni- toring, weather conditions could be overlaid with the results. Henning responded that there have not been any days with extraordinary weather and it was dry every day they sampled. Olson asked about the long -range plan on helping the Commission understand whether there are issues that ought to be raised with the City Council. If the results appear to be okay, how will that be presented to the Commission so appropriate questions can be asked? Henning stated that the purpose of this monitoring is to get an understanding of the air quality in Cottage Grove, specifically near the 3M facility, so the analysis will be the same as was shown tonight. it will be compared with background concentrations, to concentrations that MPCA has monitored throughout the Twin Cities, and to health benchmarks. Olson then asked if these graphs will be getting bigger with more dates that could show more smooth line trends? Henning responded that is exactly what will happen; there will be more data points on the graph, which will de -em- phasize any one sample. There may also be seasonal variations. It was asked if SEH will draw conclusions as part of the assignment. Henning responded that they will help interpret the data or give an assessment of what the data might suggest. Porett stated that what is important about getting these initial figures is they are the baseline of what the emissions are prior to 3M accepting outside waste. Gibson asked if there is any tenta- tive date for when that waste will start coming in. Blin responded no. The last he heard from the MPCA, which was before the holidays, is they have been waiting for the EPA to finish their re- Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 4 view, but he thinks they are at the point now where the MPCA could issue the permit. Gibson asked if there would be a public comment period associated with that. Blin responded a public meeting will be held in Cottage Grove. Gibson then asked if there would be at least one more of these reports before they accept outside waste. Blin responded that this report has six samples and there will likely be ten more samples as part of the baseline. It was asked about scheduling Mr. Henning for another Environmental Commission meeting. It was suggested that he return when there are a sufficient number of data points or sooner if the permitting process were to accelerate. 5.3 3M NPDES Permit Levitt gave a summary of the NPDES permit for 3M's waste water treatment facility. She stated that Tom Dye with Bonestroo is present to help answer questions. It was asked if that those were all the comments that staff is advising the Environmental Com- mission to recommend to the City Council. Levitt responded yes, noting that the PFC limits under the HRL are challenging, and the staff's comments do have large impacts. A question was asked if there is currently no treatment for PFCs. Levitt responded that there is some level of PFC treatment through the granulated activated carbon system. However, as noted in the Program Fact Sheet, there are levels of PFC compounds currently being discharged to the river. How much PFC is there before it is treated? Levitt responded that you have to look at each of the outfalls individually because not all of it is treated. It was asked with the treatment facilities at the Woodbury site, if that opens a theoretical opportunity to use that water for other purposes such as ground water recharge versus dumping into the river directly. Levitt stated that this dis- cussion has not been had. She stressed that the permit language uses the words "temporary treatment facility" for the Woodbury disposal site. She reiterated that there is no language in the permit that references use for the water. She stated that the City's recommendation is that if there is going to be a granulated activated treatment (GAC) facility for the Woodbury disposal site, it stays in place as long as the barrier wells are pumping. The term "temporary" is not really defined in the permit language, so it is hard to comment beyond that. It was noted that the memo states that the wastewater treatment facility at 3M is the only facility in the state currently using granulated activated carbon for treatment. Does that mean treatment of PFCs or treatment of wastewater in general? Levitt responded that according to the PCA that is the only wastewater facility using granulated activated carbon in general. Lynch stated that he does not believe that is true, as he works for the refinery in St. Paul Park, which treats their wastewater with carbon. Blin stated that the information was received from the MPCA. They re- ported that it is a state of the art treatment facility, largely because of the use of granulated acti- vated charcoal. Levitt reported that staff provided the Commission the link to the audit that was conducted by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. That report noted that they cited 3M with an extremely minor violation and investigated four violations that were extremely minor in nature. Staff did not have any concerns pertaining to these violations. Gibson stated that it was reported that the GAC treatment system is state of the art and asked if, for the PFOS, it is currently reaching the permit levels. Levitt displayed a diagram that showed Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 5 how the system works. Gibson asked if the technology currently exists to treat to the levels of PFOS and PFCs that the permit is saying that they must reach. Levitt stated that the language on page 28 is so unique because 3M has to develop the technology and the MPCA is giving them flexibility to figure out how to do it. Gibson asked what if no one can. Levitt responded that enforcement is done by the MPCA. Gibson stated that sometimes they do this with air moni- toring and manufacturing where they set an occupational exposure limit and the technology does not exist to reach that and they are hoping to drive that technology but it could be far more than 28 months before that technology is developed to meet that limit. Gibson asked what hap- pens if the technology is not available. Levitt responded that there would be one massive GAC system. It was asked if it would be appropriate to add to the city's recommendation alternative uses for the water from the temporary treatment facility in Woodbury. Levitt responded that she does not think that language would be appropriate in this permit. Do we know if 3M has been able to correct the amount of their financial surety bond for this permit? Blin responded yes, noting that it involved the amount of money they had set aside should the incinerator ever be shut down. There was a question about the memo was regarding the minor violations. Levitt responded it was in the staff memo, and staff provided the exact quote from the MPCA. Blin stated that there were two violations, the first on the NPDES permit and the other was on an older permit that related to the incinerator specifically. Porett asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience pertaining to the wastewater permit. Senator Katie Sieben stated that she appreciates that the Commission is having this discussion and thinks it is important to put it in a larger context of thinking where the state is at with the PFC issue, recognizing that the attorney general is now suing 3M over environmental degrada- tion to the Mississippi River as a result of the PFC pollution that was mainly discharged from the 3M facility. Her understanding is that the recommendations from staff are fair and pretty non- binding. She has heard from a lot of people who are concerned about PFCs in their drinking water, even if they are below the established health base values. She noted that the overall level of PFCs in the east metro has not gone down even as the remediation has begun. Levitt reported the MPCA is holding a public meeting on Wednesday, January 26, at 6:30 p.m. at the Washington County South Service Center, where they will make a presentation on the permit and enable public comment on it. Porrett asked when the next the City Council meeting is. Levitt replied January 19. Councilmember Olsen invited members of the Environmental Commission to the Council meet- ing next week if they want to address the Council with any further questions or concerns. He is anticipating that there will be an opportunity to hear more about this at the Council meeting. Porrett asked if the Commission had any motions on this permit. Olson stated that he would like to hear what the MPCA has to say and he does not feel informed enough to make a recommen- dation at this time. Levitt responded that there is a time schedule that is not governed by the City but by the MPCA. This permit went out for public comment on January 3 and we have until the end of the month to submit formal comments. Our anticipation is that the comments the Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 6 Commission provides staff to recommend to the City Council would enable staff to draft a letter. That letter would not be formalized until after the public meeting on January 26. Olson stated that does not change what he knows and does not know. Blin stated that staff can ask the MPCA to extend the deadline. McLoughlin stated he believes a motion to approve the comments and drafting of the letter should be made. He agreed that Blin should ask the MPCA if the City can submit comments af- ter the 30 -day period so the Commission can revisit the issue. He would rather make the pro- posed comments, which seem to be fairly reasonable and well thought out, than to miss the opportunity. Gibson noted that the comments in the memo are more generic, (they just develop discharge limits for PFCs other than PFOS and establish a deadline) than the proposed comments on the slide, which are much more specific. Levitt stated that if the Commission is going to make a mo- tion that they use the information on the slide as the recommendation because of the more spe- cific detail. Blin explained the reason for the difference is that since the memo was sent to the Commission last week, staff has been learning more as they studied the permit. Olsen stated that there is a Council meeting on the February 2 and our 30 -day comment period is up on February 2. He suggested holding a workshop with the Environmental Commission and Council after the public comment meeting but prior to the deadline for comments. Levitt stated that one could be established on either Monday, January 31, or Tuesday, February 1. McLoughlin made a motion that the Commission recommends the proposed comments to the City Council. He finds these recommendations and limits very encouraging in the language from MPCA. Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously. Olson stated that he still plans to attend the public meeting on January 26 Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes of December 8, 2010 A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from the Environmental Commission meeting on December 8, 2010. Motion passed unanimously. i...;. Councilmember Olsen stated that at the January 5 Council meeting, the two new Council - members, David Thiede and Derrick Lehrke, were sworn. He reported at the meeting on December 15 there was discussion on the continued planning of the Public Safety /City Hall facility, and he provided a brief update on the progress to date. He invited the Commission and public to attend a day of skating and sledding at Highlands Park on Saturday. He reported that City Administrator Ryan Schroeder is a finalist for a similar posi- tion in Eden Prairie. Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 2011 Page 7 7.2 Response to Commission Inquiries O STIV, 7.3 Environmental Commission Comments and Requests Lynch asked if the recommendations in the Sustainability Task Force Report were implemented. Blin responded not all of them but staff is working on them. He stated that there are three sets of recommendations. One set relates to more efficient buildings. He explained that we are in the process of implementing those procedures, particularly at the Public Works building and Fire Station No. 2. The lighting improvements proposed for City Hall, which was prior to the decision to build a new facility, are not being done. The second set relates to vehicle fuel efficiency. We are on track with many of those recommendations. In 2009, our fuel consumption decreased to meet the goal set in the recommendations. He has not gotten the information yet for 2010. The City has purchased more efficient vehicles; for example, our Public Works Director and Building Official are now driving hybrid vehicles. The final set of recommendations involves paper con- sumption, which is probably the area with the least progress. We are in the process of transi- tioning to e- packets so they can be e- mailed. It was asked which fuel reduction strategies worked best. Blin responded education on driving habits. We found that when we track vehicles, fuel consumption varies widely depending on who is driving. Olson stated at the workshop meeting last month, one of the commitments he made was to reach out to the Coalition of Concerned Citizens of Cottage Grove. They invited him to attend their board meeting on February 3. He offered to attend the meeting on the Commission's be- half. He will report back to the Commission at the next meeting and asked that this be placed on the agenda. Blin stated that the Chair of that group was invited to attend tonight's meeting to hear the air monitoring report but he was unable to attend. Adjourn A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m