Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-15 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 2/15/12 �. PREPARED BY Engineering Jennifer Levitt ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT STAFF AUTHOR COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on January 11, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on January 11, 2012. 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 2/8/12 ❑ ® ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meeting on 1/11/12 ADMINISTRATORS COMMENTS Gi y Administrator ate COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, January 11, 2012 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on January 11, 2012, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase , Barbara Gibson, Patrick Lynch, Thaddeus Owen, Rosemary Palmer, Emily Rixen Members Absent: Rita Isker, David Olson Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer David Thiede, City Councilmember Call to Order Chair Owen opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Motion was made to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Open Forum /Additional Agenda Items Owen stated that an item would be added to the agenda following item 5.1 regarding the MPCA air permit for the Newport Terminal Corp. Action Items 5.1 Air Monitoring Report Tom Henning, SEH Inc., provided a report on the results of the first year of air monitoring that was done by the City due to the proposed modification to the air permit for the 3M Cottage Grove Incineration Facility to allow them to burn outside waste at their facility. He explained the reason for the air monitoring program and described how the testing was conducted. He stated that first year's data would provide a benchmark to be compared to the results from the air mon- itoring that will done when 3M starts to burn outside waste at its incinerator. He summarized the data, which showed that the results meet Minnesota health benchmarks and federal air quality standards. In general, the data compared very well with the MPCA results from other monitoring stations throughout the state. Owen asked if the results are either at the detection limit or below, is half that value is used. Henning responded that if it is below the detection limit, half the value is used; if it is at the de- tection limit, that value is used. Bigham asked about the time frame of the monitoring. Henning responded the air monitoring started in October 2010 and ended in September 2011. He noted that 27 samples were col- Environmental Commission January 11, 2012 Minutes Page 2 of 5 lected during that time period. Bigham asked if there were any other comparisons that were noted based on the MPCA report. Henning responded that they looked at a couple different variables that might have had an impact but did not find anything that had a direct impact. Lynch asked if the MPCA turned down the City initially to do the air monitoring because they did not think it was close enough to a traffic center. Levitt responded that the MPCA was not inter- ested in conducting the air monitoring, which is why 3M and the City of Cottage Grove financed this monitoring program. She clarified that the samples were collected every 12 days between October 2010 and September 2011 and we have all the MPCA comparable for that timeframe. One of the reasons the MPCA did not want to monitor is because it was not truly ambient air, which is what most people would be exposed to. Lynch asked if any of the sampling occurred when the incinerator was not operating. Henning responded that he has not seen 3M's operat- ing data. He noted that the data collection was done randomly. Lynch asked because 3M is re- quired to provide information on the incinerator's start ups, shut downs, and malfunctions, if that could be tracked. Henning responded yes. Lynch noted that initially there was a spike in the amount of Freon and asked what happened with that. Henning responded that Freon was still detected it, noting that it is comparable to the MPCA's monitoring results so he did not highlight it in this presentation, but we continue to monitor it. Chase asked how far above ground the sampling points were. Henning responded about six feet from the ground, which is about the breathing height of a human. Chase asked how close those numbers would be if the elevation was up by where the emissions were coming out of the stack. Henning explained that the purpose of this monitoring is to get an estimate of what people might be breathing. Chase stated that he would like to know if this data would be similar at a higher elevation. He then asked what the distance was between the sampling point and the stack. Henning responded he could get that data later, but the monitoring station was put in line of the stack and prevailing winds. Chase asked if the water used in the scrubbing process is tested, discharged, or evaporated in this process and if it is comparison between what is put in the water system and what is put into the air. Also, is there any data after the manufacturing process and the burn cycle on what VOCs or hazards could be in the water? Owen responded that SEH does not have that information but 3M, under their permit or operational guide lines, should have a plan on what they do with that water. Levitt stated that staff would ask 3M for clarification. 0.1 uraIL Mr\J/1 P%II rC11111L - 1YC YV L JVI L I GI 11 III n MI vWl N• Levitt stated that the Newport Terminal facility received a permit modification from the MPCA. She stated that at this point, staff's recommendation is that there is no need to provide comment on the application; this was added to the agenda to alert the Environmental Commission about this permit in Newport, which is a close neighbor to Cottage Grove. Henning reported that this facility has a terminal where they pump gasoline. Emissions result whenever there is a transfer like that. The company is currently operating a flair, which burns exhaust that has VOCs in it. The permit is to put an improved pollution control device with an activated carbon system, which will allow them to capture that material for re -use. Chase asked if they will be maintaining the flair as a back up to the VRU. Henning responded yes. Environmental Commission January 11, 2012 Minutes Page 3 of 5 5.3 Wellhead Protection Program Evaluation Levitt reported that there had been a presentation and workshop session regarding the City's wellhead protection program. The Department of Health requires that the cities' evaluate their plans every two and a half years. The document in the packet provides a summary of those ac- tivities regarding the City's wellhead protection plan. She asked if the Commission had any questions, concerns, or ideas about the summary data. Lynch noted that the PFC issue consumed most of the City's time and more time and money are need to fully evaluate our wellhead protection plan. Levitt stated that one of the challenges with the wellhead protection plan is that it was pre -PFC, so the plan does not address any of the is- sues the City is facing regarding PFCs. It is also well outside of our capture area, so the next version of the plan would have to incorporate that. A lot of time is spent tracking, monitoring, and investigating PFCs in the City's drinking water. Lynch asked if the response back from the agency based on our evaluation is to update the plan immediately. Levitt stated that the City of Cottage Grove's wellhead protection plan was selected to be audited, so that may be part of the recommendations from the results of the audit. She noted that updating our wellhead protection plan is very costly, so her hope is that they would not request that prematurely so the City would not have to endure that cost. Chase asked if audit findings would be binding with timelines. Levitt responded that Cottage Grove is the first city to have its wellhead protection plan audited by the Department of Health, so she does not know have an answer. She believes that the City of Cottage Grove is doing a good job with implementation of our wellhead protection plan and there won't be any issues. 5.4 GreenCorps — Draft Application Owen stated that during the planning sessions, the Commission wanted to investigate having a GreenCorps member work for the City of Cottage Grove to assist with sustainability and envi- ronmental initiatives. A subcommittee of the Commission met in December to discuss projects the GreenCorps member could work on. He stated that in the packet is a summary of the spe- cific projects that a GreenCorps member could focus on. He asked for feedback on what projects should be picked and whether there is enough to fill out an application for a Green- Corps member. Bigham stated that this coincides with the goals the Commission set out last year and it is a good use of resources. Owen asked if there are any topics outside these five areas that were not addressed. Chase asked if the work plan was ever finalized. Owen responded yes, but some details still need to be filled in. Owen explained that GreenCorps members are funded by the State, but it is an AmeriCorps (federal) project so there would be no cost to the City for a GreenCorps member to work for us; we just need to find work space and somebody to supervise them. He stated that the application should focus on one specific project and asked the Commission to decide which of the five sug- gestions was the most important to work on. Levitt stated that at the next meeting the Commis- sion could provide more direction to staff in filling the application out. She noted that staff is en- gaging the School District to look at food composting to see if a partnership could be developed to strengthen the grant application. Bigham stated that a couple topics could intertwine, and some of the other tasks could be incorporated into the quarterly newsletter. If we decide to focus on one, the other four could also be implemented in that task as well. Owen stated that is how the subcommittee saw it also. Environmental Commission January 11, 2012 Minutes Page 4 of 5 Owen noted that the application deadline is in April. He thinks the next steps may be to take a closer look at the application to make sure there is enough data to fill out the application with help from City staff and then make a recommendation to the City Council on whether to proceed with the application for a GreenCorps member. He suggested that the subcommittee look through the application and report back with an update at the next meeting. 6.1 East Metro Bio- Monitoring Report Levitt summarized the information from the MPCA and the Department of Health regarding PFC bio- monitoring. She noted that there was a substantial decrease of PFOS, PFOA, and PFHXS in the blood levels for the various participants. The data shows positive results that as the expo- sure to PFCs is decreased, the concentrations in the blood are decreasing as well. Owen asked if the bio- monitoring was performed just in the two years. Levitt responded they took samples from the participants in 2008 and again in 2010. She noted that there is no more legislative funding for this program in the future. 6.2 Recycling in Parks Levitt summarized the memorandum from Zac Dockter, Parks Director, on starting a program for recycling in the parks, which is one of the key goals of the Environmental Commission. Owen asked when the program will be implemented. Levitt responded that the containers will be avail- able at the parks this spring. Chase asked if the containers would only be within park buildings. Levitt responded that what was referenced in the memo is that they are also looking at exterior containers as well as the ones inside building so people would not need to access the facility to recycle. 6.3 All Commission Meeting Levitt reminded the Commission about the All Commission Meeting on Saturday, January 14, at 8:30 a.m. at River Oaks. She stressed the importance of attending this meeting because a lot of great ideas were generated at last year's meeting. Council and staff really value the input from the Commissions. Thiede noted that Commissioners should have received an e- packet with more information regarding this meeting. Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes Bigham made a motion to approve the minutes from the Environmental Commission meeting on November 9, 2011. Gibson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (7 -to -0 vote). Reports City Council Update Thiede reported that the City Council approved funding to execute an agreement with the Friends of the Mississippi River to develop a plan for the River Oaks Scenic Overlook. He sug- gested that the Environmental Commission look at this. Levitt stated that the Environmental Commission jointly with the Parks Commission could look at this proposal, but the Parks Commission would be the leader on this issue. Environmental Commission January 11, 2012 Minutes Page 5 of 5 Response to Commission Inquiries None Environmental Commission Comments and Requests None Adjourn A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 7:58 p.m.