Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-05-16 PACKET 04.A.i.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA MEETING ITEM # DATE 3/21/12 YOA*I* 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 March 14, 2012, and April 11, 2012. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Receive and place on file the approved minutes for the Environmental Commission's meeting on March 14, 2012, and April 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 5/9/12 ❑ ® ❑ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ❑ MEMO /LETTER: ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANCE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION: ® OTHER: Approved minutes of Environmental Commission meetings on 3/14/12 and 4/11/12 COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, March 14, 2012 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on March 14, 2012, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Rita Isker, Patrick Lynch, David Olson, Thaddeus Owen, Rosemary Palmer, Emily Rixen Members Absent: Barbara Gibson 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 and seconded to approve the agenda. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum /Additional Agenda Items None Action Items 5.1 3M Incinerator Permit Review Tom Henning, SEH Inc., provided a presentation on the 3M Incinerator permit review process. Owen asked if Dioxin /Furan wastes include products like polyvinylchloride or neoprene that create dioxins when burned. Henning responded that there are waste codes for different types of waste. This would be the waste code for a dioxin waste, but dioxin /furans can be formed as a byproduct of combustion. Owen is asked if it is specified in the permit that they can't burn prod- ucts that would create those byproducts. Henning stated that the permit says that they can't burn dioxin wastes. Olson asked if the information being provided is how the permit is currently written or is it for the new permit. Henning responded both; the existing permit was updated as part of this permit re- newal. Olson asked if they are required to do this analysis on their own waste stream as well. Henning responded yes. Owen asked if this analysis is audited or only kept in case of emer- gency. Henning stated that they have to keep the information up to date, but he does not know what the review timeline is. Environmental Commission March 14, 2012 Minutes Page 2 of 6 A Commissioner asked who dictates what would be part of the contingency plan. A repre- sentative from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) responded that all permit facili- ties have to have a contingency plan that is shared with the local fire department and hospital. The plan also specifies a point person. There was a question on how it is known if all "what if' situations are covered. The MPCA representative responded that the plans are basically de- signed to address emergencies that could occur based on the chemicals or waste generated. The plan is continually updated to address anything that had not been foreseen when it was written. It was asked if the contingency plan includes the solvents brought in from outside the plant and if it covers the waste from the time it enters 3M or from the time it leaves the genera- tor. MPCA responded that the contingency plan is designed for the facility boundaries. The Department of Transportation has responsibility for the contingency plan for waste during its transportation. Owen asked if the chlorine listed on the waste analysis is free chlorine or bound chlorine. Greg Kvaal, Permit Engineer with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, responded that there is a chlorine limit in the permit, and the MPCA wants to know exactly how much chlorine is coming in. Chlorine can be part of chlorinated solvents or PVC piping. A Commissioner asked if this was a mechanical or computerized operation. Henning responded that is automated. Kvaal stated that there are human operators in the control room. The whole system is computerized to ensure that they are in compliance with their limits. He then explained the process involving dioxins. It was asked if there is a cyber security plan. Doug Stang, 3M, re- sponded that their automation computer system is internal, so the threat of outside hacking is not very high because they are not connected to the internet. The facility itself is very secure with several layers of security to get through before actually entering the incinerator facility itself. There was a question about what happens in the event of a power outage in the middle of a burn. Stang responded that there is a procedure in place and they are prepared for any type of catastrophe. It was then asked if the sensors are on auxiliary power. Stang responded yes, ex- plaining that the system is designed to shut down, so nothing would be emitted. He noted there are over one hundred different computers regularly monitoring the system. He stated that there is back -up power and an automated waste feed cut -off system so if something happened, the waste would immediately stop going into the kiln. The kiln is heated by natural gas and the sol- vents, so it will maintain the 2,000 degrees for a long time and anything in the kiln will be com- pletely destroyed even during a power outage. Levitt stated that there will be a public information meeting on these permits on April 10 at 6:30 p.m. in the cafetorium at Cottage Grove Middle School, which will be conducted by the MPCA. Olson asked how many BTUs of their own material 3M was burning per year. Lynch stated that 3M had a reduction program that worked so well they could not maintain temperature in the in- cinerator so they had to start burning expensive natural gas, so the BTUs they were burning before and after are hard to reconcile due to this reduction program. Olson asked if this is a large increase in the amount of BTUs that are going to be going through the system or is this fairly standard to what we have been doing all along. Owen asked what percentage of the 400,000 MBTUs they have to use to burn. Stang stated that the amount of solvents produced internally peaked in the 1990s. That number provides some flexibility for the future as their own internal pollution prevention programs are very aggressive in reducing solvent waste. Environmental Commission March 14, 2012 Minutes Page 3 of 6 Bigham asked if non -31VI waste is allowed, is the amount being burned increasing, decreasing, or staying the same. Kvaal stated that bringing in the waste allows them to go back to the levels prior to when 3M solvents started to drop. He noted that the MPCA looks at whether they are below their emission levels, not just the amount they are burning. Stang stated that 3M does not want to burn more than they have to due to the cost. Levitt pointed out that the 400,000 MBTU was part of the agreement with 3M that was reached nearly two years ago. The amount was based on the actual amount of truck traffic estimated at about 2.5 trucks per day, what a typical tanker truck would haul, and what the estimated BTUs would be per year. It was not based on how much would offset Ws internal waste stream but upon what the City felt was comfortable from the additional traffic that would be generated. Levitt pointed out that the Commission had provided comment to the City Council on the Human Health Risk Assessment and 3M has agreed to do an update of that assessment. After that re- port is completed, if there are any findings that show potential risk associated with it, their permit could be reopened. Bigham asked if there would be a modification, what requirement is in the agreement for them to stop the action, reassess it, and adopt the modifications, and who regu- lates that. The MPCA representative responded that they negotiated with the EPA and their risk assessment experts that because the risk assessment was conducted in 2004, that the risk as- sessment be redone using the new criteria developed by the EPA. The last part states "If an up- dated human health risk assessment shows that potential unacceptable human health risks exist due to emissions from the 3M corporate incinerator, the Commissioner will modify the permit to address the risk." That gives the MPCA Commissioner latitude to reopen the permit. Bigham asked what triggers the modification and who decides that there is a health risk. MPCA responded that if they are below the number built into the human health risk assessment, it is an acceptable risk; if it is above that number, it is an unacceptable risk. Bigham asked what hap- pens if there is a new chemical where the health base level is unknown. MPCA stated that the incinerator is designed to destroy chemicals that cause problems. As far as new chemicals, they will be burning what they have been burning for years and do not foresee anything new coming out of the stack. Bigham stated that she is talking about non -3M waste. MPCA responded that there are only five waste codes that they can burn and they are all ignitable wastes. They have been limited them to waste with BTU value. The wastes that can be accepted are similar to what 3M uses, and he does not believe there will be anything new or significantly different coming in. Henning continued his presentation. He noted that for this permit, 3M has accepted lower emis- sion rates than is required. Olson asked how the actual emissions over the course of a year are determined. Henning responded that there are monitoring requirements. They have to test the waste as it comes in, so they know the concentrations and as waste is added to the incinerator, they have to account for those concentrations and are limited to how much they put in at a time. Bigham asked if this is approved, would the air monitoring program re- start. Levitt responded that the plan is to restart the air monitoring program that we run independently on the 3M site, so as soon as they start taking outside waste, we would have that air monitoring in place. Bigham asked what happens if there is a discrepancy in our independent monitoring versus the required monitoring and if that would trigger a modification of the permit. Levitt responded that there is a benchmark data set from the ambient air monitoring, which shows fluctuations can oc- cur, so if we started to see an unusual trend, we would communicate with 3M to try to seek the source of that inconsistency, and we would make PCA aware of the data collected. Bigham asked if there was anything in the permit that would require a review if there was an inconsis- tency between the two monitoring systems. Kvaal clarified that ambient monitoring records everything in the air, including from 3M, other businesses, and the highway. The five -year mon- Environmental Commission March 14, 2012 Minutes Page 4 of 6 itoring that the PCA does is right at the stack, so they know exactly what is coming out of the in- cinerator, so there really won't be much of a correlation. The ambient monitoring was to get a general idea if the air in Cottage Grove is different from the air in a major metropolitan area rather than specific to what is coming right out of the 3M stack. Olson asked if the data on the slide for 2005 came from the five -year monitoring or is it a mathematical computation. Trevor Sharon, Air Permitting Engineer, stated that he wrote the permit. He explained that metals all have input limits that they have to follow as they put it through the incinerator. Every five years, they do a performance test. Based on that performance test, they figure out a destruction effi- ciency. They calculate what is going in and use the destruction efficiency to figure out how of much is destroyed, which is how they figure out what is coming out. The mercury number, how- ever, is an easier calculation. They assume zero destruction efficiency and therefore whatever goes in, goes cut. Owen stated that the City has until 2013 to conduct that independent testing and asked if they are not taking in outside waste at that point, is 3M going to allow us to do the testing even. Doug Stang, 3M, responded that the issue is a matter of how it would be financed. Bigham noted that there is a lack of state regulations prohibiting 3M from not using non -3M waste and asked if 3M would be opposed to state or local regulations limiting the amount of non -3M waste. Stang stated that they have worked very hard on this permit, and they would not support additional changes. They would not want more levels of regulatory bodies involved be- cause it a highly complex and regulated industry through the EPA and MPCA. Bigham asked if this permit goes through at a certain level but either state legislation or a city ordinance further restricts that, 3M would not be in favor of that. Stang responded that if the state decides to im- pose additional restrictions on the PCA, the PCA would have to impose those restrictions on 3M. He is not sure what authority the City would have over that process and what actions they could force the PCA to impose on 3M. He stated that he could not comment on if they would support or oppose it not knowing any details. Bigham stated that she is asking this because if residents don't agree with the permit approval, is there some action that the residents or local elected officials could take. Stang stated that the permit is their operating document and if that were to change, they would go through the modification process with the PCA to incorporate those changes. Levitt stated that the Mayor signed and the City Council supported the resolution that put those restrictions in place. The waste also has to originate in the United States and it has to have one of the five eligible waste codes, which, when the process started, there was a larger list. It was very clear that the City did not want this to become a commercial incineration operation and added the requirement regarding not being compensated for that waste. She stated that the elected officials have declared that they are supporting the language in the agreement, and 3M has cooperated with that, because that language is in this permit. Bigham stated that she is aware of the memorandum of understanding but if something would change, there are still efforts the City could undertake if needed. Stang stated that 3M has been nego- tiating in good faith with the City in trying to address issues and concerns. 3M would address any concerns the City would have regarding results of the air monitoring. Bigham stated that it is not normal to have the inspections in the permit and asked if the Council requested that, could it be added into the permit. Kvaal explained that this is one of the most highly inspected facilities; the MPCA does unannounced inspections, the EPA does routine in- spections, and the County also does inspections, and he does not believe that could be adopted. Thiede asked if the City Council writes a recommendation to add inspection require- ments, would that be considered. Kvaal responded that this is the public's opportunity to make Environmental Commission March 14, 2012 Minutes Page 5 of 6 official comments on the permit, such as believing the number of inspections conducted is not adequate. Sharon added that by putting it in the permit, it takes away some of the randomness. Whether or not a comment would go in the permit, it would be better to comment on it so it is on the record and informs compliance and enforcement staff about it. Levitt stated that is what she would recommend. We receive and request compliance in deviation reports, and we can track and monitor with the PCA if there is something that is concerning to the City at any point in time. The data practice act allows us access to that data. Olson stated that it may helpful to know how many inspection have occurred in the last 24 months, which would provide an idea of what to expect from the existing methodology for in- spections by the EPA and MPCA. Levitt stated that would provide a comparison going forward if there is a concern. The MPCA representative added that Washington County has their own ha- zardous waste program, and they could be contacted about their inspection strategy. The EPA will have their hazardous waste inspector at the public meeting. He stated that if a comment is being raised that is also associated with a regulatory requirement that may not be mentioned specifically, the language of both the air and the hazardous waste permits have a paragraph that says if it is not mentioned in the permit, it is still applicable with all the rules required by the 3M incinerator for both the air program and the hazardous waste program. The other part of the process is when a comment is made that is not regulatory in nature, and the PCA will ask 3M if they are willing to put that in the permit. Isker asked about if there is a Management of Change at the incinerator and is that information given to the fire department. MPCA responded that if there are changes in the plan, there is a requirement to send copies to all the emergency authorities. 5.2 Arbor Day & Compost Bin Update Levitt reported that the City of Cottage Grove's Arbor Day Celebration will be on April 28 from 9:00 a.m. to noon at the Cottage Grove Public Works facility. The City will be selling compost bins at a discounted rate on a pre -sale basis and Washington County is pre - selling rain barrels. Both items will be available for pick up on Arbor Day. The first 125 attendees will receive a free crab apple tree. She noted that the compost bin project was one of the grant items from Wash- ington County. There was a question about the discount code on the handout. Levitt responded that this is the draft and the order form will have the correct discount code. 5.3 Save the Date: Waste Sort Levitt reminded the Commission that the waste sort at Cottage Grove Elementary School will be held on March 20, 2012, starting at 2:45 p.m. and will take about two hours. She noted that ca- feteria waste will not be included in the waste sort; the County has a formula for the various per- cents of the waste. Also not included is restroom waste or items from the nurse's station. Most of the waste will come from classrooms and offices. Participants will be provided aprons, gloves, and other gear necessary to conduct the waste sort. A total of 10 volunteers are needed, and she asked for four to six volunteers. Owen, Rixen, Lynch, and Isker, volunteered. There was a question about age limitations. Levitt responded that the Student Council was asked to partici- pate; however, they cannot touch the waste but can mass things and record information. Unfinished Business None Environmental Commission March 14, 2012 Minutes Page 6 of 6 Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes Bigham made a motion to approve the minutes from the Environmental Commission meeting on February 8, 2012. Olson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Reports City Council Update Thiede reported that the City Council tabled the proposed ban on smoking in city parks because it was thought to be too broad. There could be issues at events like Strawberry Fest. The Coun- cil supported the basic idea but wanted to re -work it. Levitt stated that Olsen had requested that a presentation on the environmental study of the Camel's i-iump area be presented to the Envi- ronmental Commission, and it will be on the April agenda. The study covers the management plan and strategies for that environmentally sensitive area. Response to Commission Inquiries None It was asked if it would be possible to have someone from the City's Public Safety Department explain the emergency management plan. Levitt responded that she would ask the City's emer- gency management team provide an update to the Commission, but it would not be televised because it will contain issues of potential homeland security. Bigham suggested having a joint Commission workshop because the Environmental Commission is probably not the only Com- mission that would be interested. Isker stated that she would like it to include more than 3M. Olson asked about historical review of inspections on the incinerator. Levitt stated that she will submit the paperwork to the MPCA to facilitate that request. She will also follow up with Wash- ington County about their inspection procedures. She suggested that the Commissioners attend the public meeting on April 10, as the next Environmental Commission meeting is on April 11. Annual Organizational Meeting and Election of Officers Owen asked if there were any nominations for Vice Chair. There were no nominations. Owen asked Bigham if she would like to remain Vice Chair. She had no objections. The Commission unanimously voted to re -elect Bigham as Vice Chair. Ua r A motion was made and seconded to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, April 11, 2012 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 7516 — 80th Street South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on April 11, 2012, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Rick Chase, Barbara Gibson, Patrick Lynch, David Olson, Thaddeus Owen, Rosemary Palmer, Emily Rixen Members Absent: Rita Isker Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Justin Olsen, City Councilmember Call to Order Chair Owen opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Bigham made a motion to approve the agenda. Olson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (8 -to -0 vote). Open Forum /Additional Agenda Items Palmer reported stated that she has done some preliminary research to find out what opportuni- ties and resources there are in the Twin Cities for internships and volunteer opportunities and discovered a number of organizations with web sites that post paid positions, volunteer posi- tions, and unpaid internship positions, including the Minnesota Environmental Partnership. She asked if the Commission is interested in having her do some additional research to compile a list of opportunities. Owen stated that during the working session there was discussion about get- ting help from an unpaid intern or volunteer with our web site and information that would be sent out to the residents of the city about what the Commission is doing and upcoming events. Gibson believes that this should be pursued. Olson asked about how to avoid unpaid interns/ volunteers from being considered an employee. Owen does not believe we finalized how to set the internship up. He summarized that Palmer will continue researching this topic to find out how and where we can advertise. The Commission will then discuss the information and ensure with City staff that employment laws are not violated. Palmer stated that she will research the criteria for setting up an internship and what the guidelines are. Owen asked Palmer to provide an update at next month's meeting. Action Items 5.1 Gateway North Open Space Natural Resources Management Plan Zac Dockter, Parks Director, provided a presentation on the Gateway North Open Space Natu- ral Resources Management Plan (Camel's Hump area), which was produced by The Friends of Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 2 of 7 the Mississippi River and is a cooperative effort with funding from the City of Cottage Grove, the Minnesota Land Trust, and a grant from The Friends of the Mississippi River. Lynch asked if buckthorn removal could be done with volunteers, liked the City of Woodbury's successful buckthorn volunteer removal program. Dockter responded not at this particular site but there are other sites that also need work. He explained that all the buckthorn from a partic- ular site needs to be removed, because the regenerative growth is so fast. Olson asked if there is anything Dockter would like the Environmental Commission to help with in these efforts. Dockter replied that he will be applying for grants and asked that the Commis- sion review those and provide letters of support. Owen asked if he applied for a grant for 2013. Dockter responded yes. Owen asked if that would be enough capital to fund Phase I. Dockter responded that they are planning to do Phase I with that funding. Olsen asked if the prescribed burn on Hardwood Avenue was part of this management plan. He noted that there are similar characteristics on Grey Cloud Island and one of the objectives for that area was very similar to what Dockter referenced about getting rid of invasive plant species and getting back to a natural prairie. Dockter stated that a Natural Resources Inventory was done in 1998 that identifies some of the true native areas, including one by Grey Cloud Island and the River Oaks Scenic Overlook, which is a public site that has true native bluff prairie right over the river. The city is currently developing a natural resources management plan for that area with The Friends of the Mississippi River. The City will also try to work with neighboring pri- vate property owners to restore the areas that back up to the bluff. He then explained that the City performed a prescribed burn along Hardwood Avenue, which does back up to some of the Land Trust area. The goal is to restore the greenway into a prairie belt. Olson asked Dockter to keep the Environmental Commission in mind as these are issues that the group is interested in. 5.2 3M Incinerator Tom Henning, SEH, Inc., summarized his memorandum regarding inspection review of the last five years. Bigham asked if they were joint inspections among the agencies. Henning responded that the MPCA hazardous waste inspections typically occur with the Washington County inspec- tions. Washington County inspects every year and the MPCA does it every other year. Bigham asked if the County and MPCA are looking for different things. Henning stated that they have a common agenda and components of the facility they want to see. Bigham asked if it is typical practice for counties and states to do joint inspections of facilities. Henning responded that it is unusual that a county has inspection authority for air permits, but this is the only hazardous waste incinerator facility in the state. Owen summarized that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) inspects every other year, Washington County has an annual inspection schedule, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspects whenever they want. He noted that most of the inspections are announced. Henning reported on two issues brought up at the April 10 public meeting on the incinerator permit. A commenter asked why the dioxin emission limit changed from .2 micrograms to .4. He noted that the question was not quite accurate, explaining that the current permit has two dioxin Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 3 of 7 limits, of which one applies and one does not. With a scrubber the limit is .4 and without a scrubber it is .2. Since 3M uses a scrubber as part of their pollution control train, the .4 limit ap- plies. When the PCA drafted the new permit, they took off that .2 standard because it does not apply. The second comment was why 3M is allowed to emit more volatile organic compounds (VOCs). He explained that when the state prepares a permit, they also prepare another docu- ment called a technical support document and in that document they write down the analysis that was done and document how this permit will ensure that the facility is meeting all applicable standards. It includes a table listing the potential emissions from the facility. From the permit that was issued in 2005, the potential VOC emissions were shown as 10.3 tons per year. In the draft permit, it is 40.2 tons per year. The reason for the difference was the method of calculation. The limit for VOC emissions is 20 parts per million by volume in both permits. The calculation uses molecular weight, and since volatile organic compounds are not a single compound but a family, there are discrepancies. The draft permit calculator used a higher molecular weight for VOCs to calculate the 40 tons, and in 2005 a different molecular weight was used. The 40 -ton calculation does not accurately represent their potential emissions. Owen asked if the VOC emission limit is 20 ppm of total VOCs by volume. Henning explained the calculation takes the parts per million times the molecular weight of the compound times a couple other conversion factors to come up with tons per year. They used different molecular weights in 2005 than they did on the current permit. Owen asked if they chose one chemical in 2005 to do the calculation and a different chemical in 2011. Henning responded that was correct, explaining that the convention is to use hexane, which is a six carbon compound with a molecular weight of 86; other conventions use propane, a three carbon compound, or methane, which is one carbon. All three will provide a different result in tons per year. Owen summarized that the air concentration of VOCs emitted are the same under the old and new permits. Owen stated that one point that came up during last night's meeting was that the current 3M permit does not disallow 3M from bringing in outside waste from non -3M facilities. So under the current permit, 3M is allowed to bring in as much waste as they want from outside companies as long as they continue to meet the current emission limits. Henning responded that comment was made by Greg Kvaal of the MPCA, and explained that in their current permit, the section on li- mitations and requirements has no language about 3M or non -3M waste. At the beginning of the document, there is a summary of how the facility is operated and states that 3M only processes 3M- generated wastes. Kvaal's point was that the permit does not restrict it; it is only in the de- scription at the beginning of the permit. Owen stated he heard two main comments from last night's meeting, one is that the current permit allows bringing outside waste into the area and the new permit would put a hard cap that; and the second was concerns about potential spills from transporting the outside waste. He noted that 3M claims they import hazardous waste from over a hundred 3M facilities across North America. He asked if this additional waste would be brought in using the same carrier they are currently using or will new hazardous waste trans- porters be coming through the city. Olson stated that the DOT has a strict permitting process. He asked if the City of Cottage Grove had to issue a special use permit to construct the incine- rator, which is where he believes the original agreement with 3M that only 3M created waste would be burned. Olsen responded that the Village of Cottage Grove issued a conditional use permit to 3M for the incinerator. The City Council and our legal counsel have been through the conditional use permit issued in about 1970, and there is no language in that permit that stipu- lates that this would only be 3M generated waste. He noted that 3M uses the same carriers on a consistent basis, and 3M will be responsible for hauling all of the waste to the facility. They will be held to the same standards and regulations that the current waste stream is held to. Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 4 of 7 Owen explained that Environmental Commission needs to provide feedback to the City Council on how to respond during the public comment period. He summarized some the comments he heard, including that the current permit does not have language prohibiting outside waste and if 3M chose to, they could bring it in without any restrictions except emission limits. The new per- mit caps the amount they can bring in and requires testing and control of the waste during transport and incineration. If they are already transporting waste from over 100 North American 3M facilities, this does not sound like it is different logistically than what they are already doing. He then expressed concern about health risks that may not yet be known, such as what oc- curred with PFCs. Henning responded that the pollution control equipment on the incinerator is designed to address any compound because they are burned at such a high temperature. Owen asked if the permit allow a difference between the types of waste that 3M can incinerate from their own facilities versus what they are allowed to bring in from the outside. Henning stated that there are restrictions in the permit on what they can accept for both 3M and non -31VI waste. The non -31VI waste has more restrictions; they have to do additional testing, and they need to know at what rate they are putting different compounds into the incinerator. Levitt com- mented that the permit that was out for public comment a year ago lacked that waste analysis requirement, but the new permit has more language governing the acceptance of outside waste. Specifically, the agreement that the City Council entered into with 3M specified only five different codes in the waste stream could be accepted and that is specifically written into this permit. Olsen added that the when Environmental Task Force was studying this issue, 3M agreed to a stipulation that would limit them to five high BTU waste codes that they could bring in. He re- ceived a comment from a resident that 3M did not really give up anything because that was their starting point. Olsen explained that the limitation to only five high BTU waste codes was not in the original permit document submitted for PCA review; that was actually an outcome of the ini- tial analysis done by the Environmental Task Force. Olson asked if there is constant reporting going to the MPCA. Henning explained that their air permit, as with all air permits, contains a requirement to submit monitoring reports every six months to the MPCA. Those monitoring reports provide a summary of the data collected for that six -month period and they also identify any deviations. In addition, every year they are required to submit an annual compliance certification that says whether or not they are in compliance with all their permit terms, and if they are not, what issues they had. On the waste side, they have to prepare an NISDS sheet, which is a waste manifest. When a hazardous waste is gener- ated, a waste manifest is prepared and that document follows the waste from its generator to the transporter to its disposal area. Olson asked if that information is available to citizens. Levitt stated that in the 2009 Task Force Report, on page 8, table 3, there is a summary of monitoring compliance and deviation reports for every air permit that is on the 3M site. She noted that citi- zens can make a data practices request to the MPCA for that information. Owen asked how often the emissions are monitored and if both 3M and the MPCA do the air monitoring. Henning responded that the MPCA does ambient monitoring throughout the Twin Cities. At the 3M Cottage Grove facility, they do stack testing. Every five years they are required to do a comprehensive test, and every two and a half years they do another stack test. During the stack test they actually take a sample out of the stack, send that sample to the laboratory to find out what the concentration is, and compare that to the permit limits. 3M also monitors many parameters in their system, including the temperature in the incinerator, temperature in the sec- Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 5 of 7 ondary combustion chamber, voltage in their ESP, and flow in their scrubber. Owen summarized that 3M is monitoring all the conditions that make their incinerator and pollution control equip- ment operate at its highest efficiency and ensuring that it continues to do that. The MPCA mon- itors to ensure they meet their permit requirements, but this only happens every five years. Henning stated that they also have some continuous monitors in the stack, including a CO monitor. Owen asked it that monitors percent of combusted material. Henning stated that it is a measure of good combustion; a low CO concentration in the exhaust demonstrates good com- bustion. Owen asked if that is a continuous test that goes to 31A or to the MPCA. Henning responded that 3M gathers it initially and at least a summary of the data is sent to the MPCA. Owen stated that 3M essentially has emission limits that they have to meet but the only checks on those emissions are a five -year stack test by the MPCA and 3M ensuring that their equip- ment runs the way it is supposed to run. Henning stated that was correct. Olsen commented that one of the questions he asked at the public meeting was relative to the roles of the MPCA and the MPCA Citizens Advisory Board. His understanding is that short of 3M voluntarily ceasing its pursuit of this endeavor or legal action to prevent it, the MPCA and the MPCA Citizens Advisory Board have no ability to stop this proposal. If 3M is able to show that they are going to be within the rules and regulations stipulated by the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the state Pollution Control Agency, neither the MPCA nor the Citizens has the ability to deny the permit. However, the Citizens Advisory Board could send the permit back to the PCA for further review and possible refinement. He wants the Environmental Com- mission to understand that the City Council is interested in their input on the City's public comment, but he also needs for there to be a clear understanding that the City cannot demand that the PCA deny this permit, because the PCA does not have that authority. Owen stated that his impression was the same, that based on the rules and regulations, the City can suggest changes to the permit. He asked for suggestions for the Environmental Commission's recom- mendations to the City Council for comments. Bigham stated that her biggest concern is the inspections and would prefer them to be unan- nounced and more frequent. She then stated that the Commission does not need to write the recommendations for the Council, but just provide the issues that should be addressed. Levitt stated that staff and Henning would draft the letter for Council's consideration. Owen stated that he believes stack testing every five years is too long an interval between test- ing, especially when they are bringing in outside waste. Levitt asked Henning for more informa- tion on stack testing, such as if there are federal regulations. Henning will research the latitude there is regarding stack testing. Levitt stated that the staff had suggested a comment for the MPCA to be more engaged with the City on split sampling of the air monitoring results. Currently, there is no agreement with them to conduct split samples for the next two years with our air monitoring station. It would be ex- tremely valuable to have a second laboratory analyze that data. Gibson asked if there was enough funding to pay for additional testing. Levitt responded that when the PCA conducts it, her anticipation would be to not receive a bill for it and that would be made clear in our letter. She explained that 3M pays for the testing. Olson asked what the cost of the monitoring is. Levitt responded about $30,000 per year for 28 samples. Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 6 of 7 Owen asked if there are any suggestions for the time periods for more frequent stack testing. It was suggested that those tests be done annually. Henning asked the Commission to suggest what parameters, specific compounds, or issues should be addressed in the additional testing. Owen suggested dioxins. He understands 3M has scrubbing equipment but dioxins are the most potent carcinogens we know of and because they can be formed by burning compounds that they are allowed to burn, there should be a very strict emission limit on those. He also sug- gested testing for total VOCs. He believes that 3M is restricted on how much heavy metal they can feed into the incinerator, so as long as their testing is appropriate that should be under control. Olson stated that he has reached a conclusion over the last 18 months that the people who have control over this, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, Washington County, and 3M, are trying to do the right thing. He will support whatever the Commission decides but he also believes that this permit is the best the City can get. Olsen stated that when the City was attempting to negotiate an agreement with 3M after pro- posed legislation about this issue was scuttled by a threatened veto, there was a conversation about stack testing. What he was told at that time is that there are two continuous monitoring devices already in the stack, and in addition, there was no ability to have a continuous stack monitoring device that would measure things like heavy metals. He appreciates the fact that the Commission is asking for additional stack testing. One of the challenges of the ambient air mon- itoring is it does not simply measure what is coming from the incinerator stack; it measures everything in the air. He believes stack testing is the best way to get accurate data on what is going into and coming out of the incinerator. Owen stated that he agrees that according to all the laws and the science, we have gotten to the point where everyone on the regulatory side is feeling comfortable. However, citizens have valid concerns and he wants to make sure the City is doing due diligence to address those concerns. Receive Information 6.1 Unused Medication Drop -off and 6.2 Electronics Waste Management Levitt stated that this information was provided to give the Commission insight on what is hap- pening locally and nationally. She also passed out the latest educational material that will be submitted in the schools. Reports City Council Update None Response to Commission Inquiries Levitt stated that there was a request to have the MPCA provide an update on the East Cove project and that is tentatively scheduled for the May meeting. Environmental Commission April 11, 2012 Minutes Page 7 of 7 Chase asked about the request for a presentation by the City regarding the emergency management plan for 3M. Levitt stated that she is working with the Public Safety Director to coordinate that with the Public Safety Commission, possibly at a joint meeting in June. W= Olson made a motion to adjourn. Chase seconded. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.