Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-02-13 PACKET 07.1.Environmental Commission City of Cottage Grove Wednesday, December 12, 2012 A meeting of the Environmental Commission was held at Cottage Grove City Hall, 12800 Ravine Parkway South, Cottage Grove, Minnesota, on December 12, 2012, in the Council Chambers. Attendees Members Present: Karla Bigham, Barbara Gibson, David Olson, Rosemary Palmer, Emily Rixen Members Absent: Rita Isker, Patrick Lynch, Thaddeus Owen Others Present: Jennifer Levitt, City Engineer Dave Thiede, City Councilmember Call to Order Vice Chair Bigham opened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Approval of Agenda Gibson made a motion to approve the agenda. Olson seconded. Motion passed unanimously (5 -to -0 vote). Open Forum /Additional Agenda Items None New and Unfinished Business 5.1 3M Carbon Filtration Building Construction Update — Presentation by 3M Levitt introduced Mark Gaetz and Pat McGrann from 3M to provide information on the progress to date on the carbon filtration building, which the Commission viewed last spring during a tour of 3M. They will outline where that construction is to date and its future schedule. Pat McGrann, 3M Facilities Engineering, updated the Commission on the project, noting that they hope to have the facility completed by the first week of January 2013. He displayed photographs and diagrams of the carbon filtration building and described how the water distri- bution system will operate. Mark Gaetz, 3M Environmental, Health and Safety Operations, provided information on the steps needed to commission the systems. Environmental Commission December 12, 2012 Minutes Page 2 of 5 5.2 3M Glass Bubble Maker (Bag House Project) Mark Bonney, Plant Manager for 3M Materials Resource Division, passed around a sample of glass bubbles and explained how they are used. The existing bag house is nearing its end of life. The bag house renewal project requires a major amendment because it is a Title 1 emis- sion control device in their Title 5 permit. For the new bag house, they received assurance from their vendor that they will get greater than 99 percent removal of particulates coming off their process. Bigham asked about the time line of the project. Bonney responded that they expect to break ground in early January and expect that it will be operational by mid -year. Bigham asked if the project will make the air quality better. Bonney responded yes, noting that it does not change the manufacturing process but gives them better control of the emissions. Olson asked if they have to amend the permit because they are replacing the existing bag house structure. Bonney responded that it is a Title 1 control device within their permit so it re- quires a major amendment to replace it. He stated that the major amendment has been approved by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and was reviewed by the City's Environ- mental Consultant. 5.3 Recreational Fires Levitt summarized the staff memorandum regarding recreational fires. She stated that the City Council asked the Environmental Commission review this topic because a citizen brought it to their attention. The packet includes information provided by that citizen highlighting her con- cerns. Also in the packet is information on recreational burning from the Environmental Protec- tion Agency (EPA), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). Public Safety was also asked to look at recrea- tional burning. The key issue for this Commission to review is whether there is a significant health issue surrounding burning of wood. One of the key components is education. Staff recommends that closer to summer, information on the recreational burning ordinance and being a good neighbor while burning should be included in the Cottage Grove Reports and on the City's website. Bigham commented that there should be better education about air quality alerts through social media and the website. It was asked if the City inspects fire pits for conformance with the ordinance. Levitt responded no because permits are not required for fire pits. She then ex- plained some communities have a permit that has to be renewed annually. For example, Woodbury has an electronic system that lists the rules and regulations pertaining to recrea- tional fires; residents input their names and address and acknowledge understanding all the conditions of the permit. Woodbury uses that system as an educational tool for residents and it is administered by their public safety department. Bigham asked if there was a fee. Levitt responded no. There were comments regarding other ways for notification, including the Code Red system, which citizens can sign up for through the City's website. Michelle Ramirez, 8577 Greenway Avenue South, asked why after reading the information she provided, the Commission is only interested in educating the public about not burning during air pollution alerts and burning bans. She stated that backyard burning in a metropolitan area of over four million people is antiquated and extremely dangerous. She expressed concern about the ability to enforce the rules and regulations on recreational fires. She stated that Environmental Commission December 12, 2012 Minutes Page 3 of 5 secondhand smoke causes cancer. Her neighbor burns all the time and smoke rolls throughout her neighborhood. She noted that clean wood creates fine particulates that permeate walls and windows and come through ventilation systems. She thinks people need to be educated about the actual dangers to their own health. Gibson asked if there are any communities that ban outdoor burning. Levitt responded that the majority of the cities in the metro area have adopted the League of Minnesota Cities sample ordinance for recreational burning. Bigham asked to see that sample ordinance. Bigham stated that she personally does not have any concerns about the suggestions that were made during the presentation and the City should provide additional information and education. Olson stated that he would like to keep this topic on the Commission's agenda for the next couple meeting. He would like more time to study the issue. Levitt stated that she would add this to the workshop agenda for January. 5.4 Water Conservation Levitt summarized the staff memorandum, noting that this issue had been before the Commis- sion in May 2010. The Commission had provided a recommendation to restrict watering between noon and 4:00 p.m. and to allow the Public Works Director to declare watering restrictions in an emergency, but the City Council did not support the recommendation due to issues pertaining to the Woodbury 3M disposal site and seeking a reduction in pumping. The State of Minnesota is in a drought condition and the DNR has put the City on alert that we need to start moving towards our drought action steps of which one is water conservation. She is planning to have a representative from the Metropolitan Council provide a presentation at the February meeting on the drought condition and what it is doing to aquifer levels and sur- face water elevations. She also reported that 3M did reduce their pumping at the Woodbury disposal site. Bigham asked what the process the Public Works Director would use to make the determina- tion. Levitt responded that the City knows how much can be pumped from our wells from an overall capacity perspective plus we know the water elevations in our water towers and what our demand peak has been in the past. If the supply for the city cannot be met between our wells and our water storage, the Public Works Director would implement an emergency watering ban. We want to ensure we can provide water for critical situations. Olson asked if it is the capacity of our pumps to get the water where we need it versus the quantity of water in the aquifer itself that we are concerned about. Levitt responded both. The immediate concern is our actual ability to supply. Olson asked why 3M pumping at the Woodbury site had an impact on this decision in 2010. Levitt responded at the time there was a great deal of concern as to what the pumping at the 3M Woodbury disposal site was doing to the aquifer and at the same time trying to ensure the aquifer's protection of contaminant cap- ture. The point that the Council wanted to send is that it is critical that we all do our part to en- sure water conservation and to challenge 3M to reduce their pumping if possible; 3M has met that challenge. Environmental Commission December 12, 2012 Minutes Page 4 of 5 Bigham asked how the levels are tested so the Public Works Director can make the decision. Levitt responded information on our pumping rates and tank levels is instantaneously available at all times as we are monitoring the system and the drawdown that occurs. We also have monitoring devices within the well casing itself that monitors the static level and change of the aquifer level due to our pumping. We are required under state law to submit that data to the DNR and they track the reduction in the aquifers. When the Met Council addresses the Com- mission about the trends they are seeing based on data from other municipalities and across the state, it will provide a better picture of what the concern is. Bigham asked if currently the only way the City can enforce an emergency water ban is by going to the Council. Levitt re- sponded yes and a quorum is required for that to take effect. Bigham asked if time is not of the essence, would it go through the normal process. Levitt responded yes. She explained the City already has an even /odd watering ban in place; the key is to restrict watering during the hours when there is the most evaporation occurring. Staff is more concerned about the conservation measure but the DNR has also indicated that we need to be able to address emergency situa- tions quicker. Bigham summarized that the DNR is recommending that we have the Public Works Director be able to have the authority to work with them to act immediately if water levels get to a critical level. Palmer noted that the City has all these measuring devices and statistical information available regarding the various water levels and asked if those would be utilized as to make any deter- minations. Levitt responded yes. She explained that those are part of our water supply plan; the Department of Health and the DNR regulate that plan and how the City supplies water, so it would be easy for the Director to identify that critical threshold. Palmer made a motion to recommend approval of the ordinance amendment. Rixen seconded. Motion passed on a 4 -to -0 vote with one abstention (Olson). Receive Information 6.1 3M Disposal Site — East Cove Levitt provided an update on the remediation efforts for the 3M East Cove disposal site. The MPCA has found 3M's remediation efforts at the East Cove to be complete and satisfactory. Bigham asked if all final inspections for the East Cove have been completed, and the City has reviewed those and found no concerns. Levitt responded yes. Approval of Environmental Commission Minutes of November 14, 2012 Gibson made a motion to approve the minutes of the Environmental Commission meeting on November 14, 2012. Rixen seconded. Motion approved unanimously. Reports City Council Update Thiede reported that at the November 21 Council meeting, the River Oaks Scenic Overlook Management Plan was approved. On December 5, the Council accepted the Washington County All Hazard Mitigation Plan, which is a program that is responsible for the development Environmental Commission December 12, 2012 Minutes Page 5 of 5 of emergency preparedness plans and resources necessary to protect health and safety of Washington County citizens. Response to Commission Inquiries None Environmental Commission Comments and Requests None Adjourn Olson made a motion to adjourn. Gibson seconded. The motion passed unanimously, and the meeting adjourned at 8:06 p.m.