pf09-010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

� � Commissioner Gottfried sought additional emission information from the applicant and typical studies or references for similar asphalt operations. Mr. Peterson reviewed the Minneapolis plant's location on two (2) acres adjacent to an apartment building, with no complaints related to odor ar dtiist Mr. Peterson opined that there was no incentive for the firm to create negative impacts related to noise and/or emissions, and further opined that there shouldn't be anything significant, other than smoke from the intense heating of materials. Mr. Peterson advised that this new plan would be producing asphalt with lower temperatures and was considered an innovative move in the industry for "warm mix" asphalt, mixed fifty (50) degrees lower than typical. Mr. Peterson reviewed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for containment, with a concrete containment area for outdoar storage of the aggregate materials proposed by the firm, even though containment with only an earthen bern� was required. Mr. Peterson further reviewed specifics related to stormwater retention on site; with Mr. Johnson providing further specifics. Mr. Johnson advised that storni�vater retention �vas being planned based on Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) regulations; however, he noted that formal application to the RCWD was pending until tonight's request �vas heard by the Planning Commission. Mr. Johnson reviewed the intended perimeter infiltration ditches to the east and west side ponds; reviewed location of proposed infiltration basins and conveyance to wet retention areas. Further discussion included the intent for the applicant to use natural gas for heating tlze materials; MPCA regulations for filters for air emissions, a series of filter bags for air to flow through and dust pulled out of the air and augured back into the drum of the aspllalt plant for reuse in the aggregate materials again; providing minimal airborne dust emissions and providing an efficient method for waste energy recovery and control of particulates. Mr. Peterson noted that the warm mix asphalt was a great incentive for the firm as it used less energy, had lower emissions, low smoke and provided more cost-efficient operations. Additional discussion included the existing rail line spur; right-of way ownership; and proposed additional and separate spur on site far use exclusively by Bituminous Roadways, with the firm negotiating directly with the rail line owners and not involving the City. Commissioner Wozniak advised that he had done some research on line using EPA tables produced in 2002, and providing estimated emissions far drum plants, based on hot �nix, not warni mix; and questioned the volatility and hazardous nature of such pollutants. Commissioner Wozniak recognized that the data was based on 390 asphalt plants around the country and that they may have many variations; however, he opined that while the conditional use approval was for outdoor storage of aggregate materials and heavy equipment, he couldn't separate that from the operations and overall use. Mr. Peterson recognized Commissioner Wozniak's concerns; however, he noted that the industry was monitored by the MPCA, with an initial stack test done to meet those