CC_Minutes_2009_0518 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, May 18, 2009 Page 19 Councilmember Ihlan questioned if this request had been considered by any other advisory commission other than the Planning Commission (i.e., Public Works, Environment, and Transportation Commission); with Mr. Trudgeon responding negatively, based on the construction, operation and compliance monitoring crite- ria provided by the applicant based on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidelines. Councilmember Ihlan advised that she had reviewed the packet materials; and opined that she had a broad range of environmental concerns related to the asphalt plant, and that additional environmental review was indicated. Councilmember Ihlan further opined that, while there were state standards to be met, there was nothing addressing City concerns and how the City participated in enforcing those standards. Councilmember Ihlan expressed concern that all of those who may be impacted by this CUP approval may not even be aware that this was before the City Council, without further and a much wider range of notice being provided before action was considered. Councilmember Johnson noted that the Planning Commission minutes addressed responses to environmental issues, and the plant proposed to meet or exceed fed- eral and state requirements. Applicant Representatives: Kent Peterson, President of Bituminous Road- ways; Libby Henderson, Environmental Consultant for Bituminous Road- ways, working with asphalt plants throughout the State of MN; John Kittle- son, Vice President of Bituminous Roadways, Inc.; and Gary Johnson, Anderson Engineering, project engineer. Applicant representatives, based on their specific areas of expertise, addressed various concerns, including comments related to frequency of auditing by the En- vironmental Protection Agency (EPA) and MPCA with a base line stack test upon initial operation of the plant based on their production level and annual reporting produced and submitted to the MPCA providing measurement of emissions for the year (sample report from one of the applicant's other plants submitted for re- view); clarification of various chemical acronyms regulating criteria pollutants and based on specific volumes for emissions; identification of this plant as a "me- dium course" as per MPCA regulatory structures under a registration permit; and the actual gross volume per year of allowable and actual pollutants. Further discussion included assurances that actual public health concerns were be- ing addressed beyond strict legal standards and EPA requirements; federal stan- dards and state implementation of those federal regulations and enforcement and management of compliance of asphalt plants; portable plants versus permanent sites and monitoring of each site; voluntary audit work for checklist for compli- ance; and distance that pollutants or emissions may travel from the actual plant site.