pm_050609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes – Wednesday, May 06, 2009 Page 7 Mr. Peterson reviewed similar operations they currently have in Shakopee, Inver Grove Heights and Minneapolis; with expectations that this plant would have higher production based on new construction and technologies. 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 or dust. 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 outdoor storage of the aggregate materials proposed by the firm, even though containment with only an earthen berm was required. Mr. Peterson further reviewed specifics related to stormwater retention on site; with Mr. Johnson providing further specifics. Mr. Johnson advised that stormwater retention was 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 was 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 the 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 asphalt 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 for 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 for drum plants, based on hot mix, not warm 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 requirements as a base line, followed by annual readings for production and calculations of total emissions to ensure compliance. Public Comment No one appeared to speak for or against. Vice Chair Boerigter closed the Public Hearing at this time.