Laserfiche WebLink
-252- <br /> <br />Year Comment <br />1996 None re~orded in case file. '" <br />1997 None recorded in case file. <br />1998 None recorded in case file. <br />1999 None recorded in case file or at Police Department. <br />2000 None recorded in case file or Police Department. Complaint of odors <br /> received at the permit renewal public hearing. <br />20151 None recorded in case file pr Police Department. <br />2002 One citizen complaint of bad odors made on August 19, 2002. <br /> One citizen complaint of bad odors made at October 22 Council meeting. <br /> One citizen complaint of bad odors made at'November 12, Council meeting~ <br /> Public Works Director/Fire Ch/ef observes bad odors emitting from asphalt <br /> plant on October 12. <br /> <br />The above chart identifies the only complaints Staff can find on record regarding the operations <br />of the asphalt plant since 1988. Given the nature of the plant, it is very likely that odors were <br />objectionable on more occasions than noted. However, if no complaints are made to the City, of <br />course nothing is recorded. <br /> <br />Information Obtained From Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Permits Division <br /> <br />Staff has had conversations with the Permits Division of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency <br />(PCA). Most asphalt plants need air emission permits because they emit pollutants that are <br />regulated by the State. Commercial Asphalt has a Registration Permit, which means it is a <br />facility that has fairly low emissions compared to other types of industrial uses. The Registration <br />Permit is a non-expiring permit. The Permittee is required to maintain records of their <br />emissions; in some cases monthly records are required and in other cases, like Commercial <br />Asphalt, annual records are required. The Permittee is also required to submit an annual <br />emission inventory identifying amounts of volatile organic compounds, sulphur di6xide, <br />particulate material, PM10 (smaller particulate material), nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide <br />emitted. <br /> <br />Because odors are subjective, enforcement was extremely difficult and PCA repealed their odor <br />rules in i996. When PCA gets a complaint, they. recommend that the complainant contact their <br />City because many cities have local ordinances regarding odors in place. Staff reviewed City <br />Code and Chapters 5 and 9 do have language regarding odors. Chapter 9 Specifically references <br />an Odor Threshold Table in the Air Pollution Manual authored by the Manufacturing Chemists <br />Association, Inc. Staff has been unsuccessful to date in trying to find a copy of this Manual, or <br />at least the odor table referenced. The City Attorney will be prepared to discuss the procedure <br />for declaring and enforcing nuisances, which are generally more subjective than outright <br />violations of some established code or rule. <br /> <br />Information Obtained From Anoka County Environmental Services <br /> <br />City Staff contacted Anoka County Environmental Services regarding the Commercial Asphalt <br />facility. Commercial Asphalt has a parts washer on site and the solvents used in that piece of <br />equipment are regulated by Anoka County through the Hazardous Waste Generator License. <br />Commercial Asphalt is a small quantity generator and for that reason, is only inspected every <br />three years. Their last inspection was on May 21, 2002, and there were no violations of their <br />license. <br /> <br /> I <br /> I <br />'1 <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> ! <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />