Minutes - Council - 11/26/2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

One citizen complaint of bad odors made at.November 12, Council meeting. Public Works Director/Fire Chief observes bad odors emitting from asphalt plant on October 12. ~ The above chart identifies the only complaints Staff can find on record regarding the operations of the asphalt plant since 1988. Given .the nature of the plant, it is Very likely that odors were objectionable on more 'occasions than noted; however, if no -complaints are made to the City, nothing is recorded. Staff has had conversations with the Permits Division of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA). Most asphalt iplants need air emission permits because they emit pollutants that are regulated by the State. Commercial Asphalt has a Registration Permit, which means it is a facility that has fairly low emissions compared to other types of industrial uses. The Registration Permit is a non-expiring permit. The Permittee is required to maintain records of their emissions; in some cases monthly records are required and in other cases, like Commercial Asphalt, annual records are required. The Permittee is also required to submit an annual emission inventory identifying amounts of volatile organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, particulate material, PM10 (smaller particulate material), nitrous oxide and carbon monoxide emitted. Because odors are subjective, enforcement was extremely difficult and PCA repealed their odor rules in 1996. When PCA gets a complaint, they recommend that the complainant contact their City because many cities have local ordinances in plaCe regarding odors. Staff reviewed City Code and Chapters 5 and 9 do have language regarding odors. Chapter 9 specifically references an Odor Threshold Table in the Air Pollution Manual authored by the Manufacturing Chemists Association, Inc. Staff has been unsuccessful to date in trying to find a copy of this Manual, or at least the odor table referenced. The City Attorney is prepared to discuss the procedure for declaring and enforcing nuisances, which are generally more subjective than outright violations of some established code or rule. City Staff contacted Anoka County Environmental Services regarding the Commercial Asphalt facility. Commercial Asphalt has a parts washer on site and the solvents used in that piece of equipment are regulated by Anoka County through the Hazardous Waste Generator License. Commercial Asphalt is a small quantity generator and, for that reason, is only inspected every three years. Their last inspection was on May 21, 2002, and there were no violations of their license. At this point, staff is of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to warrant scheduling a public heating to consider revocation or modification of the conditional use permit, especially since the plant is about to close down for the winter season. Staff is recommending that City Council direct them to continue to gather evidence over the next 60 days, through the various sources available 'such as Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 'Anoka County, and residents. The evidence would then be presented to City Council to use in making a determination to conduct a public hearing to revoke or modify the permit or to re-evaluate whether the City should more closely monitor the plant when it reopens again, especially with respect to odors. City Attorney Goodrich stated that the Council could choose to schedule a public hearing to consider revocation of the conditional use permit per City Code. At the revocation hearing, the Council could revoke the permit, suspend the permit, or add additional conditions. Revocation of the conditional use permit would require proof of the violation. The City does have standard City Council/November 26, 2002 Page 17 of 23