Agenda - Council - 03/11/2003 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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 Because odors are subjective, enforcement was extremely difficUlt and PCA repealed their odor rules in 1996.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 hearing to consider revocation or modification of the conditional use permit, especially since the plant is abont 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 heating 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 nuisance language, which is generally a criminal violation. There is also a civil nuisance statute, which states that any person can bring forward a complaint if they feel-their property is affected or enjoyment of their property is lessened. In regards to the criminal aspect the City would need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the violation;, including, testimony of a considerable amount of residents. Gathering evidence on odor is very difficult. Community Development Director Frolik stated that the MPCA :has repealed their process relating to odors because it is subjective. City Attorney Goodrich noted that he talked to the City of St. paul' Attorney's office who is having an ongoing issue with an ethanol plant. In that case they have determined the odor device was too expensive so they are dealing with the issue by citizen complaints so that 'if they go forward with prosecution they will be relying solely on citizens.complaint, which makes prosecution more difficult. City CounciIANovember 26, 2002 Page 17 of 23 -203-