My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WS 04-14-2009
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Packets
>
2009
>
2009 Council Work Session Materials
>
WS 04-14-2009
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/27/2018 7:24:05 PM
Creation date
4/10/2009 5:01:38 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
concerned that with the weather warming residents will be outside more and <br />have their windows open, which may result in more complaints. <br />Other Efforts <br />When the odors began in early February and persisted in strong intensity for over <br />a month, various state agencies were brought in to deal with the issue. For <br />example: <br />• Minnesota Department of Health: responsible for monitoring the health <br />effects of certain chemicals emitted into the air. <br />• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: responsible for monitoring certain <br />chemicals emitted into the air at certain volume thresholds. <br />• Minnesota Department of Agriculture: responsible for regulating pesticides. <br />City staff, Bell Pole, and all of the three state agencies above conducted a <br />meeting on March 12th. It was concluded that: <br />• The Department of Health was not concerned with the chemicals involved in <br />that odors would not have any long term negative impacts to health. The <br />agency prepared a health fact sheet for distribution that discusses the effects <br />of the types of co -solvents Bell Pole uses (attached). <br />• The PCA requested additional testing to verify Bell Pole's current stance that <br />an air emissions permit is not necessary. The PCA provided a letter to Bell <br />Pole, which is attached for reference: <br />• The Department of Agriculture indicated intent to follow-up with the <br />manufacturer of the chemicals Bell Pole received. This is because Bell Pole <br />did preliminary testing prior to purchase of the co -solvent in question, which <br />indicated what chemicals were present and that the solution had a low odor <br />threshold. The actual chemical received by Bell Pole did not chemically <br />match what they believed they ordered. <br />Next Steps <br />Because Bell Pole has not completed eliminated the odorous chemical from their <br />treatment solution, there is a potential that odors could be detectable for quite <br />some time. Thus, staff believes there are several options for the Council to <br />consider: <br />• Monitor the situation. If odors become problematic again, City staff would <br />attempt to work with Bell Pole on mitigation efforts. <br />• Hold a public hearing and accept testimony from the public regarding the <br />effects of the odors. Following the public hearing, the Council could <br />determine what type of additional action, if any, should be taken. <br />• Examine what legal actions could be taken for violating the City's nuisance <br />code with regard to emitting odors detectable beyond the lot line. <br />0 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.