Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-08-11 Packet
Draft MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thurs., Aug 11, 2011 7:07 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Latham called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering roll call were Members Iyer, Kata, Kostuch, Paterlini, Pronove, Risser, Sierks, Thompson, Tucker and Chair Latham. Absent: Members Gubrud and Zarrin Staff Present: Jesse Struve and Rebecca Foster III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Agenda was approved as written. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Motion made by Member Kostuch approving the consent agenda. Motion carried unanimously. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT Nick Kelso, 1465 Harvest Ln, Shakopee, Jet Black Owner, not in favor of the coal tar banning ordinance, because the asphalt replacement doesn't last as long. Don Dahlstrom, 627 Carverlust Pkwy, Carver, Jet Black Owner, not in favor of the coal tar banning ordinance, because he'll loose business. Matt Cabrera, 14021 NW Azurite St, Ramsey, Advance Brothers, not in favor of the coal tar banning ordinance. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Working Group members. Water Quality Working Group Chair Tucker requested that Todd Doroff be deleted from the Water Quality Working Group. Motion made by Member Risser and seconded by Member Thompson to approve Ray O'Connell to the Air Quality Working Group and delete Todd Doroff from the Water Quality Working Group. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Latham thanked Mr. Doroff for his service. B. Water Quality WG 1. Proposed Coal Tar ordinance. This agenda item has been tabled to the September 8th meeting in order to receive more studies about coal tar effects from the members of the industry that spoke during public comment. Jesse Struve will ask City staff how the banning of coal tar within chip seal has affected the city streets. 2. Blue Star Municipal Stormwater Mgmt Assessment. Water Quality Working Group will review the questions where the city is scoring low. C. Recycling & Solid Waste WG. EEC Members have been invited to tour a Portable Biodigester on Tuesday, August 16tH 1. Refuse Report and ordinance. The report has been sent to Haulers for their comments. 2. City-wide facility recycling policy N7 Motion made by Member Sierks and seconded by Member Thompson for the city to establish a city-wide facility recycling policy stating that only compostable tableware will be used, that bottle water will be reduced, and that organic composting will be implemented. Motion carried unanimously. 0. 7-31-11 Eco Yard & Garden tour. The event was successful with net proceeds of $1,058.00 to go towards trees, speaker or education, for example. E. Turf Management Task Force. The Park Board and Community Health Commission are currently reviewing the Task Force report. Member Paterlini will contact Vince Cockriel and ask him what medians are.sprayed near sidewalks. F. Education Outreach Working Group Report. A few Members attended six Nite to Unite parties. Motion made by Member Thompson and seconded by Member Tucker to approve the EEC to become a community partner with Moving Planet on Saturday, September 24`h. Motion carried unanimously. 1. October educational program Motion made by Member Tucker and seconded by Member Paterlini requesting Member Thompson and Member Zarrin to create a proposal for an event that the EEC will sponsor about Sustainability in October. Motion carried unanimously. 2. Public Works native plant landscaping 3. Eco Film Festival Motion made by Member Iyer and seconded by Member Thompson for Chair Latham to contact Tom Shirley at Centennial takes to see if there's a cost involved with the EEC to host Eco, Health and Human Rights films during the summer at the Metzold Amphitheater. Motion carried unanimously. G. City Website. No Report, H. EEC Website. No Report. I. GreenStep Cities. Review Comp Plan documentation. J. City Council Work Session. The work session will be Tuesday, September 20th at 5:00 P.M. The agenda will be finalized at the September 8`h EEC Meeting. K. Energy WG 1. Solar panel project. Chair Latham recapped why the EEC declined the previous solar panel bid. The City Manager has addressed all of the EEC concerns and decided to remove all of the other city facility improvements and will just focus on the solar panel and had McKinstry create a new RFP process. McKinstry presented the new bid results. Motion made by Member Iyer and seconded by Member Sierks to approve the TenK Solar Panel bid results. Roll Call was taken: Ayes: Iyer, Risser, Sierks, Thompson, Latham, 6 Nays: Kostuch, Paterlini, Tucker Motion Carried. 2. Solar/wind ordinance amendments Task Force. No Report. 3. PACE commercial energy district. The Report and Recommendation will be on the August 16`h Council Agenda and if approved city staff will develop a local PACE program proposal and then it will be presented to the EEC for their review and comment and then back to the City Council for their final review and consideration. Public Comment. Brad Hanson, 5908 Chapel Dr., Edina, in favor of third party bonding. Lynn Hinkle, Mpls, in favor of third party bonding due to great economic development. John Doll, address unknown, said no other city has implemented PACE and he would like Edina to be a leader. L. Air Quality WG 1. Drive Through Ordinance Amendments. Motion made by Member Paterlini and seconded by Member Tucker approving Drive Through Ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. 2. No Engine Idling Signs. Recommended that the No Idling signs will be hung on existing Smoke Free or future No Spray sign posts within city parks. Motion made by Member Iyer and seconded by Member Tucker approving the "Turn Off Your Engine Breathe Better Save Money" sign. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Member Iyer and seconded by Member Tucker approving the proposal for No Vehicle Idling Signs in Municipal Parks and Other Public Spaces. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Clean Air Act. The Clean Air and Your Health: The Power of EPA Actions and Federal Legislation Forum held August 101h at Edina Public Works was successful with approximately 50 in attendance. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS 1. Conflict of Interest Policy. Chair Latham reminded members about the conflict of interest policy for their Working Group members. IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Jesse Struve 1. EEC budget. No Report. 2. ULI benchmark progress report. Member Paterlini requested to hear more about report, so Chair Latham suggested to move out of staff report onto Agenda for Sept. 8 meeting. 3. Green Corps Intern. Member Sierks said that the Green Step Program did get funded for three years and money could possibly be used for an intern. Member Thompson thanked Member Kata for service on EEC. Member Kata will begin at Harvard in the fall. The work of student Member Pronove was also appreciated this past year. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Latham declared the meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Foster GIS Administrator MINUTES CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thurs., Sept. 8, 2011 7:03 PM I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Latham called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Answering Roll Call were Members Gubrud, Gupta, Iyer, Jennings, Kostuch, Paterlini, Risser, Sierks, Thompson, Tucker, Zarrin and Chair Latham. Staff Present: Jesse Struve and Rebecca Foster 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA Agenda was approved as written. IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA Agenda was approved as written. V. COMMUNITY COMMENT John Dolphin, 5809 Eastview Dr, was pleased to hear that the solar project was approved and would like to join the Energy Working Group. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Working Group members. Motion made by Member Sierks and seconded by Member Paterlini to delete prospects Alan Glotzman and Scott Weicht from the Energy Working Group. Motion carried unanimously. Motion made by Member Zarrin and seconded by Member Thompson to delete prospects Annie Berge, Scott Davidson, Tim Jordheim, Karl Juhnke and Eric Strobel from the Education Outreach Working Group and Air Quality Working Group Chair Risser requested that Karwehn Kata be deleted from the Air Quality Working Group. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Latham welcomed the Commission's two new student members Tara Gupta and Bevlin Jennings. B. ULI benchmark report. Rick Carter did a presentation on MN GreenStep Cities and Regional Indicators Project plus a B3 Benchmarking data live demo. Commissioner's asked Jesse Struve to request the water usage from Film Tech and Southdale. C. Water Quality WG. Chair Latham did a presentation with photos showing the difference between driveways that used Coal Tar -Based Sealer and those that didn't. Motion made by Member Paterlini and seconded by Member Zarrin to remove section about Sale of Coal Tar - Based Sealer Restricted from proposed ordinance. Motion carried unanimously. Public Comment. Richard Griffith, 7009 Comanche Ct, retired 3M Engineer, presented some history of PAH's. Motion made by Member Tucker and seconded by Member Sierks to approve an ordinance regulating the use of Coal Tar -Based Sealer products within the city with amendment. Roll Call was taken: Ayes: Gubrud, Iyer, Paterlini, Risser, Sierks, Thompson, Tucker, Zarrin, Latham Nays: Kostuch Motion carried. D. Air Quality WG 1. Centrum. Mayor Hovland suggested to Chair Latham that the EEC to propose a resolution to change out the three wood burning Centrum fireplaces to gas. Motion made by Member Zarrin and seconded by Member Thompson to accept resolution as is and add it to the Council Work Session on September 20th. Motion carried unanimously. E. Energy WG 1. Solar panel project. City Hall will receive the Solar Panel Project and Jesse Struve will email EEC Members the bid winner. 2. Solar/wind ordinance amendments task force. The topic was tabled. 3. PACE commercial energy district. Member Sierks gave an update on how the City Council requested the Energy Working Group to write the procedures for the PACE program. F. Recycling & Solid Waste WG. The RSW WG reviewed and incorporated the Haulers' comments on the proposed Refuse Report. Motion made by Member Zarrin and seconded by Member Tucker to delete "per Edina City Code 1300.05 " and insert "as defined in Edina City Code 1300.05 and Edina City Code 705.01". Motion carried unanimously. 1. Proposed Refuse Report. Chair Latham did a Powerpoint photographic survey on the success of the Dow recycling bins at Lewis & Pamela Parks. The RSW WG is proposing that the trash can and recycling bins have to be paired in order to reduce contamination in recycling bins and that recycling bins must be placed in all city parks. G. Turf Management Task Force Motion made by Member Zarrin and seconded by Member Thompson to approve Turf Management Plan. Motion carried unanimously. H. Education Outreach WG. Mayor Hovland will be a keynote speaker at Moving Planet on September 24tH 1. October educational program. Move educational program to November and each Working Group Chair should let Member Thompson or Member Gubrud know what topics should be discussed on the panel. 2. Edina Public Works Landscaping. The EEC reviewed Member Gubrud article about HES Program and John Howard's Edina Sun Current article on the Edina Public Works Landscaping. Motion made by Member Sierks and seconded by Member Gubrud to approve the two articles. Motion carried unanimously. 3. Eco Film Festival. The topic was tabled. I. City Website. The topic was tabled. J. EEC Website. The topic was tabled. K. GreenStep Cities. The topic was tabled. L. City Council Work Session. Agenda approved as written. VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS 1. Meeting with Senator Frankin and Green Step City Mayors. Chair Latham attended and gave an update. IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Jesse Struve 1. EEC budget. The $5000 ULI invoice was taken out of the EEC budget, so the remaining balance is $1800. 2. Green Corps Intern. No Report. There being no further business on the Commission Agenda, Chair Latham declared the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Motion made by Member Sierks and seconded by Member Thompson to adjourn meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Rebecca Foster GIS Administrator CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thurs., Sept. 8, 2011 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes B. Attendance Report V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Energy & Environment Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission, or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Commission might refer the matter to staff or to an EEC Working Group for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Working Group B. ULI benchmark report C. Water Quality WG D. Air Quality WG 1. Centrum E. Energy WG 1. Solar panel project 2. Solar/wind ordinance amendments task force 3. PACE commercial energy district F. Recycling & Solid Waste WG 1. Proposed Refuse Report G. Turf Management Task Force H. Education Outreach WG 1. October educational program 2. Edina Public Works Landscaping 3. Eco Film Festival I. City Website J. EEC Website K. GreenStep Cities L. City Council Work Session VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS 1. Senator Frankin and Green Step City Mayors 1 IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Jesse Struve 1. EEC budget 2. Green Corps Intern Work Session with City Council — Tuesday, Sept. 20, 5:00 in Community Room Next EEC Meeting - Thursday, Oct. 13 in Community Room The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. CITY OF EDINA MINNESOTA ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION EDINA CITY HALL COMMUNITY ROOM Thurs., Sept. 8, 2011 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL (1 min) III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (1 min) IV. ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA (1 min) A. Minutes B. Attendance Report V. COMMUNITY COMMENT (10 min) During "Community Comment, " the Energy & Environment Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission, or which aren't slated for future consideration. Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead the Commission might refer the matter to staff or to an EEC Working Group for consideration at a future meeting. VI. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Working Group member additions/deletions. (2 min) (attached). Introduction of new student members Bevlin Jennings and Tara Gupta. B. ULI benchmark report plus B3 data live demo (20 min) — Rick Carter — Edina Carbon Assessment 2008-2010 (attached) Edina B3 Data (attached). C. Water Quality WG — (15 min) Susan Tucker — Minutes 6-20-11 (awaiting approval) 7-18-11 (awaiting approval). Proposed Coal Tar ordinance — See attached proposed ordinance and revised rationale. See attached 8-11-11 PCTC letter, MPCA 9-2-11 response to PCTC letter, and MPCA calculation of cost estimate of remediating contaminated retention ponds. See also Characterization of Stormwater Pond Sediments Final project report Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, St. Paul. If you have limited time and cannot read the entire 144 page report, scan report for Coal Tar references at: Http://www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/sediment/FinalReport.pdf. See also attached Sept. 2009 MPCA fact sheet and 6-8-11 MPCA Coal Tar Restriction Process. See also article on coal tar and cosmetics at: http://science.howstuffworks.com/the-chemistry-of-cosmetics-info2.htm. Refer to 8-11-11 EEC packet for MPCA background, article on Prior Lake ban, article on Roseville ban, and Wt Bear Lk Coal Tar Ordinance. Refer to 7-21-11 EEC packet for USGS PAH fact sheet, 1-18-11 Chicago Tribune article on safety, Handyman ofAmerica article on driveway sealants, article on Suffolk Co coal tar ban. D. Air Quality WG Report (15 min) J. Risser— Minutes of 6-23-11 (attached), 7-25-22 (attached), 8-25-11 (awaiting approval). 1. Resolution on converting the Centrum wood burning fire place to gas. (See attached). E. Energy WG — (15 min) Surya Iyer/ Bill Sierks — Minutes of 7-6-11 (awaiting receipt). Next meeting 9-20-11? 1. Solar panel project — Installation update (Jesse Struve) 2. Solar/wind ordinance amendments task force — Progress report (Surya & Bill) 3. PACE commercial energy district — P party funding framework update (Bill) F. Recycling & Solid Waste WG (5 min) DP Latham —Minutes of 7-7-11 (attached). Aug. meeting canceled in lieu of a field trip to see the portable biodigester on. Tues., August 16, at Harris Engineering, 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul. Minutes of 9-1-11 (awaiting approval). Next meeting 10-6-11. 1. 1300.09 Proposed Refuse Report and ordinance amendments sent to haulers. See their attached comments and proposed revised reporting form. G. Turf Management Task Force (5 min) - Germana Paterlini -To be considered at 9-13-11 Pk Bd mtg; comments due from Community Health Committee on 9-9-11 (see attached). Need revised report with Bredesen update. H. Education Outreach Working Group Report — (15 min) Bob Gubrud/Paul Thompson - Met 9-6-11. Next meeting 10-4-11. 1. Report on October educational program — Paul Thompson 2. Proposed educational press release on Edina Public Works Landscaping (see attached) 3. Eco Film Festival — DP Latham I. City Website Update — Germana Paterlini. (5 min) J. Update of EEC Website (see attachment in 6-9-11 EEC packet) (5 min). K. GreenStep Cities (5 min) — See http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/bestPractices.cfm for updated practices as well as www.MnGreenStep.org; Comp Plan must be updated for city ordinance citations. Edina has a level I qualification award. L. Proposed Agenda for City Council Work Session (5 min) (See attached) VII. CORRESPONDENCE & PETITIONS VIII. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS (10) 1. Report on meeting with Senator Frankin and Green Step City Mayors (DP Latham) IX. STAFF COMMENTS A. Jesse Struve (5 min) 1. EEC budget balance is $8,250 as of 7-15-11. Jesse estimates that EEC needs $1,900 - $2,250 for staff time to end of calendar year. The dedicated ECF account has $691. An additional $1,058 was added to it from the 7-31-11 Eco tour and plant sale. 2. Green Corps Intern — Update from Bill Sierks Next EEC Meeting —Work Session with City Council — Tuesday, Sept. 20, 5:00 in Community Rm (required); Regular meeting Thurs., Oct. 13 in Community Room (required); Motion required for date of televised EEC meeting (Chair Latham recommends Thurs., Jan. 12). The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION NAME TERM J F M A M J J I A S O N D Gubrud, Bob 2/1/2013 X X X X X X X Iyer, Surya 2/1/2012 X X X X X X Kata, Karwehn student X X X X X X X Kostuch, Keith 2/1/2013 E E X X X IX X Latham, Dianne 2/1/2012 X X X X X X X IX Paterlini, Germana 2/1/2013 X X X X X X X X Pronove, Alma student X X X X X Risser, Julie 2/1/2012 X X X X X X Sierks, Bill 2/1/2013 X X X X X X IX X Thompson, Paul 2/1/2013 X Xtxx X X X Tucker, Susan 2/1/2012 X X X X X Zarrin, Sarah 2/1/2012 X X X X Proposed Agenda for 9-20-11 EEC/City Council Work Session Draft of 9-6-11 I. Benchmark Report - Rick Carter - ULI Pilot within a Pilot and B3 data (10 min) (See attachment to 9-8-11 EEC agenda) II. Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group (20 min) A. Proposed 1300 Licensing Ordinance Amendments (approved at 6-9-11 EEC mtg) and proposed licensing report form (revised form on 9-8-11 EEC agenda). B. Recommendations for Municipal Recycling 1. City park recycling bins recommendation (approved at 7-21-11 EEC mtg). 2. Resolution on bottled water and municipal organics recycling (approved at 8-11-11 EEC mtg). Resolved: Establish a city-wide facility recycling policy stating that only compostable tableware will be used, that bottled water will be reduced, and that organic composting will be implemented. The 2011 city facility solid waste and recycling RFP needs to take this into consideration in order to accomplish GreenStep #22 sub step 1 a (overall waste reduction in city operations). III. Turf Management Task Force Report Amendment Recommendation (10 min) (approved at 7-21-11 EEC mtg and to be considered at 9-13-11 Pk Bd with comments from Community Health Committee by 9-9-11) IV. Air Quality Working Group (20 min) A. Proposed 850.07 Drive Through Ordinance Amendments (approved at 8-11-11 EEC mtg). B. No Engine Idling Sign Proposal (approved at 8-11-11 EEC mtg). C. Resolution on converting the Centrum wood burning fire place to gas (attached to 9-8-11 EEC agenda). V. Water Quality Working Group (20 min) A. Coal Tar Ordinance Proposal (See attachment to 9-8-11 EEC agenda) VI. Energy Working Group - Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) (10 min) Update from Bill Sierks. Future Work Session with Council — Requested meeting not earlier than 11-15-11 I. Purchasing — EEC needs to approve revised policy after staff comments are incorporated. II. Energy Working Group A. Proposed Solar/Wind Ordinance IIl. Recycling & Solid Waste A. Organized Hauling 1. City Survey results on organized hauling (see attachment to 7-21-11 EEC agenda) 2. LWVE Study (See LWVE attachment to 6-9-11 EEC agenda) IV. Urban Forest Task Force Report 10 Edina Energy & Environment Commission Working Groups, Task Forces and Projects Draft of 9-8-11 Air Quality Working Group (AQ WG) — 4d' Thrusday at 7:00 pm — Chair Julie Risser - Members Julie Mellum, Laura Eaton, Karwehn Kata, David B. VanDongen, Ray O'Connell Water Quality Working Group (WQ WG) — Yd Monday at 7:00 pm - Chair Susan Tucker — Members: Bill Johnson, Nina Holiday -Lynch, Jon Moon, Robert Skrentner, Laura Eaton Prospective Members --Susan Danzl — BS & MS in environmental engineering & worked 5 yrs in water and waste water industry. Also has done some work in solid waste estimations and energy production from solid waste (waste to energy). Relocated from California 1 year ago. Energy Working Group (AE WG)— 3rd Tuesday at 7:00 pm — Co -Chairs Surya Iyer and Bill Sierks, Commissioner Bob Gubrud - Members Richard Griffith, Richard Oriani, Greg Nelson, Gary Wahman, John Spanhake, John Howard, Bill Glahn, Brad Hanson Prospective Members — Phil Hirschey — Works at Enhanced Home Systems, Inc. with Greg Nelson. Delete Prospects? Alan Glotzman — Has a business Presswirte Printing in SLP. Has a commercial solar system providing a substantial % of his power, as well as extensive LED lighting. He the past President of the morning Rotary. Scott Weicht (Works in commercial construction that installs geo-exchange, solar systems, LEED certified buildings and invests/constructs biomass facilities as well as water treatment/waste water plants around the country. His home has a geo-exchange ground loop system for heating/cooling, and a rain water capture system for lawn/plant watering. The home is designed for future solar when it becomes more efficient). Has agreed to be on the 7-31-11 Eco tour. Education Outreach Working Group (EO WG) — 0 Tuesday at 7:00 pm - Co -Chairs Paul Thompson and Bob Gubrud — Members: Laura Eaton, John Howard, Alma Pronove, Carlin Struckman, Todd Willmert. Prospective Members: Caroline Berg — (7-31-11 inq) Annie Berge ('07 Macalester grad with Environmental Science minor, apprenticed at an organic farm in Hawaii and managed professional development seminars); Scott Davidson - Works for HGA, Inc. in the health care industry. His background is in teaching and he is an architect. Tim Jordheim Karl Juhnke - Regis Corp as Sr. IT Developer/Analyst with computer science degree. Sierra Club member with an interest in Dark Sky issues. Eric Strobel - Appointed to Construction Bd of Appeals. He has been a lawyer in the construction industry for 20 years and has an interest in green building codes. Home Energy Squad Task Force (HES) — Meets as needed - Chair Bill Sierks — Commissioners - Paul Thompson, Bob Gubrud Project & Policy Group — Meets as needed - Bill Sierks, Surya Iyer Purchasing — Meets as needed — Co -Chairs Germana Paterlini, Keith Kostuch Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group (RSW WG) — I' Thursday at 7:00 pm - Chair DP Latham, Commissioner Sara Zarrin - Members Michelle Horan, Tim Rudnicki, Melissa Seeley — City Staff Solvei Wilmot Turf Management Plan Task Force (TMP TF) — Meetings as needed over lunch hour - Chair Germana Paterlini (EEC) — Commissioners - Ellen Jones (Pk Bd), Mary Jo Kingston (Community Health), Vince Cockriel (Staff); Ex Officio DP Latham (EEC) and John Keprios (Dir. Pk & Rec. Dept) Urban Forest Task Force (UF TF) — Meets as needed over lunch hour - Chair DP Latham — Commissioners - Joseph Hulbert (Pk Bd), Michael Schroeder (Planning Commission) & City Forester Tom Horwath (Staff). 11 EEC Website Task Force — Commissioners Dianne P. Latham, Germana Paterlini, Julie Risser, Bob Gubrud — Members John Howard. Solar & Wind Ordinance Task Force — Surya Iyer (EEC), Chair, Members — Bill Sierks (EEC) Michael Platteter (Planning), Ken Potts (Planning) with support from the EEC Energy Working Group. iE�a Edina -Wide Carbon Baseline Assessment 2008 - 2010 Completed 08-8-2011 C01e C01e C01e 2008 Metric 13 2009 Metric 2010 Metric (tonnes/yr) (tonnes/yr)13 (tonnes/yr)13 Population Residents (Capita)' Jobst Households 48,169 49,202 21,285 49,491 46,893 21,357 47,941 46,893 20,672 Area (15.7 square miles) Res/sq. mi.1 3,068 3,152 3,054 Water (gallons) Inches Rainfalr 25.5 26.4 38.7 Water (gallons/yr) Res 1,777,098,832 1,587,197,388 1,644,691,117 C&I 332,892,530 331,293,093 317,822,056 Total 2,109,991,363 1,918,490,480 1,962,513,173 Res. Water (gallons/capita/day) Res C&I Water (gallons/job/day) C&II L- Waste (pounds) Recycled Incinerated Landfill Total Waste (pounds/capita/yr) Waste PPD (Pounds/Person/day) Recycled Incinerated Landfill Total 49,256,803 48,521,191 46,726,894 42,694,717 5,038 38,026,406 4,487 38,517,194 4,545 30,225,460 5,164 30,065,648 5,137 34,482,909 5,891 122,176,981 10,202 116,613,245 9,624 119,726,996 10,437 1,022.6 980.4 1,001.5 886.4 768.3 827.4 627.5 607.5 617.5 2,536.4 0.21 2,356.3 0.19 2,497.4 0.22 �9-7 'T"77,7771 � �� �. � . � : ,,77 Travel (VMT) Travel (VMT) per Capita/day 6.69 6.46 6.60 Bike Counts Bikers/daY=:'..,...,:..,... Energy Cooling Degree Days8 Electricity (MWh/yr)9 Heating Degree Days8 Therms (Dth/yr)10 Total Energy (MBtu/yr)" Total Energy (kBtu/Capita/day)'Z Res C&I Total Res C&I Total Res C&I Total Res C&I 787 647 1,000 200,029 114,871 195,768 106,307 204,219 102,201 403,856 235,440 389,145 214,322 397,925 201,792 603,885 350,311 584,913 320,629 602,144 335,470 7,937 7,780 7,002 2,051,118 111,973 1,995,306 108,926 1,820,922 99,406 1,824,977 99,627 1,781,574 97,258 1,680,484 91,739 3,876,094 211,600 3,776,880 206,184 3,501,406 191,145 2,733,617 226,8432,663,266 215,233 2,517,717 221,038 3,202,933 3368 5,0 3,109,338 311,580 3,038,203 5,772,604 526,813 S,SSS,920 = 4.3 6.3 323,324 544,362 4.5 6.6 5,936,550 561,911 47 7.0 otal w2e(tonnes) CO2e/yr Total COZe/yr Total per Capita 894,566 18.6 856,240E871,325 17.3 17.9 13 Keyed Notes on Sources: 1. Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx 2. Employment values from Metropolitan Council Community Profile for Edina, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/data_download/DD_start.aspx. 2010 data unknown, 2009 values used as a placeholder. 3. City of Edina 4. Minnesota Climatology Working Group, State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources 5. Source: County Certification/Annual Report for Hennepin County. 6. Minnesota Department of Transportation 7. Edina Bike Count, Location - 50th/54th and Wooddale Ave 8. Heating and Cooling Degree Days taken from http://climate.umn.edu/text/historical/mspcooldd.txt 9. Source for electrical consumption data for residential, commercial & industrial: Xcel Energy. 10. Source for natural gas consumption data for residential, commercial & industrial: CenterPoint Energy. 11. Sum of total energy consumed in city in MBtu (10^6 Btu) 12. Total energy consumed in city per capita, based on annual residential population or jobs. 13. Sources for CO2e estimates are as follows: a) Clean Air Climate Protection (CACP) software, 2009, developed by ICLEI--Local Governments for Sustainability, as reported in Dakota County's county-wide carbon baseline assessment. b) Final Report, Statewide MSW Composition Study: A Study of Discards in the State of Minnesota, Solid Waste Management Coordinating Board, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, March 2000. c) CO, emission factors for electricity from Xcel Energy. Emission factors for other greenhouse gases from the International Local Government Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Protocol produced by the United Nations, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability and The Climate Registry. 14 15 tA�+.il•xw../11p611�a6�60Lf3Eb"" r+Te„r 1it UF+"' City, Edina Organization cM, E194 krt. Orgamzahon Summary RM CM. Eat B.thei VNw: &.seLr+ns ? ENERGY STARg ( CM. E..t c- Foh. t CM. Edsn N. - Completeness Benchmark by Fuel Type City, Ed- Y.Iby 4r.9Aaa, ®® ®® Baa i4ar ttru Sf 4 cM Elk k- co,.- 38 398.939 18 55 Bketrie 95.65 Cr,. Elko h..+N.rt.e incomp+ete 6 428.000 1G 1G Natural Gat 155.21 CM. Em AY 11" 24 SM911111. i6ti1. 2" U&M ilT.M% cd,. Ek. Sites - Benchmark CM. Ev[Nrror CM. Eye. CM. F-4- CM. Faumcnt Pubbc works JDanen OodA+nq q 27,000 PaMng Garage 1 308.16 16.00 1,926,Cl% 7,888,342 Pty. Fork- N.ghh `srarnwr coil ommr J 30,000 Pork/ Reovatan 1 636.04 72.93 872.11% 16,893,355 �. CM. F,nb-ft `r d.-srm«cemrr ✓ 10,000 eammun,ty Center 1 376.36 87.42 430.50% 2,889,386 CdY. F•,m.ogm^ `I:mnnorouoh Park J 30,000 Conrnumty Ce"W 1 370.% 149.51 248.11% 6,643,305 YT Cay. F.rqu. F.1. 't °nee nn�al 1 :+krt +. rrerrxnn J 6,330 Student u-- 1 242.22 102.16 237.11% 886,605 w„ CM. F-t.- `Oty ".It J 42.216 CdV "1 1 257.37 126.86 202.87% S,509491 y CM. nood..00d j tl r...... troll t n„r.e J 19,436 Park / Reo-aatmn 1 147.62 82.95 :77.98% 1,257,115 i CM. Fer..t V W C41. Fr.nu,n find+nor Art Center J 10,000 Park/ Reatabon I 156.46 88.59 176.62% 678,721 CM. F.- &I Moor stun J S,1S7 Retail store 1 161.52 109.95 :52.45% 266,598 Pty. Frd4Y 1. fq-, Stare J 8,800 Retail / Store 1 154.65 106.13 145.91% 428,741 ',} •,1: : CM.I-t IkI ,,: Sta 1, n Iwo J 4,622 Rro Statwn 1 84.35 59.90 140.82°.. 113,021 •-, e Pty. rib. 6Ed-Aq-t. C:.nlrr 44 20,000 Pool 1 305.16 222.06 137.41% 1,661,668 I C4v G.ybrd Cey. Geden vaMy � d 1 fg i+nr St.,re ✓ 8,378 Retad / store 1 144.30 106.74 :35.1 a'. 314,649 �} cM. Gonykk i i� It-cr ar A- J IW,000 IM Arena 1 231.77 177.98 130.22% 5,379,041 CM. GracwU " � Ir rd Rfe herds cx. Uubhousr 1 4t 3,500 Park/Retrad 1 78.81 72.35 108.93'. 22,609 1# . CM. Gyral M.r.n ttr; st4tb tine !6 28,000 Fro Stltgn 1 125.46 124.95 500.12% 14,544 CM.Gyml fapd. ®nrl„-.ne A<res J 7,500 Museum 3 98.72 124.58 79.:5°. -193.915 jr y4 CM• Gr.en 1.4 Sautl+ mtro 3ra,ntn9 tenter ea 38,000 Pdip fadity I 88.0S 118.80 74.12% •1,168,443 cM G-rb-h CM. Gny E.p4 i� 1'ark�ng Ran,P d 50,000 1 0.00 Cay. Grog. Orri Park+n0 R-1,451 50,000 1 0.00 CM. N.ct.n..ck `Park,,,.) Ramp M 50,000 1 0.00 City. RNb[k I `New vu6rn works V 265.000 5 0.00 CM• M.I.tad 'rir.• ir.,nm9 rowrr M 5,000 1 0.00 Cvty. Hun Uk. { CM.. -.k �tlran+ar Marntrnanee 0 81000 1 0.00 L�� 1 15 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE USE OF COAL TAR -BASED SEALER PRODUCTS WITHIN THE CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA SECTION 1. PURPOSE. The City of Edina understands that lakes, rivers, streams and other bodies of water are natural assets which enhance the environmental, recreational, cultural and economic resources and contribute to the general health and welfare of the community. The use of sealers on asphalt driveways is a common practice. However, scientific studies on the use of driveway sealers have demonstrated a relationship between stormwater runoff and certain health and environmental concerns. The purpose of this ordinance is to regulate the use of sealer products within the City of Edina, in order to protect, restore, and preserve the quality of its waters. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. Except as may otherwise be provided or clearly implied by context, all terms shall be given their commonly accepted definitions. For the purpose of this ordinance, the following definitions shall apply unless the context clear indicates or requires a different meaning: ASPHALT -BASED SEALER. A petroleum-based sealer material that is commonly used on driveways, parking lots, and other surfaces and which does not contain coal tar. COAL TAR. A byproduct of the process used to refine coal. COAL TAR -BASED SEALER. A sealer material containing coal tar and is for use on an asphalt or concrete surface, including a driveway or parking area. CITY. The City of Edina MPCA. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. PAHs. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. A group of organic chemicals formed during the incomplete burning of coal, oil, gas, or other organic substances. Present in coal tar and believed harmful to humans, fish, and other aquatic life. 16 SECTION 3. PROHIBITIONS. Use of Coal Tar -Based Sealer Prohibited. A. No person shall apply any coal tar -based sealer to any driveway, parking lot, or other surface within the City of Edina B. No person shall contract with any commercial sealer product applicator, residential or commercial developer, or any other person for the application of any coal tar -based sealer to any driveway, parking lot, or other surface within the City. C. No commercial sealer product applicator, residential or commercial developer, or other similar individual or organization shall direct any employee, independent contractor, volunteer, or other person to apply any coal tar -based sealer to any driveway, parking lot, or other surface within the City. A person who own property on which a coal tar -based sealer is used is presumed to have used a coal tar -based sealer in violation of this section. Sale of Coal Tar -Based Sealer Restricted. 1. A person may not sell a coal tar -based sealer product within the City unless: 2. The sale is to a person who intends to sue the coal tar -based sealer outside the City's planning jurisdiction; and 3. The seller requires the purchaser to complete and sign a form provided by the City that includes: • Name, address and phone number of the purchase. • Date of purchase. • Quantity of coal tar -based purchased. • A statement that the coal tar -based sealer will not be used within the City of Edina and • An affirmation by the purchaser that the information on the form is correct and, • The seller retains the completed form for a period of not less than two years and allows the City to inspect or copy the form upon request. SECTION 5. ASPHALT -BASED SEALCOAT PRODUCTS. The provisions of this ordinance shall only apply to use of coal tar -based sealer in the City and shall not affect the use of asphalt -based sealer products within the City. SECTION 6. PENALTY. Any person convicted of violating any provision of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) or imprisonment for not more than ninety (90) days, or both, plus the costs of prosecution in either case. 17 SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this ordinance is found to be invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected. SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication, or upon the publication of a summary of the ordinance as provided by Minn. Stat. § 412.191, subd. 4, as it may be amended from time to time, which meets the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 331A.01, subd. 10, as it may be amended from time to time. Passed by the Council this day of , 20 Mayor Attested: Clerk 18 Objective The objective of this ordinance amendment is to ban the use of coal tar -based sealants within the City of Edina in an effort to safeguard water bodies, natural resources that contribute significant value to the community. Rationale Coal tar -based sealants contain a type of organic chemical compound labeled Polycystic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), seven of which have been identified as probable human carcinogens. Although commonly applied to driveways and parking lots, scientific studies have demonstrated negative health and environmental effects when PAHs are released into the environment and become part of stormwater runoff. Additional problems are then faced by local governments, charged with managing, dredging, and disposing of stormwater pond sediment. An alternative is readily available. Asphalt -based sealants contain 1/65`h the amount of PAHs as do coal tar -based sealants. A widely recognized study focused on the differing levels of PAHs released into the environment from different sealants. The United States Geological Survey worked with the City of Austin, TX in evaluating the environmental and health impacts of driveways and parking lots treated three different ways: without sealants, those sealed with asphalt -based products, and those covered with coal tar -based sealants. As friction from tires causes particles to break free from driveways and parking lots, they are carried into the stormwater system. Particles from coal tar -based sealants accounted for half of PAH levels in the 40 urban lakes included in the study, the largest contributor to PAH concentrations. An increase in PAH levels over the last 50 years is attributable to the use of coal tar -based sealants. Additional USGS reports show negative effects of PAHS include dust from coal tar -based sealed driveways that entered homes and accounted for PAH levels that averaged 530 times higher than homes near driveways sealed with other products. Toxic effects on aquatic life, birds, and mammals were also documented. Practice The 2009 Minnesota Legislature enacted legislation, House File 1231, that restricts state agencies from buying undiluted coal tar -based sealant and instructs the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to investigate the environmental effects of the sealant and propose management strategies. MS4 Permittees are required to meet legislated guidelines in the June 2011 process of municipal stormwater permitting. The MPCA will be awarding grants for treating contaminated sediment to communities that have an ordinance banning coal tar -based sealants in place. As of June 22, 2011, nine Minnesota communities have banned the use of coal tar -based sealants: • Buffalo (Undiluted Language) • Centerville • Circle Pines 1 EEC-WQWG — L Eaton 19 • Golden Valley (Recommendation, not a ban?) • Little Canada • Maplewood (Ban) • New Hope (Undiluted Language) • Prior Lake (Ban) • Roseville • Vadnais Heights • White Bear Lake (Ban) The City of Edina does not use coal tar products in its road construction or road maintenance programs. The City has found comparable products for its projects without using a substance that causes harmful environmental effects. Though coal tar products are not the sole source of PAHs, but eliminating its use on residential and commercial properties throughout Edina, will reduce a known water pollutant source. The dust from coal tar products can run off during rain events, which eventually finds its particles and residue deposited into local ponds and streams and eventually making its way to the rivers. It can also be moved throughout a community via tire treads, wind, and foot traffic. As part of the most recent MS4 Permits requirements, all Cities are prohibited from using these products. It only makes sense to ban the use of the product throughout the City as a means of being in "complete" compliance in the true spirit of the permit. Alternate products are available throughout the retail and wholesale markets especially as more communities are moving to ban coal tar products. The Home Depot and Lowes have removed all coal -tar sealants from its inventory, acknowledging the increasing environmental concerns. Edina's passage of banning coal tar products would place Edina amongst leading Cities in Minnesota who have taken this progressive action. Common concerns related to passing the ordinance banning coal tar -based sealants include the possible negative impacts on businesses, the inability to enforce the ban, and industry information that challenges the actual level of contribution of PAHs by coal tar -based sealants. In addition to questioning the source of PAHs in sediment, coal tar -based industry information reports that a relative benefit is achieved through using coal tar -based sealants over asphalt -based sealants due to the former having an expected lifespan of 30 years, double the lifespan of asphalt -based sealers. The industry position is detailed in their website, http://www.pavementcouncil.org . Other bans enacted include a state-wide ban in Washington, Dane County, WI, Austin, TX, and Washington, D.C. Comparable Communities' Ordinances and Staff Reports http://www.ci.buffalo.mn.us/admin/citycode/1057.htm 2 EEC-WQWG — L Eaton 20 Coal Tar Based Ordinance Amendment City Of Edina 13 References City of Austin, 2005, PAHs in Austin, Texas, sediments and coal -tar based pavement sealants: Watershed Protection Department, 55 p., accessed September 14, 2010, at http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/watershed/downloads/coaltar draft Pah study.pdf. Scoggins, M., McClintock, N., Gosselink, L., and Bryer, P., 2007, Occurrence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons below coal -tar -sealed parking lots and effects on stream benthic macroinvertebrate communities: Journal of the North American Benthological Society, v. 26, no. 4, p. 694-707. Van Metre, P.C., and Mahler, B.J., 2010, Contribution of PAHs from coal -tar pavement sealcoat and other sources to 40 U.S. lakes: Science of the Total Environment, v. 409, p. 334-344. Van Metre, P.C., Mahler, B.J., Scoggins, M., and Hamilton, P.A., 2006. Parking Lot Sealcoat: A Major Source of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban and Suburban Environments. A USGS report prepared in cooperation with the City of Austin, Texas. Provides an overview of why PAHs are harmful to the environment and to the general public health. Article is attached, "Coal -Tar -Based Pavement Sealcoat, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Environmental Health." Key points from the article: Dust from pavement with coal -tar -based sealcoat has greatly elevated PAH concentrations compared to dust from unsealed pavement. • Coal -tar -based sealcoat is the largest source of PAH contamination to 40 urban lakes studied, accounting for one-half of all PAH inputs. • Coal -tar -based sealcoat use is the primary cause of upward trends in PAHs, since the 1960s, in urban lake sediment. • Residences adjacent to parking lots with coal -tar -based sealcoat have PAH concentrations in house dust that are 25 times higher than those in house dust in residences adjacent to parking lots without coal -tar- based sealcoat. • PAHs move from a seal -coated surface into our environment by many mechanisms: storm runoff, adhesion to tires, wind, foot traffic, and volatilization. 3 1 EEC-WClWG — L Eaton 21 PAVRMR11V ` C0A7T1NrGS 7IRCIIN®II®GY C®UNCIL W W W.PAVEMENTCOUNCM.ORG City of Edina, Minnesota Energy and Environment Commission 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 via email: edinamail6ki.edina.mn.us August 11, 2011 Subject: Proposed Ordinance to Ban the Use of Refined Tar -Based Sealers Within the City of Edina, Minnesota Dear Commissioners, I write to you today as the Executive Director of the Pavement Coatings Technology Council (PCTC) concerning the subject proposed ordinance. Members of PCTC manufacture and supply pavement coating materials throughout North America, including refined tar -based pavement sealers (often colloquially referred to as "coal tar -based sealers"). PCTC members operate two facilities that manufacture refined tar -based sealers in the Twin Cities, Minnesota, area. These facilities and others in nearby locations supply pavement coating materials to dozens of contractors in Minnesota and surrounding states. Without exception, the Minnesota manufacturers and contractors are small, responsible businesses that provide good value to their customers and contribute to the economic well being of their local communities. Bans such as that under consideration by the Edina Energy and Environment Commission have been enacted in several Minnesota communities and a few other locations are unwarranted, based on faulty and incomplete science. These bans are only harmful - adverse impacts on local businesses, loss of jobs and loss of tax revenues - without any discernable environmental or public health benefit. Banning a product that has been safely used for more than six decades, that provides value to its users, and that provides gainful employment for thousands is a serious matter that 2308 Mount Vernon Avenue, Suite 134 Phone: +1(703) 299-8470 Alexandria Virginia 22301 22 Fax: +1(703) 842-8850 alehuray@povementcouncil.org City of Edina, Minnesota Page 2 Energy and Environment Commission requires careful evaluation of the facts and evidence that the benefits of the ban justify the costs. Those advocating that refined tar -based sealer be banned say — without any evidence - that sealers are a threat to the environment and public health. Ban advocates are unable to identify any harm actually caused by sealers in the real world. Rather, advocates engage in misrepresenting possible hazards as actual risks. Curiously, those advocating product bans in Minnesota and elsewhere fail to mention that coal tar has medicinal uses, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in the treatment of skin ailments such as eczema, psoriasis and dandruff. Advocates of banning sealers also fail to mention that FDA recognizes the single largest source of human exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — found in coal tar, wood smoke, decaying organic matter (such as compost and wetland sediments), grilled vegetables, and all coal and petroleum products — is food. . Advocates also fail to mention that PAHs are virtually insoluble in water, and pose no threat to sources of drinking water. Indeed, PAHs are so rarely detected in water that the US Environmental Protection Agency has declined to establish standards. If standards were to be established, water treatment facilities would be required to analyze their water for PAHs, needlessly adding to operational expenses. The finding that several PAHs are possible human carcinogens applies to inhaled PAHs, such as in industrial -age furnaces and cigarette smoke. Human carcinogenicity has not been identified for oral exposure to PAHs, such as exposure in cooked food, or to skin exposure, such as application of medicinal creams All this discussion of possible health effects associated with PAHs obscures an important fact: PCTC members are not aware of any adverse health effects among people exposed every day for decades to refined tar -based sealers. The majority of PCTC members are family-owned businesses, with two, three and even four generations of families working for most of their lives with sealers. If adverse health effects were associated with exposure to refined tar -based sealers, it would be evident in these families. In trying to find the right balance between economic considerations and environmental protection, policy makers often find it frustrating when scientists disagree about environmental impacts. In the case of refined tar -based pavement sealers, much misinformation has been disseminated — much of it, unfortunately, by governments at all levels. Last week, shortly after becoming aware of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission plan to consider a proposal to ban the use of the sealers in Edina, PCTC was contacted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). MPCA informed PCTC that it would like to work with the sealer industry to make sure accurate and scientifically sound information about the product is promulgated in W W W.PAVEMENTCOUNCIL.ORG 23 City of Edina, Minnesota Energy and Environment Commission Page 3 Minnesota. As a preliminary step, MPCA is proposing a meeting with MPCA's Commissioner to be scheduled after MPCA has provided the information the Agency has been relying on to PCTC for evaluation. Members of the PCTC would be more than happy to provide the City of Edina with information about refined tar -based sealers. That said, the Energy and Environment Commission may wish to table its deliberations pending the outcome of MPCA's further consideration of the issue. In the interim, please find attached an abstract of a study focused on risk management aspects of the sealer issue, accepted for presentation at the 2011 annual meeting of the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) later this year. Thank you for your attention. Please don't hesitate to contact me for more information. Yours truly, Anne P. LeHuray 4 p 09"Co" W W W.PAVEMENTCOUNCIL.ORG 24 Final Presentation Type: Platform Preferred Track: Ecological Risk Assessment Session: PAH Exposure and Implications Regarding Human and Ecological Risks Abstract Title: Managing Risks: Will banning pavement sealers have the desired effect? Authors Kirk O'Reilly, Jaana Pietari — Exponent, Bellevue, WA Paul Boehm — Exponent, Maynard, MA Abstract: The USGS and others have raised the concern that refined tar pavement sealers are a significant source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in urban sediments. The researchers involved have been actively advocating product bans at the federal, state, and local level. While outlawing the use of an established product is one means of managing risks, it should be implemented only if it will have the desired effect. The USGS hypothesis is based in part on the similarity in PAH profiles between sealers and sediments. Our recent work has demonstrated that this profile is not unique, but common to a range of environmental particles that become entrained in sediments. Inconsistencies in the results of different forensic methods applied to the data used by the USGS further weaken their hypothesis. This presentation focuses on an evaluation of three urban water bodies, from the west coast, midwest, and east coast. Inclusion of these data in USGS publications has led to actual or proposed product bans. In each case, the water bodies are in air sheds that are part of atmospheric source studies. Forensic comparison of the PAH chemistry of the sediments, regional depositional particles, and sealers indicates that the sealers are not a controlling factor. The results suggest that implementing a sealer ban will not result in a change in local sediment chemistry. The implication of these findings in setting policies for risk management will also be discussed. 25 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North I St.Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 ( 651-282-5332 TTY I www.pcastate.mn.us Equal Opportunity Employer September 2, 2011 Ms. Dianne Plunkett Latham Chair, Edina Energy & Environment Commission 7013 Comanche Court Edina MN 55439-1004 Dear Dianne: This letter is responding to the questions you asked in our phone conversation on Wednesday. Many of your questions are related to the letter you received from the Executive Director of the Pavement Coatings Technology Council (PCTC) dated August 11, 2011. Other questions were related to ordinances already passed in Minnesota restricting the use and sale of coal tar -based sealants. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) has been trying to keep track of ordinances passed in Minnesota, but the level of effort to keep an up-to-date list is significant. Resources to stay on top of maintaining this list are stretched thin and keeping the list current cannot be justified with limited resources. The spreadsheet I sent you via e-mail on Wednesday is the most up-to-date list we have, but it is probably not a complete list. It can provide a starting point if you intend to contact other communities who have considered their own ordinances. You also asked about language in the model ordinance available on the LMC and MPCA websites with the specific question about why the MPCA included the term "undiluted", but then did not define or provide guidance about what level of dilution would be sufficient for safety. It was not the MPCA's choice to include the term "undiluted". It is my understanding that the State of Minnesota does not have guidance as to what is an acceptable level of dilution for public safety. The "undiluted" term originated from legislative action in 2009, and I believe it was included in the model ordinance with a legal justification to mirror the language of the statute authority that created the grant program. A simple or brief response to the PCTC letter is difficult since the claims are many and include environmental, public health, science, and commerce related topics. I understand the letter to be primarily focused on two main points. One is related to how the PCTC believes coal tar -based sealant restrictions will hurt small business owners in Minnesota, and the other is that they do not view their product as being detrimental to environmental or public health, or being a major source of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) to lakes and ponds. The MPCA does not question the value or responsibility business owners have in providing services and products to their customers. The PCTC letter expresses concerns about the economic well being of local communities and the MPCA shares these concerns, but not with the focus described in the PCTC's letter. The PCTC suggests coal tar -based sealant restrictions in Minnesota can only have harmful, adverse impacts on local businesses which will lead to loss of jobs and loss of tax revenues without any discernable environmental or public health benefit. The MPCA believes these claims are grossly exaggerated, and may not accurately reflect their own industry in Minnesota. 26 Dianne Plunkett Latham Page 2 September 2, 2011 MPCA research shows that coal tar -based sealants are (for the most part) already off the shelves with Minnesota retailers, including Ace Hardware, Do It Best, Lowe's, Menards, The Home Depot, and True Value. Coal tar -based sealants are still in commerce with a minority of retailers and commercial applicators that operate outside of metro -area municipalities that have enacted bans. It is our understanding that a switch to an alternative product (such as asphalt -based sealers which have much lower concentrations of PAHs) does not require retooling existing processes, require new or different equipment, or new or additional training for staff. For example, a March 15, 2011 newspaper article for the Quad Community Press includes a Minnesota specific business perspective from Jet Black, a respected business leader for this industry: http://www.pressoubs.com/articles/2011/03/15/guad community press/news/doc4d7f9bdebe0c9798 765286.txt. Nick Kelso, Chief Executive Officer of Jet -Black, commented: "There are pros and cons to both," Kelso said. "We don't think (the bans) will affect business in the long-term." The PCTC letter suggests the MPCA has drawn conclusions without any evidence, and/or based on faulty and incomplete science. Furthermore, the PCTC letter also suggests that the MPCA has misrepresented possible hazards as actual risks. The MPCA stands behind the science and research conducted by the MPCA Environmental Analysis and Outcomes Division, and the MPCA has faith in the work of the research scientists who have subjected their findings to peer review; yielding confidence in the methods and conclusions. Research by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), City of Austin, TX, University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center, and the MPCA provides a compelling weight -of -evidence that coal tar -based sealcoat products are an important source of PAHs to our environment at concentrations that pose a potential risk to ecological communities and humans. MPCA research conducted on 15 metro area stormwater ponds was consistent with the findings of a national USGS (peer-reviewed) study of 40 lakes. Last spring the MPCA used environmental forensic techniques to determine sources of PAHs to metro area stormwater pond sediments, as shown in this pie chart. 27 Dianne Plunkett Latham Page 2 September 2, 2011 Quantitative techniques used to fingerprint (profile) and assign sources of PAHs utilized a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contaminant mass balance model that was determined to be the most rigorous and effective technique for assigning sources of PAHs. Confidence in the conclusions and the techniques are associated with published source profiles (fingerprints) for 12 PAH compounds. These quantitative techniques also yielded a margin of uncertainty for each source. The EPA model shows that coal tar -based sealants and air emissions (like vehicle exhaust, such as measured in a highway tunnel) are the most prevalent sources of PAHs in metro stormwater pond sediments in the Twin Cities. The PCTC letter implies misrepresentation of possible hazards as actual risks by "failing to mention that PAHs are virtually insoluble in water." This has not been a point of disagreement and it is unclear to me why the PCTC would imply that this topic has been misrepresented. PAH compounds of concern are not found dissolved in water, but instead are bound tightly to sediment or soil particles. The MPCA has not focused on the solubility in water because it is a mute point. Our focus remains on the concentration of PAHs in sediment since this is where the PAH compounds of concern concentrate. Food derived sources of PAHs and medicinal uses of coal tar cannot be compared fairly since these exposures are a matter of consumer choice. The choice to use coal tar as a treatment for a medical condition is weighed against the potential benefits of the exposure. Generally, medical treatments should be limited to those suffering a disease. Consumption of food containing PAHs (such as barbequed hamburgers) is also a matter of choice. While food exposures may be the greatest exposure to PAHs for most people, typically carcinogenic PAH concentrations in contaminated sediment and soil are considerably more than two (2) orders of magnitude higher than carcinogenic PAH concentrations in food. Environmental exposures to PAHs can be significant for some people. The MPCA is not focused on debating the science of how some PAHs have been classified as possible carcinogens, nor is the MPCA making claims or representing what possible hazards and risks there may be to human health. The MPCA is currently working with the Minnesota Department of Health to evaluate standards used to guide reuse and disposal options for contaminated sediment that are protective of human health. The MPCA is focused primarily on the high costs for managing stormwater sediments contaminated with PAHs associated with coal tar -based sealants. PAH compounds are accumulating in stormwater pond sediments, and municipalities are experiencing high costs to test, excavate, transport, and dispose of the contaminated sediment. Management costs vary based on size, volume of sediment, and laboratory analysis. Cost can be as much as $250,000/pond in some communities. Anecdotal information provided by metro -area cities suggest that costs range from $75,000 to $125,000/pond. In the seven county metropolitan area, there are an estimated 20,000 stormwater ponds. Conservative estimates suggest that management costs are measured by the billions of dollars for just the metro area. Municipalities cannot afford the costs, so projects are being delayed which is increasing risk to flood protection, damage to private and public infrastructure, and risks to water quality when contaminates flow through to lakes and rivers when stormwater ponds no longer function properly. Additional information about "Restriction on Coal Tar -Based Sealant" is available on the MPCA webpage at: http://www.r)ca.state.mn.us/index.php/water/water-types-and-proerams/stormwaterlmunicipal- stormwater/restriction-on-coal-tar-based-sealants. html 28 Dianne Plunkett Latham Page 2 September 2, 2011 I hope this response helps answer the questions most important to your upcoming meetings Dianne. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 651-757-2223 if you have additional questions. Sincerely, Don Berger State Program Administrator Principal Stormwater Section Municipal Division DB:wgp 29 Cost Estimates for Minnesota Stormwater Collection Systems Cost estimates are based on information and data available as of the fall of 2010 and are associated with the costs to manage only the most contaminated stormwater sediment (Level 3) which would be destined for disposal at a municipal solid waste landfill (MSW) facility. The intended purpose is to provide information for stormwater program planning; important policy decisions lie -ahead that will need to be informed by additional data that we don't yet have. Cost estimates As of fiscal year 2010; the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency estimatesahere are approximately 20,000 constructed stormwater retention ponds in the seven county metro area. This estimate is somewhat speculative, and a much different number could emerge when in -progress inventories by local governments are completed. Maintenance data is not available for these ponds, so it is not known how many are in need of maintenance. Estimates are provided here to extrapolate both volume and fiscal impact potentials. Stormwater sediment management costs for the seven county metropolitan area have the potential of being measured by the billion. Variables Cost estimates vary based on; • contractor and the amount of overhead • administrative mark up • competition in the market • fluctuation in the fuel market, and • complexity of the project. Projects are bid based on the complexity of the project which can be effected by: • availability and ease of access to the site • soil conditions • sensitivities to geologic and natural features (springs, wetlands, ORVW's) • depth to ground water • time of year, and • dewatering if required City of Minnetonka estimates A dredging cost equation was developed by Barr Engineering for the City of Minnetonka in 2009 as a way to estimate long term stormwater pond maintenance costs. A cost estimates equation was created which includes 30% for engineering and administration costs and 20% for contingencies. The equation does not include landfill disposal costs. Dredge Cost = 78,515 *Vol ume^o.s7x7 This cost estimate was developed using 2009 dollars and volume is measured in acre-feet. The following example includes landfill costs for Level 3 sediments estimated at $14 per cubic yard in 2009. (Example provided by Michael Thompson, City Engineer, City of Maplewood, developed for the American Public Works Association conference in November of 2010) Example: 5,000 cubic yards of removal • Core samples/testing ($9,000) • Less than 93% retained on 11200 sieve — Lab tests define as Level 3 • Cost= 78,515*3.1 ac ft^°.6727= ($168,000) • Cost to landfill = $14/CY ($70,000) • TOTAL COST = $247,000 Overall cost per cubic yard = $49.40 Document Author: Don Berger, MPCA Municipal Division ti ; g t 30 Cost Estimates for Minnesota Stormwater Collection Systems White Bear Lake Cost per cubic yard estimates provided to the city of White Bear Lake from actual bids. • Sediment sampling -$3,000-$5,000 per pond, depending on size. • Excavation-$5.00/Cubic Yard. • Transportation costs depend on the distance to the receiving facility and fluctuations in the price point of the fuel market. Water content of the sediment and dewatering processes can be difficult and add expense. Transportation costs for White Bear Lake are approximately $21.00/Cubic Yard to the Buffalo MSW Landfill. Disposal costs also vary depending on disposal facility. Landfill cost at Buffalo is $12.00/Cubic Yard. Landfill cost at Elk River is $10.50/Cubic Yard. Landfill cost at Rosemount is $ 22.50/Cubic Yard. • Total cost [Sampling, Excavation ($5.00 C.Y.) + Transportation ($21.00 C.Y.) + Disposal ($12.00/C.Y.) _ $38.00/C.Y.] Contractor mobilization and other project construction costs are not included in this estimate but are estimated at 15% or $57,000. Overall cost per cubic yard = $44.20 Based on these estimates the cost to manage Level(3) contaminated stormwater sediments will be approximately $40 to $50 per cubic yard. The following table provides estimates based on $50 per cubic yard and where the percentage is based on estimated volumes from 20,000 ponds sediment regulated as level (3). This table provides estimates for: 1. various percentages of the estimated total ponds assumed to undergo sediment removal. 2. the approximate volume of cubic yards of sediment. 3. a comparison to the capacity of MSW daily cover volumes, and 4. projected costs for disposal in 2010 dollars. Estimated % of total Estimated Volume Cu/yards Compare to LFC Estimated Cost 50% 10,000,000 77 Times LFC 5 Billion 25% 5,000,000 38 Times LFC 2.5 Billion 10% 2,000,000 15 Times LFC 1 Billion Putting these estimates into perspective; if 10 municipalities in the metro area cleaned out just three ponds each @ 3,000 cubic yards per pond, the volume of sediment from these (30) ponds would equal 70% of the entire annual volume for all daily cover for all three MSW facilities combined. Even a far lower assumed percentage of all ponds (1% of the estimated total) with an average of 1,000 cubic yards per collection system would generate approximately 200,000 cubic yards of contaminated stormwater sediment. This would still represent 1.5 times the MSW capacity for daily cover at a cost of approximately 10 million dollars. These estimates demonstrate the need and importance for discovering alternative management methods and collecting additional data and information about new treatment methods. Pond inventory cost estimates: The cost to inventory and assess the status of constructed stormwater ponds in a cities jurisdiction will vary on whether the city is able to do the work with existing staff resources, or whether they must contract for services. There is cost to the city either way, and these costs are more difficult to estimate. At this time it's not known how municipalities are/will respond to the requirement to inventory ponds within their jurisdictions. Document Author: Don Berger, MPCA Municipal Division Page 2 31 Cost Estimates for Minnesota Stormwater Collection Systems City of Alexandria example In July of 2010 the City of Alexandria took action to hire a contractor to compile an inventory of all stormwater ponds in the City. The low bid was $12,000 to do the inventory. The City meeting minutes don't describe what that cost covers and it is not known whether this amount includes spot sampling at select stormwater ponds. If the MS4's permitees all spent $10,000 each to inventory and assess the stormwater ponds in their jurisdiction; the permitted MS4's alone will spend about 2.3 Million Dollars. (link to Alexandria Council meeting minutes) http://images.burrellesluce.com/image/19713NA/`19713NA NA14410&site=19713 Document Author: Don Berger, MPCA Municipal Division Page 3 32 Coal Tar -based Sea I coat Environmental concerns Minnesota Pollution Control Agency f you decide to sealcoat your asphalt ' driveway this year, there are a few things you should know. Sealcoating makes old asphalt look. new and protects its surface, but there are serious environmental concerns with its use. Sealcoat comes in two basic varieties: coal tar -based and asphalt -based. The coal tar variety is more resilient, but it contains much higher levels of a class of chemicals called PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that harm fish, and with prolonged exposure, pose a risk of cancer in humans (see Figure 1). Environmental problems Coal tar is a waste material generated in the conversion of coal to coke. Manufacturers choose coal tar for sealcoat because of its resistance to petroleum products like gasoline and oil- which drip fiom cars and deteriorate asphalt surfaces. In time, sunlight and vehicle traffic wears down sealcoat and sealcoat flakes are washed away by imin or carried away by wind, contaminating stormwater ponds, streams and lakes with PAHs. PAHs cause tumors in some fish, disrupts the reproduction of aquatic organisms, and causes some water -bottom species to avoid sediment altogether. Health risks to humans related to PAHs are based on the length of exposure to vapors or sediments contaminated with PAHs. PAH Concentrations Coal tar contains as much as 30 percent wq-strm4-12 • September 2009 water coming off parking lots coated with asphalt- and coal -tar sealcoat (Figure 2). Figure 1: Relative amounts of PAHs in sealcoat products An Austin, Texas, study determined that sealcoat products based on coal tar contained up to 1,000 times more PAHs than asphalt -based products. Consider asphalt - based sealcoat if you choose to coat your driveway. Figure 2: Concentrations of PAHs in runoff Asphalt -based sealcoat runoff (B) can contain 10 times more PAHs than an uncoated driveway (A) and runoff from a coal -tar sealcoated driveway (C) may have concentrations of PAH 65 times higher than an uncoated driveway. The study revealed that the asphalt -based sealcoat runoff contained 10 times more PAH than the uncoated parking lot and the coal -tar sealcoat runoff had concentrations of PAI I that were 65 times higher than the uncoated lot. Maintenance expenses Besides the health effects and the danger to the environment, PAHs are making routine maintenance of stonnwater ponds by cities and townships many, many times more expensive because sediment with high - enough concentrations of PAHs must be disposed of differently. In Minnesota. when some cities removed sediment from their stonnwater ponds as part of regular maintenance, they found elevated levels of PAHs. This discovery required them to find special disposal areas, costing them many thousands of dollars more. Current regulation Because of the environmental problems associated with PAHs, the City of Austin, Texas, Dane County, Wisconsin, and Washington D.C. have banned use of coal tar -based sealcoat in their jurisdictions (asphalt - based sealcoat may still be used). Recent legislation passed in Minnesota bans the purchase of coal -tar sealcoat products by state agencies by July I, 2010. Recently, two national home - improvement retailers, Lowe's and Home Depot, took coal tar -based sealcoat off their shelves. Check with your local unit of government to see if there are any restrictions. Make the right choice The best choice inav be to not sealcoat your driveway at all. But if you do choose to sealcoat, study labels carefully to be sure to find an asphalt -based product. Lower concentrations of PAHs in waterways will prevent costly maintenance for your city and keep waterways safe for fish and other aquatic organisms. If you have leftover material after sealing your driveway, you can re -use or recycle it at your community's household hazardous waste facility. To find your local facility, visit: wwwt�,aiatc,itm_us waste%hhw References Van Metre, Y.C., Mahler, B.J., Scoggins, M., and Hamilton, P.A., 2006. Parking Lot sealcoat: A Major Source of Polycyclic Aromatic I lydrocarbons (PAHs) in Urban and Suburban Environments. A USGS report prepared in cooperation with the City, of Austin, Texas. http://www.pca.state. mn.uslindex.phplwater/water-types-and-programs/stormwater/mun icipal- stormwater/restriction-on-coal-tar-based-sealants.htmI Restriction on Coal Tar -Based Sealants Coal tar -based sealant is widely used to recondition asphalt surfaces, but there are serious environmental concerns with its use. The 2009 Legislature enacted a bill pertaining to use of coal tar -based asphalt sealants. The bill restricts state agencies from purchasing undiluted coal tar -based sealant, and directs the Pollution Control Agency to study its environmental effects and develop management guidelines. The Legislation https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=ccrhfl231.html&session=ls86 The 2009 legislation was contained in House File 1231. References to coal tar -based sealants are in Article 2, Sections 4, 26 and 28. The main requirements outlined in the legislation will be implemented over the next two years as indicated below. Notify state and local government units By January 15, 2010 the MPCA must notify state agencies and local governments of the potential for contamination of stormwater ponds and wetlands by coal tar -based sealants. Inventory stormwater ponds The MPCA must complete a plan to inventory stormwater ponds in the state by January 15, 2010. State agencies restricted July 1, 2010 State agencies may not purchase undiluted coal tar -based sealant after this date. Develop best management practices The MPCA must develop and make available best management practices that can avoid or mitigate environmental impacts of coal tar -based sealants. Develop model ordinance on use of sealants for local units of government (LUGS) available on this web site on or before January 2, 2010. Develop grant process MPCA will develop a process by July 2010 for awarding grants to LUGS for treatment of contaminated sediment. Ordinance must be in place to apply for a grant. Watch this page for the RFP date (est. Sept. 2010) and application due date (est. Oct. 2010.)The bill contains other requirements for the MPCA but these are the ones of primary import for state and local governments and stormwater managers. Update: Grants to Help Manage PAH -Contaminated Stormwater Sediments Information about grant requirements and application materials is still under development and will be made available through this Web page on or before July 1, 2010. In the meantime, questions may be directed to Don Berger, 651-757- 2223 or Donald. Berger@state.mn.us What Are The Concerns? 35 Coal tar, a byproduct of coal processing, contains high levels of chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hyrdrocarbons (PAHs). Some PAHs are known human carcinogens. It is commonly used in asphalt sealers. Studies have shown when coal tar -based sealants are applied on parking lots and driveways, PAHs can be released into nearby surface waters, where they can accumulate to potentially harmful levels in sediments. This also is a concern for local governments responsible for managing stormwater ponds and disposing of sediments dredged from them. Alternatives to coal tar - based sealer formulations are available that have far lower levels of PAHs. This MPCA fact sheet provides more information on the environmental concerns related to coal tar -based sealant. MS4 Permittees By the next cycle of municipal stormwater permitting, beginning June 2011, permittees will be required to abide by all provisions of the legislation. The MPCA is conducting outreach to permittees to make sure they are aware of the requirements and assist them in meeting them. MS4 Stormwater Pond Inventory Form: (wq-strm4-30) This inventory is required by Chapter 172, Sec. 28 of the 2009 Session Laws and will be incorporated into the 2011 revision and reissuance of the NPDES MS4 General Permit. The purpose of the inventory is to identify stormwater ponds, wetlands and other water bodies impacted by the collection, treatment and conveyance of stormwater. MS4 Stormwater Pond Inventory Guidance (wq-strm4-31) Model ordinance: The MPCA and League of Minnesota Cities developed a model ordinance for use by cities that may wish to restrict the use of coal tar -based sealants. MPCA Contact For more information contact Dale Thompson, MPCA supervisor for municipal stormwater programs, 651-757-2776 or Dale.Thompson@state.mn.us. Links to Other Information Coal -Tar -Based Pavement Sealcoat, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), and Environmental Health, USGS Fact Sheet 2011 http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2011/3010/ Contamination of Stormwater Pond Sediments by PAHs in Minnesota. 2010. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. Contamination of Stormwater Pond Sediments by Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/view-document.html?gid=12960 USGS Fact Sheet http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3147/ Pavement Sealer Applications technical guidance. Washington State Department of Transportation. Not available. Characterization of Stormwater Pond Sediments. Final project report. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services, St. Paul, MN. http://www.metrocouncil.org/Environment/sediment/FinaIReport.pdf Managing Dredged Materials in the State of Minnesota. 2009. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN. http://www. pca.state. m n. us/index. ph p/view-docu ment. ht m I?gid=12959 Last modified on Wednesday, June 08, 201117:03 36 AQWG Minutes June 23, 2011 Members present: Julie Risser, Julie Mellum, Karwehn Kata, David Van Dongen The meeting began at 7:00. Attendees introduced themselves and noted their interests in air quality issues for first time attendee David Van Dongen Minutes from the April meeting were distributed and approved. Discussion about the merits and issues surrounding an Air Quality Task force took place. There remains interest in this. A smaller group should meet with the chair of the EEC, Dianne Latham to review this topic. The proposed drive through ordinance amendment was presented and reviewed. The support letter was reviewed as well - some revisions need to be made to the letter so that it is in sync with the proposed drive through ordinance amendment. The group agreed to forward the ordinance amendment to the chair of the EEC. More work is needed for an official flier that the EEC can support. We need to reduce the amount of information and focus on key issues. A flier about buckthorn was distributed as an example. 4th of July Parade Update There will be no fliers distributed at the parade this year. Door hangers are a better option for AQWG to deliver a message, offering more informational space and a higher probability of being read. The working group discussed possible content for the flier: Task Force on Air Quality Potential members as well as the objectives for the task force were discussed. The purpose of the task force needs to be open and objective. Engine Idling Update Signs "No Idling" signage for schools and parks was discussed. Drive Through Ordinance Additional information about other communities' drive through ordinances was discussed. Respectfully Submitted, Julie Risser Chair AQWG 37 AQWG Minutes July 28, 2011 Members present: Julie Risser, Karwehn Kata, David Van Dongen, Ray O'Connell, Laura Eaton The meeting began at 7:00. Minutes from the June meeting were distributed and approved. Ordinance revision work Working group members were briefed on the status of the drive through ordinance amendment was presented and reviewed. This will be submitted to the EEC at the next meeting. We will also look at possible revisions to the wood -burning ordinance. 4th of July Parade Update The parade went well - we distributed magnets, stickers, and messaged that it is critical to save energy. No Idlings Signs The group discussed using no idling signs that are ready-made. Members were interested in messaging that connected to money this might prove to be more compelling. Outreach Discussed more letters to the editor that could be helpful for messaging about our three issues - wood burning, engine idling, and saving energy Discussion on the EEC Eco Yard and Garden tour One of our members has been moved to the Education and outreach group Respectfully Submitted Julie Risser Chair, AQWG 38 Resolution: Conversion of the Three Wood Burning Centrum Fire Places to Gas Date: 9-05-11 Action Requested: Due to the hazards of wood smoke to human health, to the global environment, and to our urban forest, the Aug. 25, 2011 meeting of the Air and Water Quality Working Group recommends to the Edina Energy and Environment Commission that Edina's three wood burning Centrum fire places be converted to gas. Information Background: Wood smoke: 1. Is a major source of carbon dioxide and black carbon soot in the atmosphere. 2. is hazardous to human health. 3. Contributes to the spread of insect -borne tree disease, such as emerald ash borer and Dutch elm disease. Gas inserts for fireplaces and fire rings are safer and more environmentally sound then burning wood. Such inserts also reduce the number of trees that must be destroyed for fuel; trees help absorb carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. The head of the United Nations Environment Program recommends measures to slash non -carbon dioxide greenhouse gas pollutants, including black carbon, "because they make up some 50 percent of toxic u atmospheric emissions". He stressed that "The world must deploy all available means to reduce this pollution and that no substance contributing to this pollution should be overlooked." I ,-Wood smoke emits fine particulates that contain many of the same deadly toxins that are in tobacco smoke and vehicle exhaust. They are comprised of formaldehyde2, benzene, toluene3, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins4 and other noxious and persistent organic compounds and greenhouse pollutants that build up in our lungs, crops and water supply. Wood smoke is more concentrated than tobacco smoke, travels farther and remains chemically active in the body for up to 40 hours longers.. Everyone is at risk from wood -smoke exposure. But children of all ages6, unborn children, the elderly, and anyone with asthma, allergies, or heart disease are in the highest -risk categories. The US Center for Disease Control states that wood smoke is a trigger for asthma attacks. Wood smoke is also implicated in cancers, reproductive birth defects and in sudden infant death syndrome.' A study found that people who burn wood or other "biofuels" for heat or cooking may have a heightened risk of emphysema and related lung conditions. Among non-smokers, exposure to biomass smoke was linked to a 2.5 -fold increase in the risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Smokers exposed to biomass smoke, meanwhile, had a more than four -fold greater risk of COPD than non-smokers who did not burn biomass fuels at home. s See 4 Sept. 2009 UN News Service at http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewslD=31952&Cr—unep&Crl). Z See http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/iyh-vsv/environ/formaldehyde-eng.php ; http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/725.pdf 3 See http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm04232327/pageOl.htm; http://www.epa.gov/teach/chem_summ/BENZ_summary.pdf 4 See "The Health Effects of Wood Smoke", www.ehhi.org/woodsmokelhealth_effects.shtml. 5 See www.burningissues.org. 6 See Science Daily (Nov. 7, 2009) "Air Pollution Increases Infants' Risk Of Bronchiolitis" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091106084243.htm. See "Important asthma triggers," "You can control your asthma", CDC, USA.gov, updated April 27, 2009. 8 See New York (Reuters Health) 2-25-2010, http://burningissues.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f—�11&t=3497. 39 The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to set limits on black carbon, a/k/a "soot." Generated from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, black carbon u is a solid particle that warms the atmosphere because its dark color absorbs heat -- both when it accumulates in the air, raising the air's temperature, and when it lands on snow and ice, accelerating melting. Black carbon also has profound effects on public health, causing hundreds of thousands of premature deaths each year.9 The movement of firewood contributes to the spread of tree pathogens. Emerald ash borer will soon be killing trees in Edina. According to a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) document, "America's neighborhoods are under attack. The emerald ash borer lives in firewood. Move firewood and you spread the destruction.s10 —Minnesota's antismoking ordinance allows people to go to bars and restaurants and avoid smoke, because tobacco smoke is a proven killer. -Edina' -s City ordinance prohibits smoking in City parks and facilities. Yet residents have no choice but to breathe wood smoke in the Centrum. The Edina Energy and Environment Commission is respectfully requested to ask the Edina City Council to set an example by reducing the City of Edina's wood burning by converting the three wood burning fireplaces in the Centrum to gas. Tom Shirley has estimated that the cost of converting the 3 Centrum fireplaces to gas is approximately $5,000. Such a conversion would save on the cost of wood as well as cleaning the fireplaces in addition to improving air quality. Air and Water Quality Working Group Of the Edina Energy and Environment Commission 9 See Los Angeles Times, February 22, 2010, http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles/2010/los- angeles-times-02-22-2010.htm1. 10 See Michigan State University Extension Bulletin E-2940, "Promise not to move firewood." March 2007. 40 Minutes for the Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group of Edina's Energy and Environment Commission Thursday, July 7, 2011 Time 7:00 P.M. - Location: City Hall, Community Room Present: Dianne Plunkett Latham, Sarah Zarrin, Michelle Horan, Melissa Seeley; Staff Present: Solvei Wilmot; Absent: Tim Rudnicki. Chair Latham convened the meeting at 7:00 pm and it was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 1. Resident Comments — Discussed e-mailed comments from residents residing in Parkwood Knolls regarding Single Sort Recycling and reviewed 2007 Edina Single Sort Pilot Project Results; Kyle Wegener `s May Term project on commercial recycling was discussed. 2. An Informative June 23 tour of St. Paul District Energy's solar installation was attended by City Council member Josh Sprague, EEC members DP Latham and Surya Iyer, RSW WG member Melissa Seeley and her 2 children, EWG members Brad Hanson, John Howard and Phil Hirschey plus guest Dan Latham. 3. July 31 EEC Eco Yard and Garden Tour — Volunteers were requested as site monitors. 4. GreenStep Cities Update — See hgp:Haueenstel2.pca.state.mn.us/bestPractices.cfm; enstel2.pca.state.mn.us/bestPractices.cfm; An EEC Work Session with City Council is planned for 9-20-11. The status of BP 22 Managing Solid Waste was reviewed as follows: a. BP 22. 5 COMPLETE - Arrange for a residential or institutional organics collection - The elementary, middle and high schools have organized their own Source Separated Compostable Materials (SSCM) collection program. Vierkant Disposal, Inc. offers residents a yard waste and (SSCM) co -collection program. b. BP 22.2 — CURRENT Requirement - Adopt & meet aggressive goals (proposed 25%) for overall % diversion of currently disposed waste from city operations into recycling & organics collection. Solvei Wilmot reported that the current municipal contract ends Dec. 2012 and that she is working on an RFP requesting municipal organics collection. The new contract would take effect 1-1-13, but the organics portion may be delayed until 3-1-13. BP 22.1- FUTURE Possible Optional Selection - Adopt percentage reduction goals for waste from city operations (including schools & parks). Accomplish reduction goals in at least three of the following areas: a) Overall waste generation (Proposed 50% for each park where recycling bins are installed, 25% for municipal buildings where organic recycling is undertaken, & 25% for schools where organic recycling is undertaken); b) Paper use and junk mail (Solvei has already called the various senders and requested that the City of Edina be removed from their mailing lists); c) Pesticide/herbicide use (Proposed 100% for all parks which convert to organic methods); d) Water use/waste water generation (the RSW WG is unsure how to quantify this). Pamela and Lewis Pk Recycling bins report: Michelle created a diagram of the recycling bin and trash bin placement in Lewis Park. Michelle found that those recycling bins that were not next to a trash bin had greater contamination. Michelle pushed the recycling bins next to the trash cans, which should take care of the problem. Dianne presented an Edina Park Recycling Bin Recommendation, which was adopted with minor changes and then forwarded to the EEC. 3 -Rivers recycling bins — Solvei Wilmot to research the price of these. d. BP 22.3a FUTURE Possible Optional Selection - Document the signing of at least one resource management contract with a waste hauler for a commercial or industrial business. Sara Zarrin indicated that her Edina Go Green group would be happy to undertake this action. e. BP 22.6 FUTURE Possible Optional Selection - Organize residential solid waste collection by private and/or public operations to accomplish multiple benefits. f. BP 22.6 MPCA PROPOSES NEW ACTION — 5-17-11 e-mail from Phil Muessig: "will probably, in September, modify the BP action 22.6, which is about organized collection, to include two other challenging optional actions, including business recycling. Depending on the business type, recycling can be fairly common, but a city mandate, as few MN cities have, is a big step, but I think the solid waste people here want to include it as a challenging option (and, like organized collection, not one lightly pursued!). Implement one or more city-wide solid waste collection/recycling systems from the list below: 41 A) Organize regular, ongoing residential solid waste collection by private and/or public operations citywide to link one (or more) geographic district(s) to only one hauler. B) Mandate collection of recyclables from multi -unit residential buildings, providing education in support of programs and compliance and enforcement of the requirement. (The March 2007 Edina Multi Unit Survey results were discussed and it was observed that Edina multi -unit residential buildings were mostly in compliance.). C) Mandate collection of three or more recyclable materials, e.g., paper, plastic, metal, from commercial entities, supporting the mandate with compliance and enforcement assistance." Hennepin Co Requests Increase recycling in multifamily units - Currently Edina Single family and duplexes = $7.50; Multi -family of 3 to 8 units = $7.50. March 2007 Multi Unit Survey results were discussed. The RSW WG could consider doing a new survey as there are some new buildings and others may have changed management. The Recycling RFP may need to be updated to include this. Reviewed Davis example at hUp:Hciiyofdavis.orWpw/recycle/index.cfm, but it was thought that residents would prefer to continue using a sack as these containers appeared to take up more space. 6. EEC jurisdiction in commercial recycling matters tabled until MPCA adds it to the GreenStep Cities program and EEC directs work on it. 7. 1300.09 Refuse Reports — Solvei presented a proposed report which was adopted with modifications and forwarded to all Edina licensed haulers for their comments, which will be reviewed at the 9-1- RSW WG meeting. Commercial Recycling Certification — Sarah to track Hennepin Co progress on setting up a certification program. 6. Collection of unwanted medicine ( www.hennepin.us/medicine) - 9-24-11 St. Louis Pk & 10-8-11 Orono locations were announced. 9. Compost Rulemaking: MPCA permitting process for organic collection sites. Track the compost rulemaking at the following web page: http://www.12ca.state.mn.us/index.php/waste/waste-permits-and-rules/waste- rulemaking_/proposed-changes-to-compost-rules.html A 2nd stakeholder meeting was to be held at the MPCA early in 2011 to discuss a preliminary rule draft, prior to formal publication to review draft rule language and provide feedback, prior to public notice. Publish dual notice fall 2011. Final adoption 3 mo after dual notice if no public hearing or 6 mo after dual notice if there is a public hearing. An update could not be obtained because the Minnesota State websites were inoperative due to the government shutdown. 10. RSW WG approved a City-wide facility recycling policy on 11-4-10 recommending that only compostable tableware will be used, that bottled water will be reduced, and that organic composting will be implemented. The recommendation will be forwarded to EEC for approval. The 2011 city facility solid waste and recycling RFP will take this into consideration to accomplish GreenStep #22 sub step 1 a (overall waste reduction in city operations). 11. Reviewed 2006 Edina Residential Recycling Report. Reviewed City of Edina June 2011 survey question results on organized hauling which showed that 37% favored or strongly favored organized hauling, with 43% opposing or strongly opposing organized hauling, while 21% did not know or refused to answer. It was noted that 15% stated that they opposed organized hauling because they (erroneously) believed that having choice resulted in a lower price. A June 2009 Minnesota Pollution Control study showed that communities that have organized hauling pay substantially less for their trash hauling services. This demonstrates that the RSW WG will need to undertake a public education program. 11. RSW WG page on EEC website was reviewed and additional links suggested. 12. City Code amendment process - Tabled due to time limitations. 13. Biodigester — Novus Energy — Michelle Horan arranged a tour for the RSW WG for Aug. 16 in lieu of the regularly scheduled Aug. 4 meeting. 14. See the June Issue of Edina Magazine — It's focus is environmental with many articles on EEC projects http://edinamag.com/article/edina-city-govemment/edina-becomes- reg_ gnggp-city= Dianne Plunkett Latham, Chair, Edina Energy & Environment Commission, Chair Recycling & Solid Waste Working Group 42 Memo To: Recycling and Solid Waste Workgroup From: Solvei Wilmot, Recycling Coordinator, Date: August 26, 2011 RE: Code change and report form In response to the proposed changes to Edina City Code 1300 the following information was collected from a request for input from 20 licensed refuse hauling companies: 6 provide residential service. There were: • 10 responses: 5 residential haulers, S commercial/construction demolition Haulers expressed concern regarding: • How to provide accurate numbers when trucks may service other cities during the day. • Revealing the number of residential accounts they hold. • Reporting tonnages when commercial containers are measured in yards. • Compost and yardwaste definitions. • A resistance to having to do any more reporting when they have to report to other agencies so much already. The outcome of the information gathered indicated some changes to the report form would be beneficial but there wasn't any direct comment regarding the language proposed in the code changes. As a result, I would recommend removing the request for the number of Edina accounts on the report form and adding a selection for reporting tonnages or yards to the form. 43 Verbal Response received from Suburban Waste Respondent: Paul Rosland August 23, 2011 Suburban did not find the requirement to be objectionable. They would not like to share the number of accounts they hold in Edina. Mr. Rosland did express concern about how to provide accurate weight amounts when a truck may provide service in Edina and another community on the same day. (Information received and reported by Solvei Wilmot, Recycling Coordinator) 44 City Of Edina Page 1 8/26/2011 Refuse Renewals 2000 RESPONSE BUS NAME BUS ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CONTACT YES Allied Waste Services 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie MN 55347 Jerome Meyers and Rich Hirstein YES Aspen Waste Systems, Inc 2951 Weeks Ave SE Minneapolis MN 55414 Thor Nelson no Atomic Recycling LLC 2301 North 2nd Street Minneapolis MN 55411 Jessica Plowman no Biff Boxes LLC 8610 Hansen Ave Shakopee Mn 55379 Derek Pauling no Buckingham Trucking 5980 Credit River Rd SE Piror Lake MN 55372 Michael Buckingham -Hayes no Dick's Sanitation Service P.O. Box 769 Lakeville MN 55044 Brett Anderson no Elite Waste Disposal 845 Corporate Drive Jordan Mn 55352 Tracy Nelson no GarbageMan of Edina LLC 220 River Ridge Circle N Burnsville MN 55372 Anthony Stamson no Keith Krupenny & Son Disposal Service Inc 1214 Hall Ave West St Paul MN 55118 Kay Krupenny no Lightning Disposal, Inc. 1725 Meadow View Rd Eagan MN 55121 Robert Nitti YES Lloyd's Construction Services, Inc. 7207 W 128th Street Savage MN 55378 Ryan Yttreness no Randy's Sanitation, Inc. P.O. Box 169 Delano MN 55328 Rhonda Saler noO Ray Anderson & Sons Co Inc Dumpster Box Sery 930 Duluth St St Paul Mn 55106 Ray Anderson YES Shamrock Disposal Inc 3280 99th Court NE Blaine MN 55449 Rich Gersdorf YES verbal Suburban Waste Services 15718 Village Woods Drive Eden Prairie MN 55347 Paul Rosland YES Tub's, Inc 715 Florida Ave S #101 Golden Valley MN 55426 David Russick YES Veit Container Corp. dba Veit Disposal Systems 14000 Veit Place Rogers Mn 55374 Barb Sedges no Veolia ES 309 Como Ave St. Paul MN 55103 Dave Zieroty YES Vierkant Disposal 6045 Xerxes Ave S Minneapolis MN 55410 Gary Vierkant YES Waste Management 1901 Ames Drive Burnsville MN 55306 Bruce Wuollet YES= an e-mailed response no= no response YES verbal = spoke on phone Page 1 Solvei Wilmot From: Meyer, Jerome < J Meyer@ repu blicservices.com > Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:13 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Reporting requirements Solvei, Good afternoon, hope you are well. I reviewed the proposed quarterly abatement form and requirements you sent over. I believe the information gathered from the form would be very useful for the City of Edina. Having reviewed the form, I came up with 1 question. As it relates to Construction Demolition Waste (CDW) I am thinking this covers new construction and the remodeling of existing structures within the City (both residential and commercial structures). Is this correct? Please respond with clarification. Other than the question above, the form will gather the information the City of Edina is looking for, Have a good day! Jerome Meyer Operations Manager Allied Waste • Eden Prairie Hauling Phone 952.946.5232 Fax • 952-946.5266 46 Solvei Wilmot From: Wuollet, Bruce <bwuollet@wm.com> Sent: Friday, July 29, 20116:28 AM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: City of Edina Code 1300 proposed changes Solvei, We have other counties and cities that do require quarterly reporting of MSW and recycling tonnages, should not be a problem if needed Bruce Wuollet District Manager Waste Management- Burnsville 1901 Ames Drive Burnsville, MN 55306 office- 952-882-2356 fax 952-435-9764 cell 612-328-7193 bwuolletAwm.com Waste Management's renewable energy projects create enough energy to power over 1 million hoanes Waste Management recycles enough paper every year to save 41 million trees. Please recycle any printed emails. 44 Solvei Wilmot From: admin <admin@vierkantdisposal.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 20118:05 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Changes to Edina City Code1300 We have one major concern, with the proposed changes to Edina City code 1300. The number of accounts that we have in the city is a very private matter and this number should not be shared with anyone especially our competitors. Roxanne Vierkant Vierkant Disposal LLC 48 Solvei Wilmot From: Hirstein, Richard<RHirstein@republicservices.com> Sent: Monday, August 22, 2011 1:35 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Response to Code Change Hello Solvei, I am writing in response to your letter dated July 26 regarding possible changes to the Edina Code 1300. Allied Waste would be strongly opposed to several of the reporting requirements that are being considered and would ask the EEC to consider other means by which to gather this information. Here is a list of objections that we would respectfully share with you, referencing the proposed 'Solid Waste Abatement Tonnage Report' that was attached to the letter you sent out to us. The "Number of Edina customers" question will most certainly be used against us by the other waste haulers in the market. They will be able to target our customers and strategically plan to take them away from us if they know exactly how many we have. I do not believe there is ANY community in the Twin Cities metro area that requires this and we would strongly oppose this. This objection is for both the residential and commercial customer base. It is likely that none of the trash haulers (or very few) that serve Edina keep EXACT tabs on the volume of trash materials that are collected in Edina. Many haulers, in fact, may provide service in Edina and Richfield and run the same truck for both communities. Many times during a route, our trash service driver will provide service in both Edina and Richfield and will not stop to empty the truck (and get it weighed) when he/she crosses the border from one city to the other. Unless there is only service in one distinct community per load, then the loads/weights/volumes will be mixed and cannot be calculated specific to that community. We believe that providing the City with monthly recycling figures is already being done and could easily be split between fibers, containers and total tons. The question of "compostable materials" would need to be further defined before we could respond to this section. We love providing these services to Edina residents and look forward to many years of service going forward. Please contact me should you have any questions. Thank you. Rich Hirstein Allied Waste Services / Republic Services Sr. Area Municipal Services Manager for Minnesota, Iowa and Wisconsin (952)946-5330 Solvei Wilmot From: Nelson, Thor <tnelson@aspenwaste.com> Sent: Friday, August 19, 20119:29 AM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Proposed Changes to City Code 1300: Aspen Review and Comments Solvei, I have reviewed the reporting form that you sent to us with a letter dated July 26, 2011. We have limited feedback as the requirements appear to be reasonable. As was pointed out on page 4 of the proposed ordinance amendments, our primary limitation is that the trucks often carry loads that cross city boundaries. This makes it impossible to attribute exact weights to the city's residential customers, but we can just do our best to estimate based on the number of households that are serviced on the route. With respect to yard waste, we have the same issue but it's even less precise. There is much greater variability in how much yard waste each household produces and trucks are even more certain to cross city boundaries. Furthermore, some of our disposal sites bill by yardage rather than tonnage so we would be making assumptions about the weight per yard. like trash, the best we can do is to make assumptions and give you our best estimates. Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback. Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. I can be reached at 612-884-8000 or tnelson@aspenwaste.com. Sincerely, Thor Nelson General Manager Aspen Waste Systems 2951 Weeks Avenue S.E. Minneapolis, MN 55414 Aspen. The clean, green way. (612) 884-8000 1 www.aspenwaste.com 5Q Solvei Wilmot From: David Russick <david.russick@tubsinc.com> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 20112:06 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: proposed reporting form Mr. Wilmot: I acknowledge receipt of your letter date July 261". Of course my first reaction was frankly somewhat negative regarding another reporting requirement. Right now our small business provides monthly reports to Hennepin County, annual reports to the MPCA, monthly audits to Hennepin, Ramsey, and Washington Counties, monthly audits to Mn Dept of Revenue. We have to apply for our regional county permit along with the individual permit for Scott County. We are required to have permits through about 10 to 15 individual communities in the metro area alone. Nonetheless, I realize all these government entities are attempting to measure the waste generated within their jurisdiction. As far as the form itself, I would suggest allowing cubic yards and tons as a unit of measurement. In our case we don't always receive a tonnage report but sometimes our collections and disposal are in cubic yards. Hennepin County has a multi page reporting form that might be useful in designing your form. For example in the recycling tonnage report they have categorized the recycling materials by line item such as tires, appliances, etc. Some of these items are then recycled by units rather than tons or even cubic yards. If you would like to see an example of the Hennepin County form, I would be glad to a mail a copy. I hope this has been helpful. David Russick TUBS, Inc. 51 Solvei Wilmot From: Ryan Yttreness <rytterness@lloyds-construction.com> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 3:43 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Solid waste tonnage report The couple problems I have with it is 1. It varies every month how much material we haul from Edina because we are a C+D hauling company and all of our work is on call basis. 2. On the reporting sheet you are looking for tonnage when a lot of CD material is dumped by the yard and not by tonnage so exact numbers would be harder to get, and as with a lot of companies we have had a lot of cut backs and I don't have the staff to start tracking more stuff. 3. The report does not say what you want this information for. What are you going to do with it? Also there is not a place to put down recycled materials if anything should be tracked it should be what your citizens recycle each year. So if you are counting votes my vote is PLEASE NO MORE REPORTING Thanks for your time Ryan Ryan Yttreness Trucking Manager Lloyd's Construction Services, Inc. Demolition I Excavation I Roll -Offs Direct: 952.567.7622 2011 Environmental Excellence Award Recipient 2011 Excellence in Ethics Recipient 2010 World Demolition Safety Award Runner -Up WwAcC p Accredited Profe%%ional Small, Woman -owned Business Enterprise www.11oyds-construction.com 51 Solvei Wilmot From: Rich Gersdorf <richg@shamrockdisposal.net> Sent: Friday, July 29, 20114:54 PM To: Solvei Wilmot Subject: Waste Tracking Good afternoon Solvei, In response to your letter dated July 26`h, 2011.1 would like to make the following comments. I own a roll -off dumpster service and periodically service home builders, remodelers, roofers and the occasional homeowner's in your city. For my particular business I don't see any reason to track and submit this kind of information to any city. When we pick up and dispose of construction/demolition materials we sometimes pay by the yard at area landfills or transfer stations which will make it hard to compile accurate tonnages. If we don't have certified weights to report what data will you actually be compiling? What purpose will this information provide the city? I need to have a better understanding of what/why you want/need this information for. I just feel that our industry is so heavily regulated & monitored that I'm not in favor of any more reporting of any kind. Thank you for reading my comments and I look forward to learning why this may be needed. Have a great day, amroc di,spo,val ' Kicli (�'crscfc�i� Sha wrock' CM'Spas,af LLC Office: 763, 780.0.104 ,F(In V 703. 7s.3. U505 "Vf0 fiik: 6 / 2,8 6 8. 04 l 9 ClffiliT ricfg@sfiamrockdisposaC.com 54 Solvei Wilmot From: Barb Sedges < BSedges@veitusa.com > Sent: Monday, August 08,201111:31 AM To: Solvei Wilmot Cc: Steve Halgren Subject: Letter of July 26, 2011 Attachments: D00080811.pdf Veit Container Corp is mainly a hauler of CDW and we do not have a set number of accounts. Also, we only have Recyclable material, Cardboard, Steel, Aluminum if it is a part of the Construction job. Our system will let me provide you with Tonnage of Material collected, Residential or Commercial but giving Number of Edina accounts will not be included in the report. I have attached a sample of the information I would supply in addition to the material as requested. Barb Sedges Accountant Direct: 763-428-6714 Office: 764-428-2242 Fax: 763-428-1334 www.VeitUSA.com -----Original Message ----- From: Veit eStudio3530c Copier Account(mailto:eStudio3530c@veitusa.comj Sent: Monday, August 08, 201111:13 AM To: Barb Sedges Subject: Send data from e-Studio3530c 08/08/201111:13 Scanned from e-Studio3530c. Date: 08/08/201111:13 Pages:3 Resolution: 200x200 DPI 54 o e July 26, 2011 Veit Container Corp. dba Veit Disposal Systems Steve Halgren 14000 Veit Place Rogers Mn 55374 To Whom It May Concern: City of Edina The Edina Energy and Environment Commission is considering changes to Edina City Code 1300 which would require refuse haulers to provide Information three or four times a year as part of the license requirement for hauling in Edina. Enclosed is the proposed reporting form that the Edina's Energy and Environment Commission is considering. This form reflects the proposed changes to Edina City Code. Please review the form and submit your comments in writing to me at swiimotC@ci.edina.mn.us by August 22, 2011. Your comments will be compiled and forwarded to the Energy and Environment Commission's Recycling and Solid Waste Working Group for their consideration on Thursday, September 1, 2011 meeting. The outcome of that meeting will be forwarded to the Energy and Environment Commission on Thursday, September 8`h, 2011, 7:00 p.m. meeting. Thank you for your input. Sincerely, Solve[ M. Wilmot, R.S. Environmental Health Specialist Recycling Coordinator Edina Health Department s_wilmot c[.edina.mn.us 952-826-0463 Enclosures: Solid Waste Abatement Report Form — Draft City of Edina Code 1300 — proposed changes Cit Hall 952-927-8861 Y FAX 952.826.0390 4801 WEST 50TH STREET TTY 952.826-0379 EOINA, MINNESOTA, 55424.1394 www.CityofEdina.corn 55 Solid Waste Abatement Tonnage Report City of Edina dine City Code 1300 Licensing requirement. Please complete and submit by the This report is required by E deadlines. Email to: swllmot@c edina mn.us or FAX 952-826-0390 Licensed Haulers Name Veit Container Corp dba Veit Disposal Systems Licensed number 2 O 11- 60 0 24 Number of trucks liconsed Two (2 ) Type of matarials hauled (please circle); or both Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) or Construction Demolition Waste (CDW) Mainly a hauler of CDW, minimal MSW. No set accounts or CDW Number of Edina accounts: Residential MSW for CDW Commercial MSW Clients based on Roll Off containers for Customers. Do not do weekly. First quarter: January, February and March Due April 30 cnW Tohs of atenal. coll�tted, M W Residential --�: Commercial second quarter: April, May, and lune Due July 30 : Cg11U , Tons.of ntaterlal coflected M W Residential Commercial Third quarter: July, August and Se�tgmber Due October 30 DW Tong of_nr+aterlal collected MiN Residential — Commercial Fourth quarter: October, November and December Due January 30 Tons of Material collected MSW CDW — Residential Commercial 56 Recycling Tonnage Report Edina Any licensed hauler that collects recycling must report the following information per Edina City Code 1300.07 Only have recyclable material if it is a art TOTAL TONS 1' quarter due April 30E�E Fibers Containers January March Totals Any licensed hauler that collects March Due by J a n -ua r 115___i TOT, October November December Totals bid material must report the following per Edina City Code 1300. 05 57 Solid Waste Abatement Tonnage Report City of Edina This report is required by Edina City Code 1300 Licensing requirement. Please complete and submit by the deadlines. Email to: swilmot@ci.edina.mn.us or FAX 952-826-0390 Licensed Haulers N Licensed number Number of trucks licensed Type of matarials hauled (please circle): Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) or Construction Demolition Waste (CDW) or both Indicate if reporting in: tonnages or yards First quarter: January, February and March Due April 30 Tons of material collected MSW CDW Residential Commercial Second quarter: April, May and June Due July 30 Tons of material collected MSW CDW Residential Commercial Third quarter: July, August and September Due October 30 Tons of material collected MSW CDW Residential Commercial Fourth quarter: October, November and December Due January 30 Tons of material collected MSW CDW Residential Commercial 58 Recycling Tonnage Report Edina Any licensed hauler that collects recycling must report the following information per Edina City Code 1300.07 P Quarter due April 30 Fibers Containers TOTAL TONS January February March Totals 2ndQuarter due July 30 Fibers Containers TOTAL TONS April May June Totals P Quarter due Oct. 30 Fibers Containers TOTAL TONS July August September Totals 4 th Quarter due Jan. 30 Fibers Containers TOTAL TONS October November December Totals Compostable Materials Any licensed hauler that collects compostable material must report the following per Edina City Code 1300.05 Due by May 15 TOTAL TONS January February March April Totals Due by January 15 TOTAL TONS September October November December Totals Due by September 15 TOTAL TONS May June July August Totals 59 Comments Received from Community Health Committee on Turf Management Plan From: Kumar Belanif mai Ito: kumarbelani(abamail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 201111:09 AM To: Sherry Engelman Cc: aiaureshi(cbhotmail.com;. peterson9818(&msn.com; ebsifferlin@comcast.net; gjjohnson3(&comcast.net; jeffbartleson(&gmail.com; jbeuerlein020)yahoo.com; mellurnJulie gmail.com; kingstonm(dcomcast.nely mdoscolCcbyahoo.com;. winklavelle(abcomcast.net Subject: Re: FW: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Good improvements. I commend the changes and hope they more completely move over to organic control of all the "pests". Kumar Belani, MD From: Matthew Doscotch [mailto:mdoscol(cbyahoo.coml Sent: Saturday, August 06, 20112:22 PM To: Sherry Engelman Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan Sherry, I had a couple additional comments to those I already provided. I noticed that Countryside Park remained a "B" when it has play structures adjacent to the green space for toddlers 2-4 ages (an age group with a potentially higher likelihood of herbicide ingestion). It seems the type of play structures adjacent the park should be taken into consideration for the categorization. Did the Task Force consider whether more city employee time was needed to apply the organics compared to the traditional herbicides? I read some information that indicated that depending on the organic it may take several applications in a single season to control weed growth. Did the Task Force consider conducting a pilot program at a few locations to assess cost/time maintenance and effectiveness? This may be a good option as a first step to the modification of the Turf Management Plan. Julie Mellum — Testified at a Turf Management Task Force meeting that she had been impacted in the spring in multiple years by a chemical from an unknown source when she walked along the Bredesen walking path. As an asthmatic, she is negatively impacted by chemicals such as 2-4-D and requests that such chemicals not be used. 60 Turf Management Task Force Comments 8-22-11 From: Dianne Plunkett Latham [mailto:Dianne.Plunkett.Latham@Comcast.net] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20113:38 PM To: 'German P'; 'John Keprios' Cc: 'Ed MacHolda'; 'Sherry Engelman'; 'Joseph Hulbert'; 'Ellen Jones'; 'Mary Jo Kingston'; 'Vince Cockriel'; 'Jesse Struve'; 'Scott Neal'; 'Karen M. Kurt'; Jan Johnson (G]Johnson3@comcast.net) Subject: RE: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan 8-22-11 Thank you for your comments John, Vince and Germana. I will add these comments to the 9-8-11 EEC agenda for discussion. EEC has also received a comment from Health Commissioner Jan Johnson requesting that Bredesen Park be added to the C/O category. At the 8-11-11 EEC meeting, EEC voted to adopt Ms Johnson's recommendation and added Bredesen to the C/O category, as well as adding the boulevards surrounding Bredesen Park to the C/O category given that these boulevards are adjacent to the walking and biking trails at Bredesen. The balance of the Community Health Committee's comments will be forwarded to me by Sept. 9. John - Please keep the Turf Management Task Force report on the Sept. 13 Park Board agenda as I have scheduled the task force report on the Sept. 20 EEC/City Council work session agenda and the Park Board's comments are important to the deliberation. Thank you to all for your efforts in updating the Turf Management Plan. Dianne Plunkett Latham Chair, Edina Energy & Environment Commission 7013 Comanche Ct Edina MN 55439-1004 952-941-3542 From: Germana P (mai Ito: germana.paterlini@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 22, 20112:14 PM To: John Keprios Cc: Dianne Plunkett Latham; Ed MacHolda; Sherry Engelman; Joseph Hulbert; Ellen ]ones; Mary Jo Kingston; Vince Cockriel; Jesse Struve; Scott Neal; Karen M. Kurt Subject: Re: EEC Proposed Revisions to the Turf Management Plan John, thank you for your comments. Please see my reply below: On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 8:47 AM, John Keprios <1Keprios@ci.edina.mn.us> wrote: Dianne, 61 Thank you and the EEC for suggesting updates to the Turf Management Plan. Vince Cockriel and I have reviewed the suggested changes and additions and we both agree on the following concerns: • Under the section titled "Terminology," the following sentence should be removed; "Organic herbicides have low or no toxicity for humans and animals and break down rapidly in the environment after application." It is not necessary to put statements such as that within the Turf Management Plan because it suggests that we have data to support such statements that other studies could challenge and become controversial whereas there is no benefit in making such a statement. This is not an ad hoc statement: according to the EPA: "No adverse effects to humans are known or expected from use of corn gluten meal in pesticide products. (see their website for corn gluten) We use the EPA as our standard in all our statements. • Similarly, we recommend removal of the sentence under the section titled "Turf Management Task Force" that states; "Organic herbicides have been shown to be as an effective non-toxic alternative for lawn care." Again, there are likely studies including our own experience with organic herbicides whose results would challenge that statement. See above • Under the section titled "Turf Management Task Force" there is a sentence stating that "Signs will be posted near children play areas to make it known that they have not been chemically treated. " Vince and I oppose that practice for a number of reasons but mainly because we feel it is bad practice. We believe it is wasteful to place signs in the parks for the sole purpose of educating the public about what we don't do. It also suggests that we should therefore place signs in every park area where we do not apply pesticides. Philosophically speaking, I categorically oppose having any more signs in our parks than is truly needed and necessary. I do strongly believe that it is our charge to be the best stewards of the environment possible; however, I am cautious about promoting "causes" via signage throughout the parks. The goal of the ECC is to educate the public that natural beauty can be achieved without the use of unnecessary chemicals (toxic or not). The purpose of the sign is to demonstrate this philosophy, not to scare the residents. We can work together in wording the signs. • Under the "Weed Tolerance Classification for City of Edina Owned Property" section, we have concern about the new proposed "Category O." The last two sentences state that "These areas shall either be treated with organics, or revert to category C. These areas are indicated below as O/C." We suggest that instead it read; "These areas shall either be treated with organics, or revert to category B. These areas are indicated below as O/B." EEC's proposed language suggests that if organic treatments are not effective then these athletic fields must live under a 100% tolerance for weeds. As stated early in the Turf Management Plan, "in some cases, a weed dominated turf can lead to unsafe or intolerable turf conditions for certain turf users, such as softball, baseball, soccer and football players and golfers." The EEC's Turf Management Task Force is recommending that it is appropriate and acceptable for specific scheduled and non-scheduled athletic fields to become 10016 weed tolerant. We don't support that recommendation and believe it to be contrary to the community's expectations and best interests. This will water down the intent of the revisions and of the original Turf Management Policy • We agree that the Van Valkenburg Park off -leash dog area be added to the updated version as a "Category C" that is 100% tolerant for weeds and never sprayed for weed. OK 62 We agree that the Edina Park Maintenance Department should change its practice to ensure that the Turf Management Plan is followed in accordance with the policy. Any deviations from the Turf Management Plan must be a directive from the Edina City Council to alter the plan and/or practice. Those changes in policy will then become part of the public record. Do you wish to have this matter on the September 13, 2011 Park Board agenda or wait until the October 11th meeting? My recommendation is for the Park Board to vote ASAP. But I refer the decision to Dianne Best Regards, Germana John Keprios, Park & Recreation Director A� 952-826-0430 1 Fax 952-826-0385 JKeorios@ci.edina.mmus I www.EdinaParks.com ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business 63 Edina Public Works Landscaping: Unlike its Neighbors By John Howard The landscaping of the new Edina Public Works and Maintenance building certainly does not look like its neighbors. When the department moved to their new building, they decided to take a natural approach, which also greatly reduces the required maintenance. The native plants that were put in are well adapted to Minnesota's conditions and therefore need little to no watering, fertilizing or other care. The landscaping was designed by the Kestrel Design Group, and Applied Ecological Services installed the native landscaping and will tend the grounds for the next couple of years until the native plants fill in. By no means is the natural landscape just a random hodgepodge. It is actually a carefully designed mix of three different eco -types: Native low growing grasses, upland prairie, and wetland. The seeds and plants for the eco -types are breed from local plants (within 150 miles), insuring the plants have a similar genetic identity to the historical inhabitants of the area. The native low growing grasses will likely develop into the most visible section of the grounds as they run along the sidewalk and three sides of the building. Unfortunately the native low growing grass plantings are not yet in full force. In theory, these areas will be covered by blue grama grass and buffalo grass in the not so distant future. These grasses have a slightly different growing structure and color than turf grass but still maintain a short stature. Until they become established, Applied Ecological Services will be trimming down the weeds on a monthly basis. Potentially the most distinct aspect of the new landscaping is the upland prairie, which runs up a small berm on the northeast corner of the property. This piece contains 30 or so species, some with interesting names like yarrow and blazing star - a favorite of Monarch butterflies. Right now many annual weed species are fighting for space, but with proper management, the native perennials should take over in the next few years, according to Matt Lasch of Applied Ecological Services. Once the natives become the dominant species, the grounds will need little maintenance. The rain garden is currently the shining gem of the landscaping. It is full, green, and helps clean and infiltrate water runoff from the parking lot before it enters the water table. A conventional design would just direct the runoff into the city storm sewer system. Applied Ecological Services expects in the near future that the rain garden will be home to a variety of species of birds and amphibians, and maybe even some small mammals. Butterflies already have made themselves at home. If you want a lower maintenance yard, or just want a more natural looking lawn, you too can put in native vegetation. To learn more, consider attending a tour of the Public Works landscaping this fall. Please contact mnbuckthornAgmail.com for details on the tours. Applied Ecological Services can be contacted at 952 -447 - AAAA ..-.—:aa�...:-.....�...:a.. Photos taken by Paul Thompson On Left — Matt Lash in Edina Public Works prairie On Right — Edina Public Works Prairie John Howard is a member of the Edina Energy & Environment Commission's Education & Outreach Working Group 64 City of Edina Water Quality Working Group Energy & Environment Commission Minutes of June 16, 2011 7:00-8:30 pm Edina City Hall — Community Room Present: Todd Doroff, Laura Eaton, Nina Holiday -Lynch, Bill Johnson, Jon Moon, and Susan Sheridan Tucker May 16th Minutes approved by Committee 1. A brief report presented by Susan to update the group on EEC activities: • Green Corps Intern —funding was cut. Intern will no longer be available. • Eco Yard Tour scheduled for July 31, 2011 from 1-5pm will feature 5 homes in Edina who have incorporated some environmental best practices into their residential properties. Jon Moon's house will feature rain barrels. • Nina is available to work one of the shifts. • Todd collected brochures from Claire Bleser at Nine Mile Creek and related materials that will provide tour attendees to learn how they might incorporate rain barrels, rain gardens into their properties. We'll raffle 2 or 3 books. 2. We had a freewheeling discussion around using neighborhood groups and to begin strategizing educational opportunities in the fall and winter with 9 Mile Creek and Minnehaha Watershed. FOCUS OF WATER QUALITY WORKING GROUP GreenSteps City Program — BMPs - Water Quality Working Group Efficient Storm Water Management #17 Step 1— City of Edina completing the Blue Star assessment (this is a new addition as of 9.6.2010) Step 4 — creating fee plan to incentive less water usage. Step 5 — researching design & guideline standards for rain gardens, green roofs, and green parking lots. Step 6 — Adopt/modify Stormwater Erosion & Sediment Control Ordinance. Surface Water Quality #19 Step 3 — Assemble a reliable working group to monitor the water quality of Arrowhead and Indianhead Lakes. Step 4 — Adopt a shoreline ordinance consistent with Department of Natural Resources (DNR). 65 Figure 2. Conceptual Site Model Primary Secondary Potential Receptors Primary Release Secondary Release Exposure Exposure Staff Students Recreational Surface Water Sources Mechanism Source Mechanism Media Route Users Quality Off -Site Dermal Sediment Contact Off -Site Ingestion Storm Water Dermal 0 ■ ■ Rainfall/ L —4Contact Runoff SoilJ.- Inhalation ■ ■ ■ Dermal Coal Tar Weathering�J Dust/ Asphalt Contact ■ ■ Sealant Abrasion'" Flakes Ingestion � � ■ WindF i Air Inhalation of ■ ■ ■ PM ■ - Potentially complete exposure pathway. © - Incomplete or insignificant exposure pathway. Note: PM = Particulate matter 1 = Weathering by sun, rain, wind, and freezing. 2 = Abraision by foot traffic, autos, and other site use activities From: Vince Cockriel Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 20118:29 AM To: John Keprios Cc: Solvei Wilmot; Bob Prestrud Subject: Recycling Containers John, As you know, we have been monitoring the contents of the new recycling containers on a regular basis since the seasonal help arrived in mid- June. This monitoring consisted of emptying the containers and seeing what the contents consisted of. The start date of the monitoring was June 215`. That date was chosen for two reasons. The first reason being the fact that the containers were new to the two test parks and we wanted to give the park users a chance to get used to them before we monitored them. The second reason was that we are fully staffed by mid-June. The results of the monitoring are as follows: Lewis Park -Checked Etimes from June 21St to August 29th. Contaminated 34 times. Clean 14 times. Pamela Park -Checked. times from June 21St to August 29th. Contaminated 31 times. Clean 17 times. The cumulative times the containers were emptied is M The number of times they were contaminated is 65. Over 60% of the time the containers are contaminated. The size, shape, color, signage or location within the parks doesn't seem to make any difference in the recycling compliance. The contaminated containers were simply dumped into the dumpsters with the rest of the garbage. The clean. containers were put into the recycling dumpsters. Monitoring the recycling containers is labor intensive. Adding and emptying recycling containers that end up being garbage containers is also labor intensive. If purchased with City of Edina funds, the recycling containers that we are currently using are 6 to 8 times more expensive than the garbage containers that we are currently using. Hopefully this information will be helpful as we go forward. VC Save Money, Save Energy, Stay Comfortable Home Energy Awareness Class: "From Outlets to Ice Dams" Edina Community Education Services Interested in lowering your utility bills? Reducing energy waste in your home keeps your house healthy, your family comfortable—and saves money, too! This class will cover easy and practical ways to make your home more energy efficient, from the best technology to the best habits. Attendees to this class will receive a $20 discount on a Home Energy Squad visit that installs a range of high-quality energy saving materials. For information on Class #9015 "From Outlets to Ice Dams" go to www.edinacommunityed.org or call 952 848 3952 For more information on saving energy: www. mnenergychallenge.org