STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Transcription

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED ELK RIVER LANDFILL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE GENERATOR D SHERBURNE COUNTY ELK RIVER, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview The Elk River Landfill, Inc. (ERL or Landfill), in conjunction with Elk River Municipal Utilities (ERMU) proposes to expand a landfill gas-to-energy plant by adding a fourth internal combustion engine (ICE) generator set. The plant currently uses landfill gas (LFG) to fuel three ICE generator sets and produce electricity that is distributed by ERMU. The new ICE generator set would be installed within the footprint of the ERL gas-to-energy building, located on site of the ERL. Permitting History The ERL is a mixed municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal landfill permitted by the MPCA under Solid Waste Permit SW-74 and a Title V Air Permit The Landfill is also licensed by both Sherburne County and the city of Elk River. The ERL has an overall waste disposal capacity exceeding 2,500,000 cubic meters and is, therefore, subject to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for MSW landfills. Under the NSPS and corresponding MPCA regulations, landfills with design capacities greater than 2.5 million megagrams (Mg) and the potential to emit greater than 50 Mg of non-methanogenic organic compounds (NMOCs) per year are required to obtain air permits and operate active gas collection and control systems. The ERL s current active gas system consists of 40 extraction wells operating continuously to extract the LFG for destruction in three existing ICE generator sets (producing electricity for the community) or in an enclosed flare located next to the ERL gas-to-energy plant. The NSPS regulations require 98 percent control efficiency of collected NMOCs. The Title V Air Quality Permit was issued on March 29, A permit modification is required to allow construction of the fourth ICE generator set and, as a result, increased air emissions from the engines. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 Previous Environmental Review No previous environmental review has been prepared on this proposal. The three existing ICE generator sets were approved for installation in 2001 and began operation in November By limiting the number of sets to three and by taking credit for emission reductions from removing the previously-installed Waukesha engine, the potential emissions from the 2001 project were kept below the mandatory EAW threshold of 100 tons/year (Minn. R , subp. 15). However, because construction of the 2001 project commenced less than three years before submittal of the application for the proposed project, the MPCA considers the two projects to be a phased action as defined in Minn. R , subp. 60. Therefore, the potential emissions increase from all four ICE generator sets exceeds the mandatory EAW threshold requiring the completion of an EAW. The EAW addressed the potential air quality impacts of all four ICE generator sets combined (Project). The ERL is also proposing to expand operations at its existing MSW disposal facility by developing 73.7 acres currently used by an active gravel mining operation located immediately south, adjacent to and as a contiguous part, of the existing ERL property. The proposed landfill expansion, known as the Southern Development Area (SDA) will provide approximately 15,000,000 cubic yards of additional MSW disposal capacity and extend the operational life of the ERL years, depending on waste flow quantities. The MPCA, the responsible governmental unit, is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed SDA. The EIS is being prepared as a mandatory EIS under the requirements of Minn. R , subp. 13 (E) for expansion by 25 percent or more of a previous capacity of an MSW disposal facility for 100,000 cubic yards or more of waste fill per year. The Scoping EAW and Scoping Decision Document for the SDA project were placed on public notice in November The final scope was approved by the MPCA Citizens Board on January 25, The Draft EIS was public noticed on October 24, Completion of the EIS is scheduled for February PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction/Proposed Modification The purpose of the Project is to provide additional capacity to convert LFG into energy. LFG is collected and used to fuel the Caterpillar 3516 internal combustion engines for the generation of electricity that is, in turn, distributed by the local electrical utility (ERMU). It is estimated that approximately 2,500 homes will be supplied with electricity from the four engines combined. The Project is used to control LFG emissions, while providing a beneficial use in the form of electricity. The volume of gas generated at the ERL is such that there is sufficient gas generated to support the installation of the fourth identical ICE generator set. The new ICE generator set would be installed entirely within the existing LFG-to-energy plant building, where space was reserved for the future installation of the fourth engine. A new exhaust stack, reaching a height of 26 feet, would be added to match the stacks of the existing three engines. Installation of the new engine would not result in any physical changes to the area around the LFG-to-energy plant. Very small quantities of waste material, such as packing material, and scrap pieces of pipe and electrical wiring, would result due to construction associated with the new engine. Installation of the new engine would be completed in approximately April/May of 2006, with the period of construction lasting approximately two months. Environmental Concerns The proposed increase in air emissions represents the most significant impact associated with this Project. 2

3 Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters MPCA received two comment letters on the EAW, from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and from the Minnesota Historical Society. However, the comment letters did not list any environmental concerns about the Project. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 15, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on November 7, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to the news media in the area on November 7, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 7, 2005, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at on November 9, The public comment period for the EAW began on November 7, 2005, and ended on December 9, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received two comment letters from government agencies and received no comment letters from citizens. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received and the corresponding responses have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R (2003), the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R , subp. 7 (2003). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs. THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW 3

4 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7.A (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to air quality: A. air emissions; B. odors; and C. noise. 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Air emissions 1. An analysis of the potential increases in the emission of air pollutants has been performed in conjunction with the ERL s application for an Air Quality Permit modification. The following list provides an estimate of the potential air emissions (in tons per year) from the four ICE generator sets: Particulate matter 6.6 Particulate matter smaller than 10 microns 6.6 Sulfur dioxide 2.0 Nitrogen oxides 64.8 Volatile organic compounds 1.2 Carbon monoxide Hazardous air pollutants An air dispersion modeling assessment was completed as part of the permit application to determine compliance with National and Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards. The air dispersion modeling showed that no criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards would be violated at the ERL from the Project. Fully refined air dispersion modeling was needed to demonstrate that the particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM 10 ) emissions would meet the 24-hour ambient standards. PM 10 comes from the fugitive dust emissions (dozers and truck traffic), the ICE generators, and the flare. 4

5 3. A quantitative air emissions risk analysis (AERA) was prepared for the Project using emission factors from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the internal combustion engine manufacturer, and the California Air Toxic Emission Factor (CATEF) database. Refined dispersion modeling was then performed to estimate the maximum air concentrations of these pollutants. The results of the analysis showed health risks to be slightly above thresholds; however, due to the conservative nature of the analysis, the Project is not expected to pose unacceptable risks to the public. The maximum modeled impacts from the Project were located along the eastern property boundary. B. Odors 1. In response to odors noted in the area of the LFG-to-energy plant, the ERL and ERMU did a series of odor tests of major point sources in the vicinity of the plant. The exhaust stacks and the breather vent from the ICE generator sets were tested and found to be a potential source of the odors. The odor sampling indicated that the crank case breather vent was a significant source of odors from the facility. 2. The ERL and ERMU are mitigating the odors with an odor control device nicknamed the Smog Hog, which will be installed on the crank case breather vent. This control device is expected to significantly reduce the emissions and odors from this source. C. Noise The ICE generator sets are contained within a closed and insulated building, mitigating noise from the continuously operating engines. Since the LFG-to-energy plant is located on ERL property, there are no noise receptors near the plant. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from the Project would be reversible. As discussed above, the potential effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 10. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality: The MPCA did not receive any comment letters expressing concerns about the potential effects on air quality. 11. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. 12. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions. 5

6 Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 13. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7.B (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 14. Currently, the three ICE generator sets operate at approximately cubic feet per minute (cfm) each to a total of 900-1,050 cfm. The existing enclosed flare has the capacity to combust 2,000 cfm of LFG, but the current Title V Air Permit pre-authorizes a modification to increase the flare s capacity to 3,000 cfm. With the addition of the fourth engine, the combined capacity of the combustion equipment can reach approximately 4,400 cfm. The ERL does not anticipate a need to increase the capacity of the flare for at least two years, and most likely, not for another five years. However, the air dispersion modeling and AERA performed for this Project assumed the flare operating at its maximum future design capacity of 3,000 cfm. 15. The air dispersion modeling and AERA analysis also conservatively included potential emissions projected for the expansion of the ERL. If the ERL expands into the SDA area, the ERL may need to expand the current gas control facilities at some point before the ERL closes. Other possible reasons for an increase in LFG generation include higher than expected mixed MSW acceptance rates and the recirculation of leachate (conducted as a pilot study at the ERL). 16. Public comments concerning cumulative impacts: There were no public comments concerning cumulative impacts on the proposed Project. 17. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the Project, including the EAW, the air emissions permit application, and information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this the ERL. 18. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this Project will not be significant. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 19. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7.C (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 6

7 20. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA Air Emission Permit, amendment of permit Pending B. City of Elk River Building Permit To be submitted 21. Description of the Permits/Approvals Required: A. Air Emission Permit. The Air Emission Permit for the facility would contain operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects. B. Building Permit. Building permits and inspections insure that the Project will be constructed or installed in accordance with city ordinances and codes. 22. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 23. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Minn. R , subp. 7.D (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 24. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Elk River LFG-to-energy facility. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the Project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information. completed EAW data portion; Air Permit Application - air emissions calculations, refined air dispersion modeling, fully refined air dispersion modeling for PM 10 ; and AERA for the Project - emissions for air toxics based on stack testing (2003), AP-42 documents, and CATEF database. 25. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the Project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 26. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 7

8 27. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this Project. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Elk River Landfill Internal Combustion Engine D EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this Project. 28. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project design and permits. The Project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards. 29. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (2003), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Project. 30. An EIS is not required. 31. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Elk River Landfill Internal Combustion Engine D project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Sheryl A. Corrigan, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 8

9 Appendix A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Elk River Landfill Internal Combustion Engine D Environmental Assessment Worksheet COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED 1. Matt Langan, Environmental Planner, Environmental Review Unit, Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated December 7, Britta L. Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historical Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received December 14, RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Matt Langan, Environmental Planner, Environmental Review Unit, Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated December 7, Comment 1-1 : The Department of Natural Resources determined from a natural resources management perspective that the project does not appear to have the potential for significant environmental effects, and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. Response : No response required. 2. Britta Bloomberg, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, State Historical Preservation Office, Minnesota Historical Society. Letter received December 14, Comment 2-1: Based on our review of the project information, we conclude that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project.

10 Response: Comment noted. No response required. Comment 2-2: Please note that this comment letter does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36CFR800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the protection of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Response: Comment noted and will be forwarded to the Project proposer. 2