STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

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 ANDERSEN CORPORATION - PROJECT XL WASHINGTON COUNTY BAYPORT, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Pursuant to Minn. R (2001), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Andersen Corporation - Project XL (Project XL) proposal. Based on the MPCA 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,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview Andersen Corporation (Andersen) manufactures clad wood windows and patio doors. Andersen has operated in the St. Croix Valley since Its main manufacturing plant is at 100 Fourth Avenue North in, along the St. Croix River. Permitting History The MPCA first issued an air emission permit for this Facility in The Facility has received numerous air emission construction permits and water quality permits since that time. Previous Environmental Review The main plant has had no previous EAWs; however, an EAW was prepared in 1995 for another site, referred to as Andersen West. Compliance/Enforcement History No recent enforcement actions have been taken against this Facility. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project Andersen proposes to obtain a permit from the MPCA under the Environmental Protection Agency s (EPA) Project XL initiative. The permit for Andersen s Project XL proposal would be issued under Minn. Stat. 114C, which authorizes a Project XL pilot in Minnesota. This permit would be a multimedia permit. It will include the requirements of air quality, water quality, solid waste, and hazardous waste regulations. The permit will implement the terms of a Final Project Agreement (FPA). The FPA was negotiated among Andersen, the EPA, the MPCA, Washington County, and the Andersen Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The FPA establishes the framework for a permit (Minnesota XL Permit) where Andersen has committed to continuing superior environmental performance in exchange for regulatory flexibility. The permit will allow Andersen to expedite efforts to convert production of window and door TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 components to more environmentally efficient processes, resulting in fewer volatile organic compound emissions than traditional wood treatment and coating processes. Environmental Concerns Environmental concerns include the potential for air emissions, odors, noise and water quality impacts to surface or ground water. Permitting Requirements Required permits are listed in Finding 2 below. These permits will mandate that Project XL operates in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 15.A., an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2001), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on September 12, 2003, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to interested parties on September 15, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on September 15, The EAW was available for review on the MPCA Web site at on September 12, The public comment period for the EAW began on September 15, 2003, and ended on November 1, The MPCA received four comment letters from government agencies and one from a member of the public during the 45-day public comment period. 4. An open house informational meeting on the proposed project was held on October 9, 2003 from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. 5. The MPCA prepared responses to all EAW comments received during the 45-day public comment period. The list of comment letters received has been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 6. Under Minn. R , subp. 1 (2001), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (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 (2001). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; 2

3 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 Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 7. 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 (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 8. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality: A. Air Emissions B. Odors C. Noise 9. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: A. Air Emissions Andersen s air emissions are from milling, combustion, coating, and vinyl operations. The proposed XL Project will not result in significant changes in the types of air emissions. The types of operations at the facility will remain the same after the proposed project, therefore the types of air emissions in the future would continue to be from milling, coating, combustion, and vinyl operations. As part of the project, Andersen has demonstrated compliance with National and Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate matter less than ten microns in size (PM 10 ). This analysis was conducted by air dispersion modeling. Andersen conducted an Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) in accordance with the MPCA Air Toxics Review Guide. The AERA addressed maximum hourly and annual emission rates for all substances emitted by the facility. The emissions were addressed either quantitatively, if there were toxicity values available, or qualitatively, if there were no toxicity values available. The results of the analysis were within the Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. Proposed permit limits for air emissions are as follows: 3

4 Pollutant Maximum Emission Caps (tons/year) Total PM Milling PM Non-milling PM VolatileOrganic Compound (VOC) 2,379 Total B. Odors The existing Andersen facility generates odors. Odors are not expected to increase as a result of this project as the types of operations that generate odors will remain substantially similar to current operations. C. Noise The existing Andersen facility generates noise. Noise is not expected to increase as a result of this project as the types of operations that generate noise will remain substantially similar to current operations. 10. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: The MPCA finds that any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur would be reversible. Any air emissions or noise that are released to the atmosphere would not be recovered, but further emissions or noise could be stopped, if necessary. However, as discussed above, there is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect 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. 13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality are: A. Surface-water runoff B. Wastewater C. Ground-water contamination 14. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: 4

5 A. Surface-water Runoff The quantity and quality of the runoff at the site is expected to remain the same before and after the project, as no substantial physical changes are planned for the site. The St. Croix River is the receiving water body for runoff from the site. No negative impacts are expected from runoff as a result of this project. B. Wastewater The facility generates wastewater that is discharged to the Bayport Municipal sanitary sewer system. This wastewater is in two categories, municipal (domestic) and industrial. The quantities or types of wastewater are not anticipated to change as a result of this project as the types of operations that generate wastewater will remain substantially similar to current operations. The Facility discharges non-contact cooling water that conforms to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit requirements to the St. Croix River. The non-contact cooling water does gain heat and the maximum temperature permitted is 86 degrees Fahrenheit. The clarity is better than the river water. No additional impact from cooling water is anticipated as a result of Project XL. C. Ground-Water Contamination Andersen has nine registered underground chemical storage tanks. In addition, Andersen has 29 aboveground chemical storage tanks. All underground storage vessels have secondary containment and leak monitoring equipment. All aboveground storage vessels have secondary containment. The nature of the materials and the storage volumes are not expected to change as a result of this project. 15. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would not be irreversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality as indicated in Findings 14.A, B, and C. 16. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 17. The MPCA finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 18. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential 5

6 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. (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 19. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. 20. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including the EAW, the Permit application, and information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project. 21. 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 22. 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 (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 23. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA, EPA, Washington Final Project Agreement (FPA) Completed June 20, County, and Andersen 1999 B. MPCA, Washington County, and Emergency Response Commission FPA Addendum Minnesota XL Permit C. MPCA and EPA State Implementation Plan Variance (for State Calculation Method for Modifications under VOC Plantwide Applicability Limit and Non-milling PM Cap) In Progress In Progress In Progress 24. A. MPCA EPA, Washington County, and Andersen - (FPA) The FPA was negotiated between Andersen, the EPA, the MPCA, Washington County, and the Andersen CAC. The FPA establishes the framework for a permit (Minnesota XL Permit) where Andersen has committed to continuing superior environmental performance in exchange for regulatory flexibility. The FPA was signed June 30, During the summer of 2003, an addendum to the FPA was negotiated that clarifies the legal basis for this project in light of recent changes to federal New Source Review air regulations. The Addendum is expected to be signed by all parties by the end of December,

7 B. MPCA, Washington County, and Emergency Response Commission - Minnesota XL Permit The Minnesota XL Permit is a five-year, multi-media environmental permit that will cover air, water and waste issues. This means that Andersen s existing permits, which are currently separate for each regulated waste type, would be consolidated into one permit. The XL Permit will contain monitoring and reporting requirements as well as operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment that will help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects. C. MPCA and EPA For air emission changes that fall below the thresholds in Federal New Source Review regulations, the MPCA will issue a variance to establish an alternative applicability limit to streamline State permit process requirements. The state variance must also be approved by EPA as a modification to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan. 25. 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. 26. 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 (2001). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 27. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed project. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commenters, staff experience, and other available information. EAW dated September 11, 2003; and Permit application, related application submittals including air dispersion modeling and AERA, and the draft Minnesota XL multi-media permit. 28. 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. 29. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and the MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that can reasonably be expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 30. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the 7

8 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. 31. 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. 32. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (2001), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project. 33. An EIS is not required. 34. 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 Andersen Corporation Project XL proposal 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 B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Andersen Corporation Project XL Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Brigid Gombold, Minnesota Department of Transportation Letter received - October 1, 2003 Comment 1-1. The proposed project should have little or no impact on Mn/DOT s highway system at this time. Response 1-1. The comment is noted. 2. Ron Van Zee, Bayport resident Letter received October 15, 2003 Comment 2-1. The environmental impact upon those living in Bayport is significant. Response 2-1. While Andersen has been, and remains, one of the larger sources of air emissions in the Bayport area, the proposed Project XL permit will establish facility-wide emission limits for the first time. Air dispersion modeling and an Air Emissions Risk Analysis of the proposed air emissions indicated that air emissions from the facility meet MPCA requirements and Minnesota Department of Health guidelines. Comment 2-2. The commenter expressed concerns about the public involvement aspect of the EAW process, specifically noting that only five or six people from the community attended the open house on the EAW on October 9, Response 2-2. The MPCA regrets that so few people attended the open house. The meeting was announced in the EQB Monitor in the public notice announcement for the EAW, in a press release which the MPCA understands was picked up by local media, and in the EAW mailing. The mailing list for the EAW included 133 individuals or organizations, which is considerably more than average. Comment 2-3. I can therefore, with some reservation, give my approval and comment in favor of the XL permit as it exists up to the EAW review but cannot comment favorably on the outcome following this benchmark. Response 2-3. The comment is noted. 3. Britta L. Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society - Letter received October 17, 2003 Comment 3-1. Based on the MHS review of the project information, 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. Response 3-1. The comment is noted.

10 Washington County Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 4. Diane K. Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Letter received October 28, 2003 Comment 4-1. The DNR noted in Item 11 that the text should read, The St. Croix River harbors many species of game and fish, rather than...game and rough fish. The river is home to many species of sport and underutilized or rough fish. For the purposes of the EAW, there is no reason to distinguish between them. Response 4-1. The MPCA regrets the error and appreciates the clarification. Comment 4-2. The St. Croix River contains a diverse community of freshwater mussels, including but not limited to the rare species listed in Item 11b. Response 4-2. The comment is noted. No significant impacts to the St. Croix River are anticipated as a result of the Project XL proposal. 5. Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council Letter received October 29, 2003 Comment 5-1. Council staff review finds that the Andersen Corporation Project XL EAW is complete and accurate with respect to regional concerns and raises no major issues of consistency with Council policies. An EIS is not necessary for regional purposes. Response 5-1. The comment is noted.