ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE OLMSTED WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY: MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR UNIT 3 PROJECT ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT The Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility: (Project) came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for an adequacy decision on November 28, 2006. After affording all interested persons the opportunity to present written and oral data, statements to the MPCA, after reviewing the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), and considering all of the evidence in the records, files, and proceedings herein, the MPCA, being fully advised, hereby makes the following,, and Order. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The Olmsted County Public Works (OCPW) is proposing to expand the Olmsted Waste-to-Energy Facility (OWEF). The OWEF site is located on the east side of Rochester in Olmsted County (County). The facility is situated along the west side of Silver Creek Road and the south side of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad, approximately 0.4 miles north of College View Road East (County Road 9). 2. The OCPW is proposing to install one new municipal waste combustor (MWC) with a proposed capacity of 200 tons per day, doubling the capacity of the existing plant. The facility currently processes over 62,000 tons of municipal solid waste (MSW) annually, using two MWC s of 100 tons per day capacity each. The energy recovered from this process is used to provide steam, electricity, and chilled water service to a district energy system serving 26 buildings. The proposed MWC Unit 3 would also operate in a co-generation mode, simultaneously producing steam for district heating/cooling and electrical power. This arrangement maximizes the overall thermal efficiency of the waste-to-energy system. 3. The building housing the new unit will be constructed on the west side of the existing OWEF in a flat area that is covered with gravel and grass. The proposed cooling tower is to be constructed in a grassed area on the north side of the facility. The new condenser and cooling tower will be installed to serve as the related heat sink. 4. A new steam turbine generator is also proposed and it will have a five-mega-watt (gross) rating. Electrical power produced in excess of that required by directly connected loads will continue to be sold to the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency. The steam turbine generator will be equipped with extraction ports at pressures correlating to the steam pressures in the existing plant and District Energy System so that it will be fully compatible with the existing plant. New balance of plant auxiliary equipment will be installed to serve the proposed MWC Unit 3, including new boiler feed pumps, new condensate pumps, and a new deaerating feed tank.
5. The proposed MWC Unit 3 will be equipped with a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) like the ones installed for MWC Units 1 and 2. Those systems are capable of monitoring carbon monoxide, inlet/outlet sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentrations, opacity, oxygen (used as a diluent measurement), steam flow, fabric filter inlet temperature, powdered activated carbon feed rate, and stack gas flow (for SO2 @ mass emission limits). The proposed MWC Unit 3 CEMS will include the addition of a nitrogen oxide monitor. The existing CEMS enclosure is of sufficient size to accommodate the additional equipment. 6. Building systems that will need to be expanded into the new area include lighting, heating, electrical power, service air, service water, communications, and fire protection. The amount of surface area disturbed during construction is expected to be less than 1.0 acre. 7. The existing ash system will be expanded to handle the ash produced by the proposed MWC Unit 3. Some modifications will be necessary, but the capacities of the existing system are sufficient to serve the proposed MWC Unit 3, so these modifications will be relatively minor. All OWEF ash is permanently disposed of in a permitted, dedicated ash cell(s) at the County-owned and operated Kalmar Landfill in Kalmar Township. The capacity of the Kalmar Landfill ash cells are sufficient to handle the additional ash generated by the proposed MWC Unit 3. 8. The following approvals and permits would be required for the proposed Project. a. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program Permit Amendment and Major Amendment to Part 70 Operating Permit b. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation Permit Amendment (Water Supply) c. Rochester-Olmsted Planning Department Site Development Plan Review d. City of Rochester Industrial Discharge Permit notification of significant increase in volume of wastewater discharges Building Permit and Zoning Certificate Grading Permit Structure Height Variance NEED FOR AN EIS 9. Minn. R. 4410.4400, subp. 1, Threshold Test, and subp. 13, Solid Waste, require that an EIS be prepared for the construction or expansion of a mixed MSW energy recovery facility or incinerator with a capacity of 250 or more tons per day of input. Although the proposed Project will have a planned capacity of 200 tons per day and not meet or exceed the threshold of a mandatory EIS, the OCPW has voluntarily agreed to complete an EIS for the proposed Project. 10. In compliance with Minn. R. 4410.0500, subp. 1, and 4410.4400, subp. 13, the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) for the EIS is the MPCA. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCOPING PROCESS 11. A Draft Scoping Decision Document was prepared on the proposed Project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 30, 2005. A press release containing notice of the public meeting regarding the Draft Scoping Decision Document was provided to newspapers serving the Project area on June 30, 2005. 12. A notice of the availability of the scoping document was published in the EQB Monitor on July 4, 2005. The scoping period began July 5, 2005, ran for 35 days, and ended on August 8, 2005. The MPCA also held a public meeting in, on July 27, 2005. 13. Written comments regarding the Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) were received from the three local units of government: the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and the Minnesota State Historical Society. Two comment letters were also received from interested parties. Those comments were incorporated into the Final Scoping Decision Document. 14. A scoping decision was adopted by the MPCA Citizens Board on September 27, 2005. The Final Scoping Decision Document contained an anticipated EIS schedule, a listing of issues to be addressed in the EIS, and a description of alternatives to be addressed in the EIS. 15. The Final Scoping Decision Document identified a number of issues that required additional information and were examined in the EIS. They are identified below: a. The EIS contains a focused human health risk analysis of air toxic emissions from MWC Unit 3, including human health hazards and cancer risks from exposures to air, soils, and biota. b. The EIS includes an analysis of the mercury emissions and local deposition including the following: 1. Assessment of the air concentrations and deposition of mercury, in the vicinity of the facility, to waters of the state that are associated with MWC Unit 3 emissions. 2. Estimation of any increase in methylmercury concentrations in fish tissue associated with MWC Unit 3 emissions. 3. Calculation of the percent increase of mercury in fish tissue associated with MWC Unit 3 emissions as compared to estimates of existing concentrations. 16. The EQB rules, found at Minn. R. ch. 4410, require that an EIS evaluation address the no build alternative and at least one alternative from each of several alternative types, or provide a concise explanation of why an alternative from a particular alternative type is not evaluated. 17. The EIS assessed the consequences of a no build decision for the proposed Project using information compiled by the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance (MOEA). The MOEA staff conducted an inventory of available solid waste management facilities that take MSW in Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, and Iowa. 3
18. The inventory of available facilities was provided by the MPCA. The list of available facilities was limited to those facilities that are most likely to accept MSW diverted from the County if the OWEF were not available. 19. The issue of design alternatives was not discussed in the Scoping EAW because the design of the proposed expansion must meet specific design specifications that are required by both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the MPCA. Therefore, this alternative discussion was not carried forward to the EIS. 20. The issue of location alternatives was not discussed in the EIS as the proposed Project is an expansion of an existing facility. Also, relocation of the proposed Project is not likely to have significant environmental benefits. 21. The issue of alternative technologies was not discussed in the Scoping EAW because the design of the proposed expansion must meet specific design specifications that are required by both the EPA and the MPCA. Therefore, this alternative discussion was not carried forward to the EIS. 22. The modified size alternative section compared the following scenarios for consideration: a. Two 100-ton per day units. b. Four 50-ton per day units. c. Alternate size capacities (minimum/maximum) for the new waste-to-energy boiler. d. Alternate size capacities (minimum/maximum) for the new steam turbine-generator. 23. Economic and Social Impacts Assess the potential for the Project and the no-build alternative to directly and indirectly affect the local economic and sociological impacts; the facility s impact on cost to the user of the facility and general public was identified. The effect of the proposed facility on regional and county solid waste system costs and public economic risks was evaluated. Inventories were completed of any nearby existing and planned recreational resources. Any potential impacts resulting from the expansion were described. Historical and archeological resources do not appear to exist at or near the site, and there was no analysis of these issues in the EIS. DRAFT EIS 24. The Draft EIS was prepared in a manner consistent with EQB rules (Minn. R. 4410.2300) and in accordance with the scoping decision. The Draft EIS contained: a. A cover sheet identifying the RGU and a contact person there, the Project proposer and the proposer s contact person, the Project title, the Project location, the date of the public meeting on the Draft EIS, and the date for the end of the comment period and a one paragraph abstract of the EIS. b. A summary which stressed the major findings, areas of controversy, and issues to be resolved, including the choice among alternatives. 4
c. A table of contents. d. A list of preparers. e. A project description identifying the purpose of the Project, its size, scope, environmental setting, geographic location, and the anticipated phases of development. f. A list of all known governmental permits and approvals required by the Project. g. A discussion of the potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project and the environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts generated by the Project and a brief discussion of any major differences of opinion concerning significant impacts of the proposed Project on the environment. h. A discussion of the other reasonable alternatives that were considered and their potentially significant impacts or an explanation why an alternative of a particular type was not included. i. An identification of reasonable mitigation measures proposed to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects of the Project. 25. The Draft EIS was distributed to the mailing list contained in EQB Rules, to the Project proposer, the governmental units known to have permitting or approval authority over the Project, and to persons requesting the EIS. A notice of availability of the Draft EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on September 25, 2006, and a press release was also issued to newspapers in the area on September 25, 2006. 26. The public notice and press release provided a brief description of the Project, information on the date, time, and location of the public meeting, the date on which the public comment period would end, and the locations at which copies of the Draft EIS were available for review. 27. A public meeting to receive comments on the Draft EIS was held on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m., to discuss the Draft EIS for the Project. The hearing was held in the Olmsted County Government Center Board Room, 151 4th Street Southeast,. The meeting was attended by the Project proposer, two representatives from the League of Women Voters, the OCPW staff, and several County Commissioners. The meeting was recorded via court reporter and a transcript is available. 28. According to Minn. R. 4410.2700, subp. 1, Contents, the Final EIS shall respond to timely substantive comments on the Draft EIS. One comment letter was received during the comment period from Chris Moates, District 6 Planning Director, Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), stating that the proposal appears to have no impacts on MNDOT roadways. Another comment was submitted, via e-mail, after the close of the comment period, from Marcia L. Brown of the Rochester League of Women Voters, in support of the proposed Project. As the comment letters do not convey substantive information concerning the adequacy of the EIS, and no other comments letters were received, a separate response to comments document was not prepared. 5
FINAL EIS 29. The MPCA staff prepared a Final EIS pursuant to the requirements in Minn. R. 4410.2700. The MPCA staff determined that the information in the Draft EIS had not changed. 30. Although Minn. R. 4410.2700, subp. 2, describes the Final EIS as comprised of the Draft EIS, the written comments suggesting minor changes to the Draft EIS and responses to those comments, as noted in item 27, no substantive comments were received; therefore, the Draft EIS document that was mailed to interested parties on June 30, 2006, together with the following minor clarifying changes recommended by MPCA staff, comprise the Final EIS on the Project. The following revisions to the draft EIS should be noted: Cover Page: The word Combuster in the title should be changed to Combustor. Abstract: The word combuster should be changed to combustor. 1.1.1, Risk Characterization: carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic should be changed to carcinogenic or potential for noncarcinogenic for consistency with other sections of the EIS. MDH/MPCA s cancer risk limit of 1x10-5 should be changed to MDH/MPCA s cancer risk level of 1x10-5 for consistency with other sections of the EIS. 31. A notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on November 6, 2006, and a press release was issued to newspapers in the Rochester area on November 3, 2006. These notices indicated the locations at which copies of the Final EIS were available for review and the date on which the comment period on the Final EIS was to expire (November 21, 2006). 32. The MPCA distributed copies of the Final EIS on November 3, 2006, in a manner consistent with Minn. R. 4410.2700, subp. 3. Copies were provided to all persons receiving copies of the Draft EIS, all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIS, and all persons requesting copies of the Final EIS. DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 33. The MPCA, as RGU for the proposed Project, is the appropriate governmental unit for making a determination of adequacy pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2800. 34. The information presented in the Final EIS adequately addresses the issues identified in the Final Scoping Decision Document adopted September 27, 2006. 35. The proposed action is described in sufficient detail. 36. The EIS adequately analyzes and addresses the potentially significant issues and alternatives raised in scoping. 6