Legalectric

Alan Muller had a few more minutes of recognition for his work against incinerators.

The MPCA made its decision at the Board’s June 26 meeting, Alan’s testimony is kick-ass as usual, starting around 2:47. The Cottage Grove part starts about an hour into the webcast:

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THEM APPROVE THE 3M INCINERATOR PERMIT

This time, it’s the Cottage Grove 3M Incinerator in Huffington Post this week:

(that’s a NAB sign out in front of our house, Barn Bluff visible way down the hill in the distance…)

3M Incinerator Can Burn Outside Hazardous Waste, Minnesota Says In Defeat For Residents

Bets Thorkelson’s opposition to 3M Co.’s hazardous waste incinerator began in the mid-1990s, when she learned that four moms of boys on her sons’ hockey team had breast cancer.

“About the same time, I had also noticed that many people on my street were starting to die of cancer, including a young boy from a form of lymphoma,” said Thorkelson, who lives in what she describes as a blue-collar neighborhood in Cottage Grove, Minn., about two miles from one of the St. Paul-based mega-corporation’s factories.

Her distrust of 3M grew when she received a diagnosis of breast cancer herself a decade later. And it mounted further when she heard about the company’s plans to truck in additional hazardous waste to use as fuel for an incinerator.

Last week, after three years of public meetings, petitions and pleas from Thorkelson and other residents, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency approved a permit to burn non-3M waste, as well as materials confiscated by local law enforcement agencies, allowing the company to save as much as $2 million in natural gas. Neighbors said they fear it will add lead, mercury and other toxic pollutants to the air they breathe — on top of the water and soil contamination already blamed on the company.

No link has been proven between past 3M pollution and cases of cancer. However, the state of Minnesota is suing 3M over claims that the company polluted groundwater and surface water for more than 50 years with perflurochemicals, which scientific studies have suggested may cause cancer.

“The [incinerator] decision is very disappointing, though not surprising,” Thorkelson said. “Our community has now become the toxic dumping ground for U.S. industries.”

Knowing the permit would be controversial, the state Pollution Control Agency decided to involve residents in discussions concerning the permit, according to the agency’s Jeff Smith. “At the heart of the issue was whether the public felt like they were enough part of the process so that they were informed and had a say,” Smith said. “Over 15 additional restrictions that might not otherwise have been required were negotiated between citizens, the city and the company. At end of the day, we overachieved in involving the public.

“There will be no additional increases in pollutants beyond what 3M has been permitted to emit,” added Smith.

Representatives from 3M also emphasized that the air pollution coming out of their incinerator with the additional hazardous waste would not rise above historic levels , thanks mostly to updated equipment that traps most of the particles.

But are the regulatory limits enough to protect Cottage Grove children from developmental problems, asthma, even cancer? And were 3Ms historic pollution levels ever safe?

Alan Muller, who once promoted incinerators for DuPont, said he shares the community’s concerns over uncertain answers to both questions. He now helps advise opposition groups, including the Coalition of Concerned Cottage Grove Citizens.

“For every pound of lead that goes into the incinerator, a pound comes out,” said Muller. Toxic metals can’t be broken down like other particles, he explained, so they will either spew from the smokestack, end up in the ash that’s trucked to a landfill, or get treated with the plant’s scrubber water before winding up in the Mississippi River.

A little lead can potentially cause a lot of harm, especially to a child’s developing brain. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently acknowledged the risks by lowering the threshold for lead poisoning.

“It’s not that hard to find out hazardous waste incinerators are a bad scene. But this is a political, not a tech, issue,” said Muller. “The idea of weakening environmental regulations to revive the economy is not localized. Unfortunately, the same bogus arguments continue to be made all over the country.

“I never had a feeling that MPCA was acting in good faith on this,” Muller added. “Whenever you have a powerful corporation, with a lot of clout in the state, it’s hard for regulators to stand up to them.”

Fred Luden, a resident of Cottage Grove and a former 3M employee, returned from vacation in time to share his concerns at last Tuesday’s final hearing. He told the MPCA that it struck him while sitting on a lake with his grandkids just what a pristine environment he enjoyed while growing up in Minnesota, and how contaminated parts of the state have become today.

“You’d like to see at some point in time the ball go back the other way, to an environment that you can pass down to your children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren — hopefully,” said Luden, a member of the board of directors for the Coalition of Concerned Cottage Grove Citizens. “And that they will enjoy the same ability to drink the water, breathe the air, grow what they want in a garden and eat the fish again.”

That’s little comfort for some families who currently live in what they said is a contaminated environment.

“I have some peace of mind,” said Thorkelson, “knowing my grandchildren do not live within a 10-mile radius of the incinerator.”

Somebody kill this thing!!!  It just won’t die…

So here we go again — check out our exhibits:

Comment – mncoalgasplant.com

So what were we commenting on this time?  Excelsior Energy says it wants to build a gas plant, and use all the permits and perks it got as a “coal gasification” project.  Over my dead polar bear!

Initial Excelsior Request – May 31, 2012

Commerce Comments

Excelsior’s Response to Commerce IRs June 26, 2012

Can’t we just shut the door on this, lock it tight, and GO HOME?

… and what a downer it is:

Opinion – Unpublished

Question – given this is the first ever ruling about Minn. Stat.216F.081, why is this unpublished?

And, as I commented on the STrib site, what struck me was the court’s misplaced reliance on the Renewable Energy Standard as energy policy in MN.  Xcel holds the 2 PPAs for this project.  Whether they build this 78MW project does not make or break Xcel Energy’s compliance with the RES, Xcel is already ahead of the game, in compliance for years into the future.  Compliance with the state’s RES is not at issue here!  That’s a red herring.

Here’s the Coalition for Sensible Siting’s take:

CSS Appellate Decision Press Release

Here are some articles:

StPPP – Minnesota court of appeals throws out county obstacles to Goodhue wind project

STrib – Wind farm doesn’t have to follow setback rules

RochPB – Appellate court rules in favor of AWA Goodhue wind project

MPR – Court ruling green lights Goodhue County wind turbines

KSTP – Wind Turbine Project in Goodhue County Will Move Forward

It just started pouring again here in Red Wing, yes, we’re on a bluff, yes, that is a boat in the back yard, but maybe we’ll have to get it ready to float!

Flash Flood Warning for Red Wing Area

Thunder, siren going off way in the distance but not here, and getting windy.  Dogs shakin’ and quakin’ fur falling out pacing terrrrrrrified.

Weather radar shows a long SW/NE angled system, the length of it running right through Red Wing:

Will somebody tell me just what is going on here?  Check the photos and videos of Duluth!

If this is the “new normal,” we’ve got trouble!

Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project has raised its ugly head again.  There were rumors for a long time that Micheletti wanted to change it to a natural gas plant.  Then they went to the legislature and got the “incentives” for their boondoggle “clean coal” plant, the “innovative technology” that doesn’t work…  they went to the MPCA and their air permit was AGAIN rejected as incomplete, and now they’ve gone to the PUC, requesting confirmation that the permits they have are valid.  Oh, PUH-LEEZE!

Here we go again…

mncoalgasplant.com will be filing comments, no doubt about it!

Would the PUC doesn’t transfer projects like this without amending the permit application, without verification of what indeed it is they want to do?  If you take the original ALJ Decision, the Permit Order and the Permit itself, redact everything related to coal gasification, what’s left?  Not much!  We need to know what they’re planning (if anything, this remains the vaporware project from hell).

This is the letter filed by Excelsior Energy — I don’t recall having received it, but will dig through the piles here, they DO have my correct address (though I note that they sent to Excelsior’s Evans, Greenman and Harrington at their OLD address!):

Excelsior Energy Request – May 31, 2012

Here is the PUC’s Notice of Comment Period, first round due June 29, 2012:

Notice of Comment Period

And what’s most disturbing is the legislative change in 2011, supported, DEMANDED, by Gov. Dayton:

Subd. 3. Staging and permitting.

(a) A natural gas-fired plant that is located on one site designated as an innovative energy project site under subdivision 1, clause (3), is accorded the regulatory incentives granted to an innovative energy project under subdivision 2, clauses (1) to (3), and may exercise the authorities therein.

(b) Following issuance of a final state or federal environmental impact statement for an innovative energy project that was a subject of contested case proceedings before an administrative law judge:

(1) site and route permits and water appropriation approvals for an innovative energy project must also be deemed valid for a plant meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) and shall remain valid until the earlier of (i) four years from the date the final required state or federal preconstruction permit is issued or (ii) June 30, 2019; and

(2) no air, water, or other permit issued by a state agency that is necessary for constructing an innovative energy project may be the subject of contested case hearings, notwithstanding Minnesota Rules, parts 7000.1750 to 7000.2200.

Here’s the link to the full Minn. Stat. 216B.1694.