Image result for Northern Metals, Minneapolis

Northern Metals was violating its MPCA permit, it also lit on fire.  Ultimately, it was run out of town.

So now it goes to Becker.  How will it NOT violate its permit there?  Oh, right, MPCA will be so lax about it that violation would be a logical, legal, and physical impossibility.

From today’s EQB Monitor:

Project Title: Northern Metals, LLC – Becker

Comment Deadline: May 18, 2018

Project Description: Northern Metals, LLC plans to construct a scrap metal recycling center in the general industrial area in the City of Becker. The Project consists of an enclosed metal shredder, an enclosed metal recovery plant, an end of life vehicle process, and a Community Recycling Center (CRC). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will host a public meeting on the proposed expansion of the Northern Metals, LLC – Becker project May 10, 2018, at the Becker Community Center located at 11500 Sherburne Avenue, Becker, MN. The event will begin with an informal open house from 6:00 to 6:30, followed by a presentation from the MPCA and a question and answer session. The MPCA will provide information about the draft air emissions permit and the environmental assessment worksheet (EAW). A copy of the Notice of Availability and the EAW can be found on the MPCA website at the following address: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/eaw [per Kevin Kain, it’ll be posted afternoon 4/16/2018] Minn. R. 4410.100 subp. 1.D.

Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU): Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

RGU Contact Person:
Kevin Kain
520 Lafayette Rd N
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-757-2482
kevin.kain@state.mn.us

Remember when Rep. Tim Walz filed a letter with PUC claiming that Invenergy’s Melville Nickerson was his constituent?

Today, he’s filed another, and it’s much better:

20183-141076-01_PUC Comment

Yeah, that earlier one is a hard one to forget:

Invenergy is Rep. Walz’ constituent?

 Much better, looks like he’s paying attention to his constituents!

 

 

 

 

tRump’s latest survey!

March 11th, 2018

tRump’s latest email survey (which as always is followed by an ask, presumably to pay his mounting legal bills).  I love to give him a piece of my mind, but what I don’t understand is why they keep me on the list.  The money begging emails are daily, sometimes twice daily.  Heard he was hiring impeachment counsel, has that happened?

Who would give money to this grifter?  DOH!

HERE’S A LINK TO THE SURVEY!

Listening to America 2018

 

 

Coal ash, remember that big impoundment release, photo above, not all that long ago?

Good grief, it was a DECADE ago, and it’s still a mess.  From the EPA page:

EPA’s response to the TVA coal ash release in Kingston, TN

And another ash impoundment failure, our friends at Duke Energy, from EPA page:

EPA’s response to the Duke Energy coal ash spill in Eden, NC

It’s an issue in Minnesota too:

Who cares?  Well, once a rule is proposed, there’s not much variation, because if there is, then it has to start all over again and go through this process.  This is proposed to “amend” the 2015 final rule, so it can’t be good.  Speak up NOW!  Go to EPA’s Regulations.gov and make Comments under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286 — open for 45 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, which is/was when?  Figure it’s published NOW, and just do it.

From the EPA’s site, here’s the rule proposed to gut the 2015 final rule, because gutting regulation, that’s what this administration does:

View a pre-publication version of the proposed rule

And here’s the poop cut and pasted direct from the source:

Proposed Amendments to the National Regulations (Phase One)

On March 1, 2018, EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, signed the first of two rules that proposes to amend the April 2015 final rule. The proposal:

  1. Addresses provisions of the final rule that were remanded back to the Agency on June 14, 2016 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit;
  2. Provides states with approved CCR permit programs (or EPA where it is the permitting authority) under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation (WIIN) Act the ability to set certain alternative performance standards; and
  3. Addresses one additional issue that has arisen since the April 2015 publication of the final rule.

EPA is proposing six provisions that would allow states or EPA the ability to incorporate flexibilities into their coal ash permit programs. These flexibilities would also be available to facilities with U.S. EPA-issued CCR permits.

Additionally, the proposal:

  • Clarifies the type and magnitude of non-groundwater releases that would require a facility to comply with some or all of the corrective action procedures set forth in title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in sections 257.96 through 257.98 in meeting their obligation to clean up the release.
  • Adds boron to the list of constituents in Appendix IV of 40 CFR part 257 that trigger corrective action.
  • Determines the requirement for proper height of woody and grassy vegetation for slope protection.
  • Revises the current regulations to allow the use of CCR in the construction of final cover systems for CCR units closing pursuant to 40 CFR section 257.101 that are closing with waste-in-place.
  • Adds a new paragraph to 40 CFR section 257.103 to allow facilities to qualify for the alternative closure provisions based on the continued need to manage non-CCR wastestreams in the unit.

EPA will be accepting written comments on this proposal through Regulations.gov under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OLEM-2017-0286 for 45 days after the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register.

Additionally, EPA will hold a hearing on this proposed rule. Additional information about the hearing will be posted in the docket for this proposal and on this website in the near future.

And more, cut and pasted from EPA:

Yes, we know it doesn’t work. Learned that in stopping the Mesaba Project:

IGCC – Pipedreams of Green and Clean

There were IGCC – coal gasification – plants proposed all over the country, and they fell, one by one.  Some not fast enough, the Kemper project, in today’s Guardian, is an example of protracted misrepresentations to keep that money coming in to fund the scam:

The best thing that came from the failed Mesaba Project was the information about the technology that hadn’t been disclosed before.  We were able to use this information all over the country to stop these plants, and stop this one before Minnesotans were utterly and hopelessly screwed as they were in Mississippi with Southern’s Kemper and Indiana with Duke’s Edwardsport. Read the rest of this entry »