Comments on Lab USA EAW & Water Tanks Mounds
January 5th, 2017
I’d requested information on the Lab USA project from MPCA and City of Red Wing, and got some info last week:
Hey Red Wing — MPCA’s Lab USA documents here!
And they granted an extension for Comments due to the delay in providing primary documentation for review (DOH!) — Comments are now due January 19, 2017:
Lab USA’s Ash Processing Facility – Red Wing – EAW – Comment period extension (p-ear2-119c)
Hiding in the MPCA’s EAW, Appendix B, is this map, above. The map shows the Water Tanks Burial Mounds, and the western end of the area is about 1/2 of the Red Wing Laydown Yard and Crusher site. Oh my! I’d noticed that factoid and included in my comments for the Tyler Hills Neighbors (p. 14):
Note the Red Wing Laydown Yard and Crusher site, on the right hand side of that clearing:
They also want to run a drainage ditch through and put ponds in that area — note they did NOT include the ponds in this depiction of drainage plans!
Here’s one with the “ponds” (no real plan yet, City of Red Wing is supposed to file that before they build it!) and note that the scenic easement as depicted here is further south than it is in another map, where the scenic easement overlaps the southern edge of the clearing (all of these maps are from the EAW, fyi):
Turns out I’m not the only one that noticed that encroachment of the Red Wing project (click for document or larger view):
Look at that, “direct consultation with the Office of the State Archaeologist and the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council…” Do ya think Prairie Island Indian Community might be interested, have an interest?!?!
Here’s the Comment from the Indian Affairs Council (click for document or larger view):
TOMORROW – Silica Sand Tech Assistance Team Mtg.
January 4th, 2017
January 5, 2017 – 2:30pm
Silica Sand Technical Assistance Team Meeting
January 5th, 2017 @ 2:30pm in the DNR Central Office Lobby Conference Room.
Meet to discuss technical and agency updates to the EQB Tools to Assist Local Governments in Planning for and Regulating Silica Sand Projects, agency rulemaking updates, and updates on silica sand activities in the State of Minnesota
Conference call: 1-888-742-5095 | Conference Code: 3649223869#
Agenda:
1) Introductions
2) Agency updates on silica sand activities in the State of Minnesota
3) Technical and agency updates to EQB Tools to Assist Local Governments in Planning for and Regulating Silica Sand Projects
4) Agency updates on rulemaking
a. DNR
b. MPCA
c. EQB
5) EQB Ordinance Library
6) Other topics
7) Adjourn
Show up — keep the heat on to get these projects MOVING! It’s been YEARS!
2016 PPSA Annual Hearing
December 23rd, 2016
Tuesday was the Annual Hearing for the Power Plant Siting Act. I’ve been fighting off this sickness that Alan’s had for a week now, and not quite feeling right, more like life inside a pillow, everything’s rather dampened. But I slogged out into the world, and raised a few of the recurring points, issues with the Power Plant Siting Act, particularly public participation issues common not just to the Power Plant Siting Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 216E ), but also to wind siting dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216F, and pipeline routing dockets under Minn. St. Ch. 216G.
Here’s how to submit comments, deadline January 20, 2017:
Until this year, the Power Plant Siting Act Annual Hearing has included a review, rundown, listing, of all the projects approved by the Commission, including wind and pipelines, and this was anticipated at this hearing per the notice:
The full Notice:
HOWEVER… that report, “Projects Reviewed” section D, “Electric Facilities Not Subject to Power Plant Siting Act, did not occur. I’d guess in large part it was due to the many issues raised by those intervening and participating, or attempting to participate, in wind siting dockets who have appeared at PPSA Annual Hearings over the years. And I’m sure they did not want input from those participating and intervening in pipeline dockets, we’ve seen how Enbridge cancelled their “public informational meetings” up north after having to face the public and their legitimate issues the day before in Bemidji. Alan Mitchell, formerly EQB PPSA staff, and now working for Enbridge, was there, so this was on Enbridge’s radar, but of course, that Alan didn’t have any comments for the record (I do wish I remembered more about the pipeline rules rewrite that he worked on during his time at the EQB, I think somewhere around 2002-2004?).
The ALJ is to write a summary of the Comments, both at the meeting, and those filed afterwards, and then? What happens? Experience says “not much.” PUC staff responded to the “What happens” question saying that things that don’t require statutory changes or rulemaking, that those are things they want to impliment, to change, to improve, and to the extend that we can, we implement. So he said. When the report comes from the ALJ, they review it, they’ll have the transcript from this meeting, and will go over it.
There was a pretty crowded room, better attendance than for the last couple of years, with two new members of the public speaking up. John Munter, who has been very active in opposition to the Sandpiper and now the Line 3 “replacement” pipeline issues, spoke about the difficulties of participating in the dockets, the difficult to untangle web of “need” and “route” dockets, and of the many pipeline projects ongoing. Tina Carey spoke of the issues she and her neighborhood encountered during construction of the massive “largest in Minnesota” solar project that went up across the street, and that the complaint process was insufficient and ineffective, and the neighborhood’s complaints were disregarded. Cynthia Warzecha, of the DNR, gave a solid synopsis of DNR activities in PPSA dockets, and I’ll note that the DNR and DOT have really gotten into the groove of reviewing projects and providing material and substantive comments for consideration, in the EIS and in the route or siting docket (and also in environmental review in Certificate of Need dockets). Kristen Eide-Tollefson spoke as an individual with a 20 year history as a participant in routing and siting dockets, and noted for the record this legislative prelude to the transfer of environmental review from the EQB to the Dept. of Commerce:
2005 Session — Chapter 97, Article 3, lays out the purpose for transfer from EQB to PUC and DOC, of responsibilities for Siting, Routing and Environmental Review.Environmental Review. Sec. 17. To ensure greater public participation in energy infrastructure approval proceedings and to better integrate and align state energy and environmental policy goals with economic decisions involving large energy infrastructure, all responsibilities, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, subdivision 1, held by the Environmental Quality Board relating to power plant siting and routing under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.51 to 116C.69; wind energy conversion systems under Minnesota Statutes, sections 116C.691 to 116C.697; pipelines under Minnesota Statutes, chapter 116I; and rules associated with those sections are transferred to the Public Utilities Commission under Minnesota Statutes, section 15.039, except that the responsibilities of the Environmental Quality Board under Minnesota Statutes, section 116C.83, subdivision 6, and Minnesota Rules, parts 4400.1700, 4400.2750, and 4410.7010 to 4410.7070, are transferred to the commissioner of the Department of Commerce. The power plant siting staff of the Environmental Quality Board are transferred to the Department of Commerce. The department’s budget shall be adjusted to reflect the transfer.
2006 Report to PUC – Docket 06-1733
2007 Report to PUC – Docket 07-1579
2008 Report to PUC – Docket 08-1426
2009 Report to PUC – Docket 09-1351
2010 Report to PUC – Docket 10-222
2011 Report to PUC – Docket 11-324
2012 Report to PUC – Docket 12-360
2013 Report to PUC – Docket 13-965
2014 Summary Comments– Docket 14-887
2015 Summary Report – Docket 15-785
RUS Scoping Meetings for Cardinal-Hickory Creek xmsn
December 6th, 2016
Slow evening at Rural Utilities Service’s scoping meeting for the Environmental Impact Statement for the Cardinal – Hickory Creek transmission project. RUS is involved because Dairyland Power Cooperative (DPC) plans to hold a 9% undivided interest in the project, and are looking to RUS to provide the funding. RUS held two more meetings, following on prior meetings October 31 and November 1 & 2, because their notice for those meetings went out a day late, so another Notice went out:
Notice of Intent To Hold Public Meetings and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (October 18, 2016
Where’s my prior post on these meetings? It’s gone! Here’s the dates and locations (click for larger version) — the last one is tomorrow in Barneveld, Wisconsin:
So to make quick work of it, this is cut and pasted from the RUS Cardinal Hickory Creek page:
Alternatives Evaluation Study (July 2016)
Notice of Intent To Hold Public Meetings and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (October 18, 2016)
Macro-Corridor Study (September 2016)
Alternative Crossings Analysis (April 2016)
- ACA Table of Contents
- ACA Main Report Chapters 1-5
- ACA Main Report-Chapter 6-References
- ACA Appendices
SCOPING MEETINGS
I had a quick chat with Dennis Rankin who’s in charge of the environmental review on this and the Dairyland Q-1 South projects, and had a few quick things to register, particularly that ATC has announced that the project is delayed:
ATC postpones Cardinal-Hickory Creek project – The Dodgeville Chronicle -Dodgeville, WI
I had this article and a few comments to add tonight, and will file more detailed comments before the deadline — now January 6, 2017.
(don’t worry, I’ll get this looking pretty by the deadline!)
On the way in, there was new transmission marching across the countryside, so ugly:
And look how close to this house in New Vienna, right up near the garage, and not far from the house either — this line cut right through the middle of town:
But all in all, it was a beautiful day for a drive today!
MPCA’s THREE Red Wing Ash releases today
December 5th, 2016
OK, time to get to it. There were THREE releases from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency today related to the Red Wing/Xcel Energy/Lab USA ash mining project. THREE!
The ash mining project’s EAW:
Public notice period: 12-5-16 to 1-4-17; Project manager: Kevin Kain
And two solid waste draft permits, first NSP’s ash landfill:
INTENT TO MODIFY AND REISSUE AN EXISTING SOLID WASTE FACILITY PERMIT TO NSP- RED WING ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY, RED WING
Open for public comment through Thursday, January 5, 2017
And one for Lab USA (modify and reissue? Hmmmm…):
Intent to Modify and Reissue an Existing Solid Waste Facility Permit to Lab USA’s Ash Processing Facility – Red Wing
Open for public comment through Thursday, January 5, 2017
There’s a meeting at the Red Wing library on Wednesday, from 5-7 p.m. about the Lab USA EAW, but what about the permits?