STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

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 WORTHINGTON PEAK/STANDBY DIESEL POWER GENERATION, SUBSTATION 1 LOCATION CITY OF WORTHINGTON, NOBLES COUNTY FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on the MPCA staff 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 Findings of Fact,, and Order: PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The purpose of the project is to provide Worthington Public Utilities with power during times of peak demand. It would also provide emergency power in the event of disruption of normal power flow. The construction will be on Worthington Public Utility owned land near an existing Substation. The site is located in the city of, on property owned by the city of Worthington since the 1960 s. The present usage of the property is for an electrical Substation. There is enough space at the proposed site for the proposed project. The facility would consist of seven 2000 Kilowatt diesel-fired engine/generators and the related equipment necessary to interface the plant with the Worthington Public Utilities electric system. Operation of the generation facility is anticipated during times of peak demand or power outages. Environmental Concerns: Air emissions Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters: None Community Involvement in Process: Project was discussed at City Council meetings that were open to the public. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 100% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R subp. 15A, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on June 22, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Nobles and Jackson counties, as well as, other interested parties on June 22, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on June 25, 2001, and available for review on the MPCA website at pca.state.mn.us on June 25, The public comment period for the EAW began June 25, 2001, and ended on July 25, The MPCA received 3 comment letters from government agencies and received no comment letters from citizens during the 30-day public comment period. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference in Appendix A. Responses to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by reference in Appendix B. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R , subp. 1 (1999), 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 (1999). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; 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. 2

3 THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. 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 (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality are: A. Air Emissions; and B. Noise. 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: A. Seven diesel-fired internal combustion engines will produce emissions of Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). There are no significant sources of fugitive dust emissions associated with operating the engines. The following table summarizes the potential to emit in units of tons per year (tpy) for the proposed facility. NOx CO PM/PM10 VOC SO2 Total HAPs 245 tpy 58 tpy 5.6/4.6 tpy 6.6 tpy 4.1 tpy 0.12 tpy Air dispersion modeling using SCREEN3 was conducted for the air emissions permit. The model results demonstrated that concentrations of pollutants from the engines will be below MPCA ambient air quality standards. B. The main source of noise, during operation of the facility, will come from the seven engine/generators. The equipment produces mechanical noise from the engine and exhaust noise from the stack. Since the engines will be operated on a peak demand basis, this noise could be generated at any time during the day, but will be limited to a maximum of 1300 hours per year. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur are: At those times when the peak/standby generators are in operation, the air emissions generated by the facility would not be reversible once it has been emitted into the surrounding air. The air emission limits established for this facility in its Air Quality Permit meet state standards and will be protective of the surrounding environment. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality. 10. As discussed above in sections 8 and 9, the MPCA's staff analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant. 3

4 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 expansion of this facility have been considered by MPCA staff 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. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 13. The second 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 "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7.B (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 14. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up 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. 15. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, and information presented by the commentors, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project. 16. 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 17. 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 (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 4

5 18. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status U.S. EPA Acid Rain New Unit Exemption Has been submitted MPCA Air Emissions Facility Permit Off Public Notice July 25, 2001 Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan To be written and implemented when storage tanks are utilized City of Worthington Construction Permit To be applied for Building, Excavation and Sewer Permit To be applied for 19. U.S. EPA. - The Worthington Public Utilities agreement to use low sulfur fuel has made it exempt from the acid rain program. MPCA. Air Emissions Facility Permit. The operation of the proposed facility would be regulated and monitored as a result of its air emissions facility permit. The air emissions permit for the operation of the proposed facility sets emission limits for the facility. The application of modern engine technology, maintaining the engine in proper working order, and the selection of low sulfur fuel oil is expected to mitigate impacts from air emissions. Noise will be generated whenever the peak/standby diesel generators are in operation. The project will be designed to control operational noise so the facility complies with the Minnesota Noise Standards and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration regulations. The Minnesota Noise Standards are receiver-based, and intended to limit noise levels at potential sensitive receptors. The nearest Noise Area Classification (NAC)-1 land use is a hotel, which is approximately 900 feet southwest of the facility. The nearest NAC-2 land use is an auto repair facility, which is approximately 500 feet west of the facility. The facility itself is classified as an NAC-3 land use. There is also a concern for any employee working at the facility due to the noise from the engines. In order to control noise from the engine exhaust, silencers will be installed on each engine. The building will be designed to attenuate the mechanical noise from the engines so nearby sensitive receptors will be in compliance with the Minnesota Noise standard. This design includes five-foot deep noise attenuators for the intake and exhaust openings for the building ventilation system. The building design also includes a separate control room where the switchgear is located. The wall separating the control room from the engine room will be designed to keep the room at a sound level of less than 85 decibels (dba). It is not expected that the engine room will be occupied when the engines are running, but it will be designed for a maximum sound level of 115 dba. MPCA - The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan Sets safety standards for the storage of diesel fuel on site for the proposed facility once it begins operation. 5

6 The city of Worthington. - The building, excavation and sewer permit This ensures that the facility would be constructed according to county ordinances and controls. 20. 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. 21. 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 (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 22. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Worthington Peak/Standby Diesel Generation, Substation 1 Location facility. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information. Air Permit Application including, air emissions calculations and computer dispersion modeling. AP42 documents regarding emissions from this source type. In addition, the MPCA performed its own dispersion modeling. 23. 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. 24. 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 are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 6

7 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 25. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Worthington Peak/Standby Diesel Generation, substation 1 Location 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. 26. 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. 27. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (1999), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project. 28. An EIS is not required. 29. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The MPCA determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Worthington Peak/Standby Diesel Generation, Substation 1 Location project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement. IT IS SO ORDERED Karen A. Studders, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 7

8 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Worthington Peak/Standby Diesel Power Generation, Substation 1 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Comments by Southwest Regional Development Commission Comment 1-1: The commentor found the EAW adequately addressed all the environmental concerns and the project was consistent with regional policies. Response 1-1: No comment necessary. 2. Comments by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Comment 2-1: The commentor had no concerns or comments regarding the project based on the information provided in the EAW. Response 2-1: No comment necessary. 3. Comments by the Minnesota State Energy Office Comment 3-1: The commentor encourages the Worthington Public Utilities to investigate the use of B20 (20 percent bio-diesel, 80 percent petroleum diesel) in the proposed diesel generators. Although biodiesel does not reduce the levels of targeted pollutants like NO X, bio-diesel has been shown to reduce levels of CO, PM, VOC, and SO 2. Response 3-1: Response provided by the Worthington Public Utilities (WPU). WPU and other project participants had reviewed alternate fuels during the initial phase of the project. While B20 was part of that discussion, it was felt that this fuel has not achieved enough field history with the chosen engine to sway the users from the preferred choice of proven, reliable, and consistent diesel fuel. The option of using B20 for a fraction of the total engines is not desirable at this point due to the statements made above. In addition, the fuel system implemented at this facility will be manifolded together from each of the generator sets to a common fuel storage system. This would make it unfeasible to fuel one or two generator sets with B20 as an alternate investigation. While it is recognized that many of these types of power generation facilities are being developed within the state, most project owners and operators will drift toward using a fuel/engine combination that provides some assurance or guarantees of performance. When the B20 acquires more history with regard to consistent formulation and performance under all types of environments, we believe more projects will utilize it.