Minnesota is rich in blogs, and alternative media such as The Uptake . Is another blog really needed? Good question! My main reason for setting it up is to have a place to archive and link to various emails and posts. Continue Reading →
Note that this dates from 2012. I”m posting it here because of the ongoing controversy…..
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 23:37:02 -0500
From: Alan Muller <email@example.com>
Subject: [Mpls] Northern Metals festivities …..
Permit issues will be discussed at some length,
but in the normal course of events we don’t learn
much about the legal tactics used by dischargers
like Northern Metals to influence the regulatory
and environmental review processes in their favor.
Here is a partial summary. It illustrates how
much harder regulators get hammered by special
interests than by the health/enviro side.
Northern Metals started up a shredder in June 18,
2009 with an air permit issued on December 8,
1998, with no expiration date. No special
effort was made to ensure than an
over-ten-year-old permit was still appropriate for the facility.
Immediately, it became clear that the facility
failed, by wide margins, to comply with the
emission limits in the air permit. The causes of
the mismatch between the permit and the facility
are unclear to me at this time.
Enforcement actions eventually ensued but compliance did not.
On November 10, 1011, the PCA public noticed a
draft air permit and draft EAW, having
successfully requested Northern Metals to begin
the environmental review process. The draft
permit allowed large increases in emissions, as
detailed in my December 16, 2011
letter, and allowed Northern Metals an expanded
range of activities, including the shredding of whole car hulks.
Approximately 65 public comments were received
and nearly all objected to the proposed
actions. (These are posted
and many are very eloquent and convincing.) Exceptions:
o Northern Metals itself says it does not
want to do the mercury testing required in the draft permit;
o The United Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, Amalgamated Local 1139, want the permit modifications granted;
o The Met Council staff say no EIS is
necessary, “The Council staff finds … [the EAW]
… to be complete and accurate.”
As far as I have seen only one mainstream
Minnesota “enviro” org, Clean Water Action, commented.
Attempting to respond to public concerns, the PCA
first extended, then cancelled, further public
comment periods, indicating an intention to
rework the draft air permit and EAW.
Northern Metals then sought a Peremptory Writ of
Mandamus from the 2nd District Court, Ramsey
County, ordering the MPCA to act-to decide
whether an Environmental Impact Statement is
required–at a regularly scheduled Citizens
Board meeting on March 27, 2012. The Court
granted the requested writ, without hearing from the MPCA.
Northern Metals also claimed it was suffering
losses of two million dollars per month because
of unjustified delays by the MPCA. The Court
indicated an intent to award damages.
Several aspects of this judicial proceeding are unusual and disturbing:
The Writ was issued with no notice to the PCA and
thus, no opportunity to present the other side of the story (Peremptory Writ).
The District Court website biography of the judge
in the matter, Elena L. Ostby, indicates she
formerly worked at the same firm, Briggs &
Morgan, as presently does Mr. Jack Perry, who represents Northern Metals.
at page 2: “MR. PERRY: Your honor, Jack Perry,
from the Briggs & Morgan law firm. Good to see
you again after a few years. The Court: It’s been a while.”
At page 4: “MR. PERRY: . our old partner Rick
Mark was involved in litigation involving the
predecessors in permitting years and years ago.”
I am no lawyer, but on it’s face, the statute
allowing Peremptory Writ of Mandamus does not seem to apply to this situation.
“586.04 PEREMPTORY WRIT.
When the right to require the performance of the
act is clear, and it is apparent that no valid
excuse for nonperformance can be given, a
peremptory writ may be allowed in the first
instance. In all other cases the alternative writ shall first issue.”
How could the Court know what responses might be
made by the MPCA? Whether a “valid excuse for nonperformance can be given?”
Common sense indicates that courts should not act
without opportunity for response from the other
side except in unusual circumstances.
It also appears that the Court was mislead
regarding the issue of particulate emissions. Transcript at page 10:
“MR PERRY: What they have done is they have
said we’re going to change the emissions levels
from 4.3 pounds per hour [of particulate matter]
to 1.83 pounds per hour. If they do that, that is
effectively a denial because it’s not what we’ve applied for.
But Ms. Winters, Assistant Attorney General
representing the MPCA, responds in her March 7,
” …on August 3, 2010, Petitioner signed a
settlement with MPCA enforcement staff for
violations of its existing permit by which it
committed to a Plan with a 1.83 lb/hr limit.
Petitioner had submitted a permit application
with the 1.83 lb/hr limit in March, 2010. On
August 26, 2010, after it signed the settlement,
Petitioner changed its application to 4.2 lb/hr
without revealing to permitting staff that the
1.83 lb/hr was a condition of the settlement Plan.”
But Judge Ostby did not know this because she
acted before hearing from the MPCA. (This is not,
of course, to excuse the apparent lack of
communication between the permitting and enforcement staffs of the MPCA.)
Northern Metals uses inflammatory language in its
pleadings. Some examples from Northern Metals’
for Peremptory Writ of Mandamus:
“There is no end in sight to MPCA’s dilatory
tactics. MPCA has gone to press once again to
hijack the proceedings.” (page 11)
“MPCA’s most recent gamesmanship also highlights
the unlawful steps it is willing to take .” (page 12)
“MPCA’s manipulation of the process has gone on long enough.” (page 16)
“Northern Metals has and will continue to lose
over $2,000,000 in revenues per month due to these delays.” (page 16)
In her letter to Judge Ostby, Winters writes:
“Petitioner mislead this Court, the MPCA, and the
public. Through failing to disclose important,
relevant facts, Petitioner has abused the
judicial, the environmental review, and the permitting processes.”
From my point of view Judge Ostby clearly made
bad decisions, and made them in a manner that
raises concerns about bias. Hopefully the MPCA
and the Attorney General will be able to get
these decisions changed or overturned. If this
Peremptory Writ stands, no regulatory program is safe.
However, assuming the decisions stand for the
moment, the March 27th deadline for action has
effectively eliminated the normal opportunities
for a “public information meeting,” for members
of the public to petition for a “Contested Case,”
to review the files in this long-drawn-out matter, etc.
The PCA has
an MPCA CITIZEN’S BOARD SPECIAL MEETING on
March 26th/27th with the sole agenda item being
Northern Metals Request for Decision on the Need
for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Along with this goes a “board packet” of 190
pages including the public comments and 132
proposed Findings of Fact. These include a
recommendation to the Board that an Environmental
Impact Statement be required. Of the face of
things this looks like progress, but a closer reading shows problems:
The MPCA says that the ONLY problem is that the
permit limit for particulate matter (dust) should
be 1.83 pounds per hour rather than the 4.2
pounds per hour Northern Metals wants.
Everything else is OK. No problems with
increased emissions of all sorts of other
pollutants. No problems with noise. And so on.
If Northern Metals is willing to go along with
the 1.83 pounds per hour, the PCA is willing to
roll and withdraw the recommendation for an EIS.
So where did the 1.83 come from? “At 1.83 lb/hr,
the modeled ambient concentration is 34.3 …
[micrograms per cubic meter]
, which is slightly
below the [federal standard] of 35 ….” In
other words, the 1.83 looks to have been “back
calculated” from the federal maximum. “How high
can we legally make the permit limits?” There
are lots of problems with this approach, including:
o The federal standard is known to be too
high and not truly protective of human health;
o no safety margin is included, or leeway
for increased emissions from other sources;
o the emission rate actually measured
during “performance testing” in 2009 was 1.32 lb/hr.;
o the present permit limit is apparently
0.43 lb/hr (but there are some confounding technicalities).
Why does the PCA now say 1.83 is the right
number, when it was proposing 4.2 until
recently? PCA technical staff on this have not
been talking to Alan Muller. There appear to be two things going on:
o The PCA woke up to the fact that Northern
Metals had already agreed to 1.83 in the Settlement of its violations; and
o “updated ambient air concentration data,
a critical input in the modeling, has now become
available.” In other words, background
concentrations of particulates are much higher
than previously thought. (Does this also apply
to other airborne pollutants in the area?)
An EIS is needed for many reasons, to sort out many issues.
N/A, Red Wing, MN/Port Penn, DE
About Alan Muller: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/alanmuller
Alan Muller is an environmental consultant. He has been executive director of Green Delaware, an environmental and public advocacy organization in Delaware, since 1995, and before that was a contract consultant DuPont Co.’s engineering department. Muller focuses on environmental and health issues including energy; waste; incinerators; air, water and land quality and pollution; and climate change.
To ignore the human impacts of the nuclear industry is a moral failure
Forty years ago, on March 28, 1979, the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear power reactor in central Pennsylvania partially melted down and experienced at least one explosion.Continue Reading →
[Note: A version of this distributed by email had the wrong title. Apologies!]
40 years ago, on March 28, 1979, Three Mile Island (TMI) Unit 2 nuclear power plant melted down and experienced a hydrogen explosion. (Unit 1 has continued to run all these years but likely will be shut down soon as it loses a lot of money for the owners.)
Days afterwards: “Governor Thornburgh advised pregnant women and pre-school age children to leave the area within a five-mile radius of the Three Mile Island facility until further notice. This led to the panic the governor had hoped to avoid; within days, more than 100,000 people had fled surrounding towns.”
The cause was a combination of equipment failures, design defects, and operator errors.
With the election of a new DFL governor and the DFL takeover of the House, possibilities open for useful policy changes. No guarantees, but at least possibilities.
The chief idea floating around seems to be to increase the “renewable” quota for electricity generation. The problem with this is that “renewable” as defined in Minnesota includes not only wind and solar but the dirtiest sources we have, such as poultry poop power, garbage incineration power, wood burner power (“biomass”), and landfill gas power. It would be foolish to increase the “renewable” power quotas (sometimes called a “Renewable Portfolio Standard”) without cleaning up (literally!) the definition so additional incentives aren’t created for dirty power sources. Continue Reading →
“Viewpoint: Truth re-evaluation of incineration long overdue”
By Alan Muller, Red Wing
[Note: This appeared in the Red Wing Republican-Eagle on Feb 6, 2019]
I came to Red Wing in 2007 with a background in incineration: Marketing incinerators, as a consultant to the engineering department of a large chemical company, and later opposing them, on health and economic grounds. It felt strange to live in a city that was itself in the garbage incineration business and seemed to care little about the impacts on the health and pocketbooks of residents.Continue Reading →
This ran in the Red Wing Republican-Eagle on September 23rd:
By Alan Muller, Red Wing
For decades, Red Wing has worked to increase the amounts of garbage burned in the city, subjecting residents to increased air pollution and millions in costs, without an offsetting benefit. As part of this, the city is now smelling victory in a scheme to force all the garbage generated in Goodhue County to be “processed” (ground up) by the city, with most then burned in Xcel’s old converted 1940s coal plant on Fifth Street. This dirty burner, with a permit expired since 2009, belches out about 1.5 million pounds per year of health-damaging air pollutants, including over 40 pounds per year, on average, of lead, and over a million pounds per year of “NOx.”
City of Red Wing unloaded dump liabilities onto Goodhue County ….now demands county-wide garbage monopoly
Goodhue County and the City of Red Wing, MN, have been dancing around garbage issues for many years. It’s not clear that the public interest has been front-and-center with either jurisdiction at any point.
In 1990 the County bought the City of Red Wing dump for one dollar. The county also bought liability for any future cleanup costs for that dollar.
“… Buyer shall be responsible for the operation of the landfill facility … and shall be responsible for any costs associated with operating said landfill, including, but not limited to closure costs, post closure costs, and any corrective action costs incurred after closing.” (page 2)
“… Buyer shall be responsible for financial assurance in accordance with Minnesota Rules, and Seller shall no longer be responsible for said financial assurance.” (page 2)
“…Buyer agrees to indemnify and save Seller harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, causes of actions, liability, costs and expenses for damages, losses, injuries or death ….” (page 2)
So it looks like the City of Red Wing unloaded all it’s potential future liabilities onto the County for ONE DOLLAR. How could this have been a responsible action on the part of the County? Is there more to this? We are asking.
Meanwhile, though, it looks like the City is screwing over the County again with an agreement that all garbage from anywhere in Goodhue County has to be delivered to the City of Red Wing Garbage Empire at inflated tipping fees.
Note: The City of Red Wing is about 3 7 percent of the total county population.
WHEREAS: The proposal by Management & Training Corporation and its partners is for a state-of-the-art detention facility with an aesthetically pleasing design that will integrate with and not adversely impact nearby properties; and
Mayor and Council Members
Council Members (4-year term)
And here, thanks to Carol Overland, is info on the proposer, this “Management and Training Corporation.”
The City of Red Wing, Minnesota, contains various harmful facilities owned by Xcel Energy (Northern States Power Company of Minnesota).
These include two nuclear power reactors, two garbage burner units, and an nuclear waste cask parking lot.
Of course it’s no secret that utilities tend to accumulate great political, economic, and psychological power in the places they operate. A place like Red Wing, where Xcel pays a lot of taxes and employs many residents, can become, and has become, a caricature of a self-governing community. I’m not sure the Minnesota Legislature is a lot better.
Utilities are facing a world of change, of technological obsolesence, a world of existential threats, which are making them ever more aggressive and unscrupulous. How, with electricity getting cheaper at the wholesale level, can they keep screwing their customers with rate increases? Continue Reading →
This is a follow-up to the March 22. 2018 post entitled “Xcel Energy–the most abusive special interest in Minnesota?” and subtitled “Action Alert: Oppose Xcel Energy ripoff legislation.”
If you would like to speak, contact Committee Administrator Darrin Lee at 651-293-2962 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
There is a “delete all” amendment to the bill, meaning all the wording below the heading is replaced. Here it is. This will probably be presented as a “compromise” that addresses peoples’ concerns. For orgs inclined to roll over after token opposition, the new version might be just the ticket. But it really doesn’t change much–the changes are mostly cosmetic. Mainly, the “Carbon Reduction Facilities” (note that this applies only to nuke plants, not other sources of low or zero-carbon electricity) business is partially tied into the existing “Resource Plan” procedures. There is mention of “intervention” rights but these already exist anyway.
Nothing in this new wording should alter opposition to these bills.
Our information is (it could change):
So far about 20 people have indicated they want to testify against1 SF3504. 2-3 want to testify in favor. Thirty minutes will be allowed for each side. That would mean that supporters of the ripoff would get ten to fifteen minutes each, while opponents would get around one and one-half minutes each. Is this the way things commonly work in the Minnesota Legislature? I don’t know, but it seems to me in general that opponents of proposed bad policies are often treated disrespectfully.
More fundamental problems with this bill is that it’s intended to authorize essentially unlimited future funding for the Monticello and Prairie Island nukes without prior considered discussion of whether keeping them going make sense.
Because alternative electricity sources are cleaner and cheaper, nukes are being closed, or are demanding huge public subsidies to stay open. Such scams are being promoted in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois. They all lack merit as sound policy but have behind them the bloated political clout of electric utilities. SF3504 is Minnesota’s version of such a scam.
According to opensecrets.org, Xcel spends about two millions dollars per year on lobbying and in 2017 had twenty-one registered lobbyists, far more than any other entity in Minnesota. Is it any wonder, then that the Minnesota Legislature too often dances to Xcel’s tune?
Back to the nukes themselves and whether we really need them
Forbes magazine, in “Nuclear Subsidies Are Bad Energy Policy,” (read the whole article, Sept. 12, 2017) notes that:
Nuclear power has been doomed by cost escalation, while gas, efficiency, and renewables continue to get cheaper. And subsidizing nuclear plants isn’t popular in the states where ratepayers would have to foot the bill. Recent headlines tell the story:
“Subsidies for Nuclear Reactor Projects Waste Taxpayer Money,” U.S. News & World Report, August 17, 2017 (here)
“Poll: Overwhelming majority of Pennsylvanians oppose nuclear bailout by Legislature,” The Beaver County Times, August 16, 2017 (here)
“Nuclear Subsidies Distort Competition And Increase Power Prices,” Investors.com, May 31, 2017 (here)
“Manufacturers oppose proposed $7 billion nuclear power subsidy,” Albany Business Review, August 1, 2016 (here)
Just yesterday, an article appeared in the Guardian:
“Wind, solar, and storage could meet 90–100% of America’s electricity needs”
The author is John P. Abraham, who teaches at the University of St. Thomas.
(The underlying paper is here but free access to the full text is lacking for many of us.)
Mark Jacobson at Stanford has been making similar arguments for several years, but the details need fleshing out, and that’s what Minnesota should be investing in: Planning for the future not dancing to the tune of status-quo special interests.
What to do:
Testify at the hearing if your schedule and the stability of your stomach allows.
Let the Senate Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy Committee know how you feel about Senate File 3504 . You might email the Committee Administrator and ask him to share your views with the members: Darrin Lee, Darrin.Lee@senate.mn, 651.296.2962. And contact your own Senator and Representative.
- City of Red Wing kisses Xcel Energy butt…..works to raise your electric bills April 23, 2018
- This city WANTS a trump concentration camp: June 26, 2018
- Minnesota: A wholly owned subsidiary of Xcel Energy? #1 in a series. February 17, 2016
- Garbage prospers in the Minnesota Legislature March 12, 2015
- [Wash Post] “Utilities wage campaign against rooftop solar” March 9, 2015
- Northern Metals Festivities….. July 31, 2019
- Viewpoint: Lessons from Three Mile Island aren’t over April 8, 2019
- 40 years on, have we learned the lessons of Three Mile Island? March 28, 2019
- Electricity legislation ….stop subsidizing dirty “renewables.” March 4, 2019
- February 11, 2019
- Viewpoint: Lessons from Three Mile Island aren’t over | alanmuller.com: […] Note: This was published in the Red Wing...
- 40 years on, have we learned the lessons of Three Mile Island? | alanmuller.com: […] is timely to think about TMI as Xcel Ene...
- T.W. Day: I have spent a lot of time traveling around a lot ...
- alan: Tom, I see Xcel Energy as having a sophisticated m...
- T.W. Day: I do, but I'm not sure our pseudo-conservative pu...
- "Environmental Legacy"
- "Streamlining" and "Improvement"
- air pollution
- air pollution alert
- Attorney General
- Childrens' Health
- City of Red Wing
- City of Red Wing (Minnesota)
- climate change
- coal ash
- Community Solar Gardens
- Covanta/Hennepin County "Environmental Services"
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- Environmental Quality Board
- Environmental Regulation–Protecting Minnesota
- Frac sand mining
- Garbage Incineration
- General Mills
- Goodhue County
- Gov. Dayton's Executive Orders
- Liquified Natural Gas
- Lori Swanson
- Metallic Mining
- Minnesota energy policy
- Minnesota Legislature
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
- Minnesota Power
- MN Public Utilities Commission
- MPCA Citizens' Board
- Nuclear Power
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- plants and animals
- St. Paul
- Union Pacific
- water pollution
- Xcel Energy