northern metals application for major permit amendment ... · compliance with the 24-hour pm2.5...

p-ear2-27c

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Industrial Division

Northern Metals –

Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order to Make a Final Decision on the Need for an

Environmental Impact Statement

March 26-27, 2012

ISSUE STATEMENT Northern Metals, LLC (Northern Metals) has proposed a major amendment to its current air permit to operate a hammermill metal shredder at its Pacific Street Yard at 2800 Pacific Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota. The proposal is to change certain permit terms and conditions and does not include new construction. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and an Air Emission Risk Analysis (AERA) on this proposal. In consideration of the analysis contained in these documents, as well as other facts and analysis available to the MPCA, the staff recommends that the Citizens’ Board (Board) issue a positive declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). I. BACKGROUND: Northern Metals proposes a major modification of its 1998 Air Emission Permit to: 1) include

additions to pollution control equipment, operation of which is made enforceable through this

amendment; 2) eliminate obsolete permit requirements; 3) modify other permit requirements to reflect

actual emission rates achieved in practice; and 4) eliminate feedstock restrictions to allow Northern

Metals to shred whole auto hulks and other metals such as aluminum, brass, stainless steel, and copper.

The proposal includes only permit changes, no new construction. The proposal consists of amendments

to Air Emission Permit No. 05300480-002 (Air Emission Permit) as proposed in the Application for A

Major Permit Amendment, August 2010 (2010 Application), submitted by Northern Metals (Permit

Amendment Project).

The proposals have been evaluated in the EAW on this proposal dated November 14, 2011.

II. HISTORY:

The site has been operated as a metal recycling facility since 1951. In 1996, American Iron and

Supply, a predecessor company, applied for an air emission permit to operate a metal shredder known

as a Kondirator at the site.

The MPCA issued the permit to American Iron on December 8, 1998. Permit terms and conditions

contained in this permit were based largely on the findings of a 1995 EAW and risk assessment. The

1995 permit limited the company to shredding vehicle parts, not whole auto hulks, imposed limits on

particulate matter (PM) and certain metals, required air emissions testing and imposed certain

recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Northern Metals assumed this permit when it purchased the

metals recycling facility in 2006.

An EAW and Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment were prepared on the Kondirator

proposal in 1995 as required by Minn. Stat. § 116G.151. This process led to a negative declaration on the

need for an EIS. After a number of years of litigation, during which Northern Metals purchased the site

from American Iron, the former installed and placed into operation a Metsa (not Kondirator) metal

shredder. The Air Emission Permit required that, upon placing the shredder into operation, stack

emissions testing must be performed to demonstrate compliance with permit limits. When this testing

was completed, Northern Metals reported that stack emissions for PM and mercury were out of

compliance with the permit. PM emissions for total PM were out of compliance by 102 percent to

204 percent; PM10 (particulate matter less than 10 microns in size) were out of compliance by

207 percent to 258 percent; and mercury was out of compliance by 32 percent. An enforcement action

ensued, and was resolved by means of a Stipulation Agreement. The Stipulation Agreement required the

company to submit a Compliance Plan to describe what it would do to return to compliance. The MPCA

approved the Compliance Plan, which required, in part, that Northern Metals submit an application for

amendment of its permit to establish limits that it could meet for PM and mercury. The Compliance Plan

said that the company would apply for a 1.83 lb/hr PM limit for total PM, PM10 and PM2.5 (particulate

matter less than 2.5 microns in size). MPCA staff approved the plan.

When it submitted the application to amend its permit, Northern Metals included additional

amendments it believed were warranted based on the stack test results and its operational experience.

These proposed changes do not include provisions for any new construction. Northern Metals also

2

revised its application for the permit amendment in August 2010 to increase the PM limits from

1.83 lb/hr to 4.2 lb/hr for all three forms of the pollutant.

MPCA staff prepared an EAW and proposed permit amendment in response to the company’s

proposal. The documents were placed on public notice at the same time. The public comment period for

the EAW and draft permit amendment began on November 14, 2011, and ended on December 14, 2011.

Comments were taken on both the permit and EAW since MPCA staff originally intended to bring both to

the Board for decision at the same meeting.

The notice period generated significant public comment. A number of commenters requested a

public informational meeting. In response, MCPA staff scheduled an informational meeting for

February 14, 2012, which it then changed to February 28, 2012, to meet the needs of the community. The

comment period was also re-opened on January 13, 2012, and extending the comment period. Before the

meeting could be held, however, MPCA staff discovered that the PM2.5 emission limit of 4.2 lb/hr proposed

in the draft permit relaxed the 1.83 lb/hr limit agreed to in the enforcement settlement with Northern

Metals. In light of the settlement, MPCA staff concluded it should not have proposed to relax the limit.

Staff decided that the proposed permit and EAW were so inaccurate with respect to the PM limits that

commenters needed to be given another chance to review the project after it was revised. Environmental

review guidance recognizes that occasionally, a responsible governmental unit may need to withdraw the

EAW, revise it, and restart the comment period. EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment

Worksheets, page 4 Environmental Quality Board (May 12, 2010). On February 21, 2012, the MPCA

notified the public that it was ending the public comment period and postponing the informational

meeting to allow time to revise the EAW and draft permit. It would then put the EAW and draft permit

amendment back out for public comment, hold the informational meeting, and make a decision on the

revised EAW and draft permit amendment.

On February 27, 2012, the Commissioner received a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus issued by the Ramsey County District Court in response to Northern Metals’ Petition for the Writ. The Writ orders the Commissioner and the Board to make its decision on the need for an EIS on the Northern Metals’

3

permit amendment proposal at the March 27, 2012, Board meeting. As a result, there was not enough time for MPCA staff to revise the draft permit amendment and EAW, put it back on public notice, and hold the informational meeting. In order to comply with the Writ, this matter is before you for a decision on the need for an EIS. III. DISCUSSION: MPCA staff and commenters on the EAW and draft permit amendment raised seven main issues. These are:

• air quality impacts related to particulate emissions from shredder operations (Findings 18-36) • human health impacts related to dioxin, PCB, and furan emissions from the shredder

(Findings 37-51) • human health impacts related to mercury emissions from the shredder (Findings 52-62) • noise (Findings 63-69) • general air quality concerns including the compatibility of the proposal with various

management plans, including the National Park Service Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Above The Falls Land Use Plan, and other relevant plans prepared by the city of Minneapolis (Findings 70-75)

• policy implications of relaxation of permit limitations as a means of resolving noncompliance issues (Findings 76-82)

• Company concerns that more stringent permit terms and conditions are required at its Pacific Street Yard than at any other shredder facility in the state (Findings 83-86)

• Cumulative impacts (Findings 87-93) Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 provides that four criteria must be considered when a responsible

governmental unit makes a determination of the potential for significant environmental effects from a

project. These criteria are applied to the proposal for a permit amendment and are fully discussed in the

proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

The unusual process by which this matter is before the Board at this time has given rise to an issue

that is key to whether an EIS should be ordered on the proposed permit amendment.

The EAW reviewed a 4.2 lb/hr PM2.5 emission limit. Subsequent to receipt of the Peremptory Writ

of Mandamus that requires the MPCA to make its EIS needs decision at this March 27, 2012, meeting,

MPCA staff re-ran the modeling for PM2.5 at the proposed 4.2 lb/hr emission limit. Staff re-ran the

proposed limit because updated ambient air concentration data, a critical input in the modeling, has

now become available. The re-run modeling showed that Northern Metals cannot demonstrate

4

compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) at 4.2 lb/hr. At

1.83 lb/hr, Northern Metals could model compliance. At 1.83 lb/hr, the modeled ambient concentration

is 34.3 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter), which is slightly below the PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 µg/m3.

The EAW reviewed a 4.2 lb/hr emission rate because that is the proposed permit limit. At the time

it was proposed, the 4.2 lb/hr limit modeled compliance, but no longer does. An emission rate that

models noncompliance with a NAAQS presents the potential for significant environmental effect. Minn.

Stat. § 116D.03, subd. 6 prohibits any state action, such as a permit, that significantly affects the quality

of the environment where the action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment or

destruction, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02 defines

“pollution, impairment or destruction” as any conduct by any person that violates or is likely to violate

any environmental quality standard or limitation of the state. The NAAQS are “applicable requirements”

under Minn. R. 7007.0100, subp. 7, that must be included in and met by any permit issued by the state

of Minnesota.

Because Northern Metals models noncompliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at an emission

limit of 4.2 lb/hr, a positive declaration on the need for an EIS is warranted.

Although the air emissions permit is not before the Board for decision at this time, it should be

noted that the MPCA air quality permitting rules prohibit issuing a permit that cannot demonstrate

compliance with NAAQS. Minn. R. 7007.1000, subp. 1 establishes preconditions for MPCA permit

issuance. Item E of the rule requires the MPCA to determine that the conditions of the permit provide

for compliance with all applicable requirements, or include a schedule to achieve such compliance.

Minn. R. 7007.0100, subp. 7.K. defines “applicable requirement” to include any NAAQS adopted under

section 109 of the Clean Air Act

The potential for significant environmental effect can be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory

authority as provided by the environmental review rules. Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. “Ongoing public

regulatory authority” can mean an enforceable permit. If the modeled noncompliance with the NAAQS

5

were mitigated through the air emissions permit, the MPCA could issue a negative declaration on the

need for an EIS.

In order to issue a negative declaration on the need for an EIS in this case, the impacts from air

emissions must be mitigated. The impacts can be mitigated by lowering the 4.2 lb/hr PM2.5 emission limit

in the permit to a limit that models compliance with NAAQS. At the time of preparation of the Board

mailing, Northern Metals had not agreed to mitigate the potential for significant environmental effect

posed by the 4.2 lb/hr PM2.5 emission limit. Therefore, MPCA staff recommends a positive declaration on

the need for an EIS in this Board Item.

If Northern Metals commits to a PM2.5 emission limit that the MPCA can agree models compliance

with the PM2.5 NAAQS by the time the MPCA Board must make its decision, the MPCA Board can make a

negative declaration on the need for an EIS. The Board can then direct the MPCA staff to prepare

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and an Order consistent with the negative declaration and

authorize the Commissioner of the MPCA to execute the Findings.

IV. CONCLUSIONS: The proposal by Northern Metals for a Major Amendment to its Air Emission Permit is the project

that was evaluated by the EAW that is before the MPCA Board. With a 4.2 lb/hr emission limit for PM2.5,

the project presents the potential for significant environmental effect.

V. RECOMMENDATION: MPCA staff recommends that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R.

4410.1700, the Board issue a positive declaration on the need for an EIS.

6

7

SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED, that, in accordance with the standard and criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700,

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) approves and adopts the attached Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Order, which conclude that the project (the proposal for a major amendment to

the Northern Metals Air Emission Permit, as analyzed in this EAW), has the potential for significant

environmental effects. The Commissioner is authorized to execute the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law, and Order on behalf of the MPCA.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the MPCA authorizes the Commissioner to approve a positive

declaration on behalf of the MPCA.

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED NORTHERN METALS APPLICATION FOR MAJOR PERMIT AMENDMENT MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT The above-entitled matter came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board (Board) at a regular meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota, on March 27, 2012. Based on MPCA staff 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, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

Project Description 1. Northern Metals, LLC (Northern Metals) operates a metal recycling facility at 2800 Pacific Street

North Minneapolis, Minnesota. A predecessor company, American Iron and Supply, Inc., began metal recycling operations on the site in 1951. Northern Metals purchased the facility in 2006.

2. In 1995, American Iron proposed to install and operate a Kondirator metal shredder at the Pacific Street facility.

3. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment

were prepared on the Kondirator proposal in 1995 pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 116G.151. The Kondirator EAW was completed on October 9, 1995. The EAW process led to a negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

4. In 1996, American Iron applied for an Air Emissions Permit to install and operate the Kondirator

metal shredder at the site. Upon completion of subsequent litigation, a non-expiring Air Emissions Permit was issued to American Iron on December 8, 1998; however, the Kondirator shredder was never installed.

5. After Northern Metals purchased the site from American Iron, Northern Metals installed and placed

into operation a Metsa (not Kondirator) metal shredder under the permit Northern Metals assumed from American Iron when it purchased the metals recycling facility in 2006. The shredder commenced operation on June 18, 2009.

6. The Air Emission Permit required that, upon placing the shredder into operation, stack emissions

testing must be performed to demonstrate compliance with permit limits. This testing was conducted from December 1-4, 2009.

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 7. The test results Northern Metals reported showed that stack emissions for total particulate matter

(PM), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10) and mercury were out of compliance with the permit by 204 percent, 258 percent, and 32 percent, respectively. Re-testing for PM and PM10 conducted on December 22, 2009, indicated continued non-compliance for total PM and PM10 by 102 percent and 207 percent, respectively. Additional stack testing for mercury emissions was conducted on June 22, 23, and 29, 2010, indicating compliance with the mercury limit.

8. An enforcement action ensued and was resolved with a Stipulation Agreement that became effective on August 11, 2010. The Stipulation Agreement required Northern Metals to submit a Compliance Plan to the MPCA for approval, which Northern Metals did. Among other things, the Compliance Plan specified that Northern Metals would submit an application for an amendment to its permit with a 1.83 lb/hr limit for all regulated forms of PM, including particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5).

9. The project under review is the application for a major air emission permit amendment submitted by Northern Metals. The application included changes it believed were warranted based on the stack test results and its operational experience as well as new emission limits for mercury, total PM, PM10 and PM2.5. The proposed changes related to permit limits and operational changes only, and do not include provisions for any new construction.

10. An EAW was prepared on the proposed major permit amendment. The MPCA, which is the MPCA Citizens’ Board, is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for the project.

Procedural History

11. Northern Metals submitted the completed data portion of an EAW on November 30, 2010. This

submittal was used by MPCA as the first step in preparing an EAW on the permit amendment proposal. The EAW contains more information on the proposal and its potential for significant environmental effects.

12. MPCA staff prepared an EAW on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500, and the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on November 14, 2011.

13. A primary purpose of environmental review is to use all practicable means and measures to create

and maintain conditions under which human beings and nature can exist in productive harmony. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2. Environmental review informs the permitting process prior to permit issuance. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 6. A key component of EAW process is public involvement in the process. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(b); Minn. R. 4410.1500-1600.

14. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was

provided to media in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, as well as other interested parties, on November 14, 2011. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 14, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. In addition, on November 10, 2011, before the

2

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order

beginning of the EAW comment period, the MPCA sent a separate notice to all names on the mailing list for the 1995 Kondirator EAW, indicating that an EAW on the proposed Northern Metals permit amendment was being prepared and providing information on how to obtain a paper copy of the EAW or access an electronic copy on the MPCA website.

15. The public comment period for the EAW began on November 14, 2011 and ended on December 14,

2011. A number of commenters stated just before the close of this comment period that they had only then become aware of the Northern Metals proposal and EAW. Several commenters requested a public informational meeting, which requires at least 30 days advance notice for a meeting on an air emissions permit. Minn. R. 7007.0850, subp. 2(3).

16. EQB rules also provide for public meetings to gather comments on an EAW if such a meeting is

necessary or useful. Minn. R. 4410.1600. Reasonable advance notice is required. 17. The MPCA finds that a public informational meeting would have helped to clarify and resolve issues

concerning the proposed permit. 18. The MPCA further finds that a public meeting on the EAW in this matter would have been useful.

The meeting was intended to provide information and gather comment on both the proposed permit and the EAW.

19. Since at least a 30-day advance notice is required for the permit, it was reasonable to provide at

least 30 days advance notice for a meeting on the EAW as well. 20. Because MPCA staff noticed the EAW and draft permit together and intended the public

informational meeting to apply to both, the MPCA finds that at least 30 days advance notice of the meeting was reasonable under Minn. R. 4410.1600.

21. MPCA issued a public notice on January 6, 2012, announcing a public informational meeting for

February 14, 2012, and an extension of the comment period beginning on January 13, 2012, and ending on February 28, 2012. Upon due consideration, the MPCA decided to change the date of the public meeting to February 28, 2012, to accommodate community needs.

22. The MPCA published a notice in the January 23, 2012, edition of the EQB Monitor stating that the

comment period for the EAW and the draft permit amendment had been re-opened, that a public meeting would be held on February 28, 2012, and that the comment period would end on March 14, 2012, two weeks after the public meeting.

23. In early February, MPCA staff determined that the 4.2 lb/hr PM limits specified in the draft permit

amendment relaxed the emission limit from the 1.83 lb/hr limit that had been used to settle the enforcement action described in the Project Description section above. MPCA staff concluded that changing the PM emission limit in the proposed permit to the limit Northern Metals had agreed to in the enforcement action, would be the most appropriate thing to do under the circumstances. This approach is consistent with United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement policy.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 24. Under guidance pertaining to EQB Rules, if an RGU determines that important information in an

EAW is either so incomplete or so inaccurate that the project commenters have not been given a fair chance to review the true project, the RGU may withdraw the EAW, revise it and republish it. EAW Guidelines: Preparing Environmental Assessment Worksheets, Environmental Quality Board, page 4, (May 12, 2010). That is what MPCA staff decided here.

25. On February 21, 2012, MPCA staff published a public notice to end the public comment period and

postpone the public informational meeting in order to revise the EAW and permit amendment and put them back on public notice with revised PM emission limits.

26. The MPCA finds that changing a proposed permit limit to conform to a limit that was used to

settlement an enforcement action was appropriate to ensure that regulated parties propose and agree to enforcement terms that they actually intend to abide by and for reasons of consistency between the enforcement and permitting programs. The MPCA ratifies the actions of the MPCA staff to withdraw, revise and re-notice the EAW and proposed permit amendment because they were so inaccurate as to not afford the public an opportunity to comment on the true EAW and permit amendment.

27. MPCA staff attempted to get agreement from Northern Metals to revise the EAW and permit

amendment to include 1.83 lb/hr PM limits and to put the revised EAW and permit on public notice, but Northern Metals refused.

28. During the extended comment period, the MPCA received comment letters from the National Park

Service, the Metropolitan Council, the city of Minneapolis, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, Northern Metals, and 64 letters or e-mails from citizens. A list of the comment letters received is included as Appendix A to these findings.

29. The MPCA prepared written responses to the comment letters received during the extended public

comment period. The comment letters received and the responses to the comments are included as Appendix B to these findings.

30. After the public comment period was terminated on February 21 , 2012, MPCA staff has received, as

of the date of development of this document, 237 comment letters. MPCA staff did not prepare responses to those comments because they were not received within the comment period. The majority of these comments were identical. An example is attached as Appendix C.

Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

31. On February 27th, Northern Metals delivered a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus from the Ramsey

County District Court ordering the Commissioner of the MPCA and the MPCA to make its decision on the need for an EIS in this matter on March 27, 2012, and to make the decision whether to issue Air Emission Permit No. 05300480-003 no later than 90 days after the decision on the need for an EIS.

32. Ramsey County District Court issued the Writ after Northern Metals filed a Petition for a Peremptory

Writ of Mandamus on February 24, 2012. Northern Metals based its petition on Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 2a(b) and Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 2.A., which call for an RGU, in this case the

4


MPCA, to make its final decision on the need for an EIS between three and thirty days after the close of the public comment period. No consequence is specified for failure to meet the timing in the rule. In its Petition, Northern Metals argued that it was entitled to a decision on the need for an EIS at the January 2012, MPCA Board meeting because the EAW and permit amendment came off public notice on December 14, 2011, and the EQB rules make no provision for extended comment periods.

33. The Court held a hearing on February 24, 2012. Neither the MPCA nor the Commissioner was served

with the Petition for the Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and neither was given notice of the February 24, 2012, hearing.

34. The MPCA finds that the Commissioner and the MPCA did not appear at the hearing as a

consequence of Northern Metals’ failure to provide notice of any kind to the MPCA or the Commissioner.

35. The MPCA finds that due to the Peremptory Writ of Mandamus, MPCA staff has been unable to

revise the EAW and draft permit amendment, and has therefore brought the EAW to the Board for a decision on the need for an EIS with the 4.2 lb/hr PM emission limits.

New MPCA Staff Air Dispersion Modeling

36. After MPCA staff determined that the EAW and draft permit amendment needed to be revised, staff

re-ran the air dispersion modeling that had been done for the facility to show modeled compliance with National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Northern Metals did the modeling for its March 2010 permit application, and did it again to support the August 2010 revised application. MPCA staff did the modeling again in August 2011. In light of the fact that MPCA staff proposed to change the PM limits, it was appropriate to model the facility emissions for PM again.

37. MPCA staff updated the background concentration input data before reconsidering the NAAQS

modeling because updated background concentration data for 2011 had become available. 38. MPCA staff modeling at 4.2 lb/hr showed that the facility would exceed the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5

by a wide margin. 39. MPCA staff then ran an actual air dispersion model at 1.83 lb/hr. This modeling exercise showed

compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at 34.3 µg/m3 (micrograms per cubic meter), which is 0.7 µg/m3 below the NAAQS.

40. The MPCA finds that it was appropriate and proper to check NAAQS compliance again, particularly in

light of the availability of the new background ambient air concentration data. 41. The MPCA finds that MPCA staff analysis shows that Northern Metals’ facility cannot demonstrate

compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS at the currently proposed PM limit of 4.2 lb/hr. 42. The MPCA finds that the staff inability to model compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is a

significant barrier to finding that there is no potential for significant environmental effect and to issuing a permit amendment.

5


Criteria for Determining the Potential for Significant Environmental Effects

43. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700, the MPCA must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for

significant environmental effects. 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects.

B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the

following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contribution from the project.

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project.

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.

The MPCA Findings with Respect to Each of These Criteria

Are Set Forth Below Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 44. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the “type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects” Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. A. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

45. The types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the project include the

following: • air quality impacts related to particulate emissions from shredder operations • human health impacts related to emissions of toxic air pollutants from the shredder • human health impacts related to emissions of mercury emissions from the shredder • noise

46. Comment letters raised additional issues, as follows:

• general air quality concerns including the compatibility of the proposal with various management plans, including the NPS Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Above The Falls land use plan and other relevant plans prepared by the city of Minneapolis

6


• policy implications of relaxation of permit limitations as a means of resolving noncompliance issues

• company concerns that more stringent permit terms and conditions are required at its Pacific Street Yard than at any other shredder facility in the state.

47. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from

the project, the MPCA makes the following findings. Air quality impacts related to particulate emissions from shredder operations.

48. The initial air emissions permit, issued in 1998, limited PM and PM10 emissions to a rate of

0.43 pounds per hour. This limit was based on the need determined by MPCA to limit particulate emissions in order to keep human health risks below the facility benchmark level. This determination was based on the Human Health Risk Assessment prepared by MPCA in 1995, and it led the company to seek air emission control equipment that would limit particulate emissions to below 0.49 pounds per hour in order to limit risk driver emissions. The company found a vendor that would guarantee sufficient particulate control to keep emissions below that level when combined with other equipment that the company was already committed to install. With all this air emission control equipment deployed, calculations showed that the emission rate would be 0.43 pounds per hour. This became the limit in the permit issued in 1998.

49. At the time of the MPCA’s original environmental review and risk assessment in 1995, the impact

assessment did not take condensable PM into consideration. However, by the time the air emission permit was issued in 1998, the EPA had made it clear that condensable PM should be considered in permitting. The 1998 permit identified the PM limits as including both filterable and condensable species of PM. The MPCA also included in the permit a requirement to test for condensables at the time of shredder startup.

50. When the company tested the shredder emissions in late 2009, as required by its operating permit, it found that particulates (PM and PM10, including condensables, as the permit required) were being emitted at the rate of 1.32 pounds per hour, considerably higher than its permitted emission rate of 0.43 pounds per hour. The ensuing enforcement action is described in Finding 8 above.

51. Northern Metals subsequently submitted, in March 2010, an Application for a Major Permit Amendment that included the 1.83 pound per hour emission limit for PM, PM10, and PM2.5.

52. A few months later, in August 2010, Northern Metals submitted an amended application in which the proposed particulate emission limit was increased to 4.2 pounds per hour. According to the company consultant, in a memo dated June 9, 2011, this proposed limit was based on its modeling assessment, which showed that this rate was the highest it could go without violating the NAAQS for PM2.5 .

53. The EAW went on public notice on November 14, 2011. The public comment period ended on December 14, 2011. Many comments expressed concerns about the proposed particulate emission limit, the metals limits, possible negative health impacts and raising emission limits as the resolution to violations identified by stack testing.

7

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 54. The MPCA finds that public comments and their review are an important component of the EAW

process. EAW processes are not considered complete until a final decision has been made on the need for an EIS. The same is true of proposals made in EAWs. Public comments routinely prompt a revisiting of project proposals to assure that the public’s concerns are resolved in a way that comports with law and MPCA procedures. In this case, MPCA staff review took note of public concerns about particulates, the Compliance Agreement requirement that the proposed limit be 1.83 pounds per hour, and routine MPCA policy for setting air emission limits based on statistical analysis of test data.

55. Additionally, the new PM2.5 air quality monitoring data described in the section of these Findings entitled “New MPCA Staff Air Dispersion Modeling” shows that, when added to the updated PM2.5 background, the 4.2 lb/hr emission limit reviewed in the EAW and proposed in the permit amendment does not model compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

56. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record, including the updated PM2.5 air dispersion modeling is adequate to evaluate impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed permit amendment. The information has been considered during the review process.

57. Air quality impacts related to particulate emissions from shredder operations are not reversible, as

the emissions will continue as long as the shredder operates.

58. An emission rate that models noncompliance with a NAAQS presents the potential for significant environmental effect. Minn. Stat. § 116D.03, subd. 6 prohibits any state action, such as a permit, that significantly affects the quality of the environment where the action or permit has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment or destruction, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02 defines “pollution, impairment or destruction” as any conduct by any person that violates or is likely to violate any environmental quality standard or limitation of the state. The NAAQS are “applicable requirements” under Minn. R. 7007.0100, subp. 7, that must be included in and met by any permit issued by the state of Minnesota.

59. The MPCA finds that the proposed Major Permit Amendment, with its 4.2 lb/hr PM limits, has not

been mitigated by any ongoing regulatory authority as allowed by Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. and has the potential for significant environmental effects.

Human health impacts related to toxic air pollutants from the shredder 60. Among the permit changes proposed by Northern Metals is the elimination of the ban on shredding

scrap motor vehicles (“auto hulks”). The company is currently allowed to shred auto parts, such as fenders, hoods, and bumpers, but the current permit prohibits the shredding of whole auto hulks.

61. The shredding of auto hulks has the potential to result in dioxin, furan, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) emissions. All are known carcinogens (cancer-causing substances).

8

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 62. These emissions could result from the shredding of chlorinated materials, such as plastics, and

padding materials, in presence of metals and heat, which is more likely to occur with shredding whole auto hulks than with the separate auto parts currently allowed to be shredded.

63. As noted above, MPCA staff prepared an Air Emission Risk Analysis (AERA) on the permit amendment project. Using updated data and risk assessment procedures, MPCA staff determined that human health risks associated with this project are within human health risk guidelines, except for the Urban Gardener scenario near the fence line. This scenario assumes that an urban gardener lives at a constant location for 70 years, and during that time inhales pollutants, incidentally ingests soil (0.7 grams per week) at that location and eats home grown produce (1.4 pounds per week), and seven eggs per week produced by chickens living at that location.

64. Under the Urban Gardener scenario, MPCA staff determined that human health risks were above risk guidelines at a location on the easterly site fence line. This led to a more refined analysis of the data, which led in turn to a finding that the area of maximum impact is not a residential area, the type of area where urban farming would be more likely to occur. The refined analysis showed that the Urban Gardener scenario was not plausible at this location given the industrial zoning along the fence line of the facility.

65. Under the Urban Gardener scenario, the AERA resulted in a determination that the human health

risk from all of the carcinogens together equals, but does not exceed, the facility risk guideline at the location nearest to the shredder that could potentially be used for urban gardening, i.e., at a residential area that lies across the river.

66. Urban farming is a growing occupation and avocation in the city of Minneapolis and is encouraged by the city. This includes keeping chickens for egg production.

67. Also among the permit changes sought by Northern Metals are elevated limits on certain Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), mostly metals, and the removal of restrictions on the percent of aluminum, brass, copper, and stainless steel scrap that can be shredded. The AERA analysis was based on these proposed permit changes.

68. With the exception of dioxins, furans and PCBs, the HAPs, taken together, contribute a small fraction toward the AERA’s estimate of human health risk.

69. Dioxins, furans and PCBs stack test results showed that emissions of these pollutants were not in

themselves high. Nonetheless, they contributed to the overall human health risks from the proposed project.

70. The proposed permit requires a one-time dioxin/furan/PCB test to confirm that emissions of the

pollutants remain at or below previously tested levels which will also confirm the health impact results of the AERA.

71. The AERA finding that, in the Urban Farmer scenario, human health risks equal the facility risk guideline was based on the company’s proposal for higher limits on the HAPs and unrestricted shredding of aluminum, brass, copper, and stainless steel scrap and higher PM emissions. The MPCA

9


uses the Minnesota Department of Health negligible excess lifetime risk level of 1 in 100,000. All risk estimates were below pollutant specific health benchmarks and combined facility risk guidelines, including acute risk estimates, except for the chronic urban gardener risks as explained above.

72. Impacts related to air toxics emissions from the shredder are not reversible, as they will be emitted

as long as the shredder operates. However, with the appropriate permit limits on HAPs and PM, the AERA shows that human health effects related to these emissions do not exceed levels of concern.

73. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to human health impacts related to air toxics from the shredder. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed permit amendment have been considered during the review process.

74. The MPCA finds that the proposed Major Permit Amendment does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of human health impacts related to air toxics emissions from the shredder that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Human health impacts related to mercury emissions from the shredder. 75. The proposal by Northern Metals to eliminate the current prohibition on the shredding of auto hulks

raises the potential for increased mercury emissions from the shredder stack. This potential arises from the use of mercury switches in automobiles and appliances.

76. The current permit limits mercury emissions to 0.00079 pounds per hour. This is the hourly equivalent of three pounds per year.

77. Based on the results of two separate stack testing events of three stack test runs each, Northern Metals complied with the hourly mercury emission limit in five out of the six of those runs.

78. It is not known whether the one elevated test run resulted from analysis error or an errant mercury switch. The company states that it follows a mercury switch removal program on incoming scrap and state law requires mercury switch removal before auto hulk processing. Northern Metals has submitted a copy of its Feedstock Control Plan describing the procedures it follows to eliminate mercury switches in its scrap.

79. MPCA staff believes that the averaging of test results is the appropriate means to determine compliance with permit limits unless specified otherwise by rule or permit conditions. The averaging of mercury tests leads to the finding that the shredder is emitting mercury at 0.00053 pounds per hour, the hourly equivalent rate of about two pounds per year. This is two thirds of the current hourly equivalent rate of three pounds per year allowed by the current permit.

80. The testing demonstrates that while an occasional high value might occur, overall emissions are low, and the proposed facility limit of three pounds per year is consistent with the state’s October 2009 Implementation Plan for Minnesota’s Statewide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and can be met.

10

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 81. Mercury is a pollutant of both regional and global significance. Health effects of mercury arise

primarily from bioaccumulation in the fish that people eat. At proposed permit amendment conditions, the shredder contributes a minimal amount to the problem of global mercury pollution.

82. The MPCA has evaluated both the short-term and long-term mercury emissions from this facility in the AERA, and determined that no significant human health risks occur at the current hourly limit equivalent of three pounds per year.

83. In addition, the proposed permit amendment adds annual mercury testing for at least three years. If emissions are below the permit limit for the three successive years, testing frequency may be reduced to once every three years.

84. The MPCA finds that the additional testing requirements provide an additional level of assurance

that actual mercury emissions will not increase.

85. Taken together, the above considerations lead the MPCA to find that reformatting the current hourly limit to an annual limit of three pounds per year would prevent an actual increase in the limit while measuring mercury emissions on a basis that most accurately reflects the MPCA’s concerns related to mercury emissions over time. These permitting requirements are in keeping with the new and expanding source guidelines in the Mercury TMDL Implementation Plan.

86. The MPCA finds that no increase in mercury emissions is being allowed by the proposed permit

amendment. 87. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to mercury emission impacts. The impacts related to mercury emissions that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed permit amendment have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

88. The MPCA finds that the proposed Major Permit Amendment, as mitigated by permit conditions, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of human health impacts related to mercury emissions that are reasonably expected to occur from the project.

Noise 89. The shredder is located in an area of Minneapolis that is zoned for the city’s heaviest industrial use.

Intermittent loud noises are common in this area.

90. Chapter 7030 of Minnesota Rules addresses noise pollution control. The noise rules set limits for noise allowed during the nighttime and daytime hours. Different standards apply in different land use areas.

11

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 91. The current permit requires monitoring of noise levels at the site on an annual basis. The noise

monitoring events from the past three years, conducted in accordance with the current Air Emissions Permit, found noise levels to be below the Sound Level Limit for Noise Area Class I listed in chapter 7030. This is the most restrictive noise area classification, and it includes residential areas. There is no evidence to indicate that this would change with the proposed permit amendment. The shredder throughput would remain at about 100 tons per hour and hours of operation would not change.

92. The proposed permit amendment retains the requirements for annual noise monitoring, and the monitoring plan and results must be approved by the MPCA.

93. Noise impacts from shredder operation are reversible. When the shredder is shut down during non-operation periods, it contributes nothing to the area in which it is located. When operating, it is subject to noise requirements in the permit, including annual testing. These assure that noise will not be produced beyond allowable limits.

94. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to noise impacts. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed permit amendment have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

95. The MPCA finds that the proposed Major Permit Amendment, as mitigated by permit conditions, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to noise that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Public Comments on Impacts Related to General Concerns Including the Compatibility of the Proposal with Various Management Plans, Including the National Park Service (NPS) Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA) Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Above the Falls Land Use Plan and Other Relevant Plans Prepared by the City of Minneapolis

96. NPS concerns regarding incompatibility of the proposed permit amendment with the goals of the

MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan were elaborated on in a meeting between MPCA staff and NPS staff at their offices on February 10, 2012. The NPS concerns related primarily to whether relaxed permit limits on PM and mercury would result in increases in emissions of particulates and mercury. The issues have been dealt with earlier in this document.

97. The city of Minneapolis has prepared three plans that deal with the river corridor in this vicinity. They are the Above the Falls Land Use Management Plan (2000), the Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan (November 2006), and the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth (October 2009).

98. The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth, Industrial Land Use and Employment Policy Plan, and the Above the Falls plans are guides for future development rather than prescriptive documents for short-term land uses.

12

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 99. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the

environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to the compatibility of the proposal with various management plans, including the NPS MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Above the Falls Land Use Plan and other relevant plans prepared by the city of Minneapolis. The impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

100. 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 impacts related to general concerns including the compatibility of the proposal with various management plans, including the NPS MNRRA Comprehensive Management Plan, and the Above the Falls Land Use Plan and other relevant plans prepared by the city of Minneapolis, that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Public Comments on Impacts Related to the Policy Implications of Relaxation of Permit Limitations as a Means of Resolving Noncompliance Issues 101. It has been a persistent criticism of the proposed permit amendment that granting it as proposed

would immediately result in significant increases in actual emissions and human health risks.

102. These concerns result from several misperceptions: (1) that granting a limit means an emission source will be emitting at that rate; (2) that limits proposed in draft permit applications and EAWs are approved and final; and (3) that a relatively small source like the Northern Metals shredder contributes materially to the background.

103. As outlined in findings above, the MPCA generally has stringent emission and operating limits on the shredder. Adherence to these terms and conditions would assure that no standards will be violated and human health benchmarks will not be exceeded, with one major exception. At the time of preparation of the Board mailing, Northern Metals had not agreed to a proposed emission limit that would model compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS standard.

104. Perhaps most importantly, current actual emission levels are not expected to significantly rise. Even a revision to the particulate limit is primarily intended to recognize the fact that condensable particulates are already being emitted from the shredder and must be included in the permitted limits.

105. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the

environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to the policy implications of relaxation of permit limitations as a means of resolving noncompliance issues. Concerns related to the policy implications of relaxation of permit limitations as a means of resolving noncompliance issues have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

13

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 106. The MPCA finds that the proposal, as mitigated by permit terms and conditions, does not have the

potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to public comments on impacts related to the policy implications of relaxation of permit limitations as a means of resolving noncompliance issues that are reasonably expected to occur from the project. This finding does not address the potential for significant environmental effects from Northern Metals’ existing proposal to place a 4.2 lb/hr emission limit in the permit for PM2.5.

Company Concerns that More Stringent Permit Terms and Conditions are Required at its Pacific Street Yard than at Any Other Shredder Facility in the State 107. Northern Metals has noted the fact that other shredders in the state are not subject to the

limitations placed on its shredder, and in fact have been granted less stringent permits.

108. This situation arises, in part, from the fact that environmental review, including risk assessment, was required for the initial Kondirator proposal. It was as a result of these studies that the permit was written to contain the current terms and conditions.

109. The MPCA finds that Northern Metals concern is not relevant to the decision of whether an EIS is required for its proposed project.

Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 110. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. In the findings below, the MPCA is considering the cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects, not the cumulative effect of the proposed project on existing conditions. The cumulative effect of the proposed project on existing conditions is part of the EAW’s information on the project itself through such analyses as the AERA and air dispersion modeling.

111. 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 result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

112. The EAW analysis identified a total of 13 facilities within 1.5 kilometers and the Xcel Energy Riverside Plant as nearby point sources of toxic air emissions. The majority of these facilities have registration permits, the exceptions being G & K Services, Diamond Vogel North Inc., GAF Materials Corp., Hard Chrome Inc., and the Xcel Energy Riverside Plant. Xcel Energy’s Riverside

14


Plant was once a coal-fired electric generating facility, but is now natural gas-fired. G& K Services is a dry cleaner. Diamond Vogel North Inc. is a paint and urethane manufacturer. GAF Materials Corp manufactures asphalt roofing products. Hard Chrome Inc. is an electroplating facility.

113. To form a more complete picture of potential cumulative health risks from inhaling outside air pollution in the vicinity of Northern Metals, monitoring data from the nearest air toxics monitoring station and facility specific risk estimates from Hard Chrome, Inc. were considered along with potential risks from Northern Metals. Of the facilities listed above, Hard Chrome Inc. has the most similar non-criteria pollutant emissions and is the only facility for which the MPCA has air toxics modeling. The other facilities emit mostly volatile organic compounds rather than metals.

114. The cumulative inhalation risk estimates equaled risk guidelines (Hazard Index = 1) for respiratory effects and above facility risk guidelines for cancer at the fence line, as noted in earlier findings. Inhalation cancer risk estimates from ambient air monitoring data are above facility risk guidelines (1 in 100,000 excess cancer risk) throughout the state but are within the EPA’s excess cancer risk goal range of 1 in 1,000,000 to 1 in 10,000. The risk estimates from the incremental changes proposed were about four percent of the total summed cumulative inhalation cancer risk, five percent of chronic respiratory risk estimates, and nine percent of the total summed acute respiratory risk estimates. Overall risk estimates were similar to other facilities and areas in the state.

115. Based on information on the project obtained from air modeling, permit application processes,

and a site visit by MPCA staff, and presented in the EAW, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from related or anticipated future projects together with this project.

116. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA

finds that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects due to related or anticipated future projects.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 117. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

118. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval RequiredMPCA Major Air Emission Permit Amendment

15

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 119. Description of Air Permit. The proposal is for a Major Amendment to the company’s Individual

Total Facility State Air Emissions Operating Permit. The proposed permit action would make the following changes to the current operating permit. At the request of the Permittee: • Increase the PM and PM10 limit to take into account condensable PM • Add a limit for PM2.5 • Remove requirements that have been completed or are obsolete: (a) the requirement to pave

roads, and (b) the requirement to record weight of all residue and material collected by the pollution control equipment.

• Remove restrictions on the amount of aluminum, brass, copper, and stainless steel scrap that can be processed by the shedder.

• Modify metal emissions limits to be consistent with the values used in the AERA and to account for the removal of feedstock restrictions and process data that was not available when the first permit was written.

• Remove the restriction on processing auto hulks. • Incorporate performance test frequencies. • Remove the 0 percent opacity limit on the metal product pile.

At the discretion of the MPCA: • Reorient the mercury limit from an hourly limit to an annual limit and add additional mercury

testing requirements. • Incorporate the updated feedstock control plan as an enforceable part of the permit. • Incorporate modeling requirements delineating under what circumstances remodeling should

be required by the facility. • Add standard pollution control equipment requirements. • Update fugitive emission calculations and add the requirement for the permittee to submit a

comprehensive Fugitive Dust Control Plan. • Revise permit language based on updated standard requirements, citation, and formatting. • Add a limit on the amount of material allowed to be shredded per day. • Add a one-time dioxin/furan/PCB test.

16


The following table summarizes the content of the draft air emissions permit amendment.

Part of Facility Addressed

Applicable Regulations

Description:

Total Facility Minn. Stat. § 116.07; Minn. R. 7009.0010-0080

Ambient Air Quality Standards: The permit contains Tier 3 remodeling requirements based on the results of the PM2.5 ambient air modeling. The permit also requires the submittal of a fugitive control plan, and compliance with the plan.

Total Facility Minn. R. ch. 4410 Environmental Review: The Permittee is subject to requirements based on environmental review because the Permittee conducted a legislatively-mandated EAW in 1995 and a discretionary EAW with this permit action. Based on the EAW, the Permittee shall comply with a Feedstock Control Plan.

Total Facility Minn. R. 7011.0150 Minnesota Rule for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter: This rule is a general applicable requirement for facilities with fugitive particulate emission sources. To comply with this rule, the facility shall submit to the MPCA for approval and comply with a fugitive dust control plan.

EU 001 (Scrap Metal Hammermill Shredder)

Minn. R. ch. 4410 Environmental Review: Shredder output limits based on EAW findings. Limits supported by daily recordkeeping, monthly recordkeeping, and monthly calculation requirements.

Minn. R. 7007.0800 Minnesota Rule for Permit Content: The facility is limited to operating the shredder only between certain hours on weekdays, weekends, and holidays. Limits supported by daily recordkeeping requirements.

SV 001 (combined shredder and cascade cleaning system stack)

Minn. R. ch. 4410 Environmental Review: 4.2 lb/hr limits on PM/PM10/PM2.5 and metal HAPs based on AERA and EAW analysis. Limits supported by monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of feedstock control plan, shredder output limits, and control equipment limits.

Minn. R. 7011.0715 Industrial Process Equipment Rule: Limit on PM and Opacity. This rule applies to EU 001 and EU 002 individually, but is listed at SV level because these two units vent to a common stack. The units are subject to this rule because they are not subject to any other standard of performance and were constructed after 1969.

17




Description:

CE 001 (high efficiency cyclone)

40 CFR Section 52.21 & Minn. R. 7007.300; 40 CFR Section 70.2 & Minn. R. 7007.0200; 40 CFR Section 63.2

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)/Part 70/ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources (NESHAPs): The facility relies on control equipment to limit their potential to emit (PTE) below the major source threshold for all three of these programs. Monitoring based on the Minnesota Performance Standard for Control Equipment

CE 004 & CE 005 (venturi scrubbers)


PSD/Part 70/NESHAPs: The facility relies on control equipment to limit their PTE below the major source threshold for all three of these programs. Monitoring based on the Minnesota Performance Standard for Control Equipment

CE 006 & CE 007 (fabric filters)


PSD/Part 70/NESHAPs: The facility relies on control equipment to limit their PTE below the major source threshold for all three of these programs. Monitoring based on the Minnesota Performance Standard for Control Equipment

FS 001 (product storage piles)

Minn. R. 7011.0150 Minnesota Rule for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter: Preventing Particulate Matter from Becoming Airborne. There are negligible emissions from this fugitive source, and its PTE qualifies it as an insignificant activity under Minn. R. 7007.1300 3(I), but the requirement remains in the permit to ensure that it is managed according to the facility’s fugitive dust control plan.

18




Description:

FS 002 (paved roads)

Minn. R. 7011.0150 Minn. Stat. Section 116.07; Minn. R. 7009.0010-0080

Minnesota Rule for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter: The facility complies with this rule through a fugitive dust control plan and daily road cleaning. Ambient Air Quality Standards: The facility demonstrated that fugitive PM10 emissions fall below the threshold for inclusion in the PM10 ambient air quality monitoring using silt loading data for facilities that conduct daily road cleaning; therefore, the facility is required to conduct daily road sweeping except under certain circumstances as outlined in the permit. This approach is consistent with other facilities that have daily road sweeping/watering requirements. It should be noted that the PTE of this source qualifies it as an insignificant activity under Minn. R. 7007.1300 3(I), but the requirement remains in the permit to ensure that it is managed according to the facility’s fugitive dust control plan.

FS 003 (material handling)

Minn. R. 7011.0150 Minnesota Rule for Control of Fugitive Particulate Matter: There are minimal emissions from this fugitive source, and its PTE qualifies it as an insignificant activity under Minn. R. 7007.1300 3(I), but the requirement remains in the permit to ensure that it is managed according to the facility’s a fugitive dust control plan.

120. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of

environmental effects of the proposal with the exception of PM. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority, with the exception of PM.

121. With regard to PM, the MPCA finds that the proposed permit amendment does not mitigate the

facility’s inability to demonstrate compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The proposed permit limit for PM2.5 is, in fact, the cause of the facility’s inability to demonstrate compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

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 122. 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. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

19

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Conclusions of Law Minneapolis, Minnesota And Order 123. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact

analysis for the proposed project. • data presented in the EAW, including an AERA • permit application(s) • Air Dispersion Modeling Report • other reports and analysis as appropriate • permits and environmental review of other industrial projects

124. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

125. The project poses the potential for significant environmental effects from PM emissions that could

be, but are not, addressed in the proposed permit amendment. This is due to the project proposer’s failure to agree to a specific limit by which its facility can demonstrate, in accordance with MPCA approved modeling protocol, compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.

126. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise

and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and could be controlled, but are not with regard to PM2.5 emissions.

127. The MPCA hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the rationale stated in the attached

Response to Comments (Appendix B) as an additional basis for response to issues addressed in these Findings.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

128. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit

development process, 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.

129. 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, with the exception of PM emissions for which the proposed permit limit does not mitigate the potential for significant environmental effect. The project is not expected to comply with all MPCA standards. The project as proposed has demonstrated that it cannot comply with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS

130. Based on a comparison of the impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the project with

the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7, the project has the potential for significant environmental effects.

20


21

131. An EIS is required. 132. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly

be termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

ORDER

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Northern Metals Application For Major Permit Amendment Project and that there is a need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

__________________________________________ Commissioner Paul W. Aasen Chair, Citizens’ Board Minnesota Pollution Control Agency __________________________________________ Date

APPENDIX A

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Northern Metals Application for Major Permit Amendment

Environmental Assessment Worksheet LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. JoAnne Kelty, Hawthorne Neighborhood Council. Letter dated December 9, 2011. 2. Paul Labovitz, National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. E-mail sent

December 14, 2011. 3. Paul Labovitz, National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Letter received

December 16, 2011. 4. Daniel Huff, City of Minneapolis. Letter received December 19, 2011. 5. Minnesota State Representative Diane Loeffler. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 6. Bruce Chamberlain, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. Letter received December 14, 2011. 7. Carla Bates, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 8. Minnesota State Representatives Joe Mullery and Phyllis Kahn. Letter dated December 14, 2011. 9. Duane Atter, no address given. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 10. Anita Tabb, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 11. Alan Muller, Red Wing, Minnesota. Letter dated December 16, 2011. 12. Dana Kuehn, North Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 13. Patricia Hillmeyer, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Letter received November 29, 2011. 14. Tod Sherman, Minnesota Department of Transportation. E-mail sent November 17, 2011. 15. Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council. Letter received December 14, 2011. 16. Ron Anderson, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 17. Mary Jamin Maguire and Georgianna Yantos, Above the Falls Citizen Advisory Committee,

Minneapolis, Minnesota. Letter dated December 14, 2011. 18. John Schatz, St. Paul, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 19. Lara Norkus-Crampton, RN, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 20. Michael Neumann, Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota. Letter dated December 14, 2011. 21. Dan Kalmon, Mississippi Watershed Management Organization. Memorandum dated December 19,

2011. 22. Matthew Schlosser, North Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 23. Meg Tuthill, 10th Ward City Council Member and resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent

December 14, 2011. 24. Darrell Gerber, Clean Water Action, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Letter not dated. 25. Alexis Pennie, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 26. Alyssa Murphy, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 27. Alan Muller, Red Wing, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 28. Kris Brogan, North Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 29. Andrew Wielinski, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 30. Justin Eibenholzl, Southeast Como Improvement Association. Letter dated December 14, 2011. 31. Wesley C. Moses, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 32. Elanne Palcich, Chisholm, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 33. David Dexheimer, Victory Neighborhood Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent

December 14, 2011.

List of Comment Letters Received on EAW Northern Metals Application for Major Permit Amendment 34. Shawne FitzGerald, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 35. Rebecca Rayman, no address given. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 36. Nancy Ward, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 37. Diane Hofstede, Minneapolis City Council – 3rd Ward. Forwarded e-mail containing comments

received from Alan Muller, Diadra Decker, and Robert Andrews. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 38. Philip Harder, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 39. Greg Coleman, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 40. Diadra Decker, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 41. Gjerry Berquist, St. Paul, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 42. Minnesota State Senator Linda Higgins, District 58, North and Downtown Minneapolis. Letter dated

December 13, 2011. 43. Sue Pilarski, Riverview Townhomes Board President, no address given. E-mail sent December 13,

2011. 44. Terry Buchinger, no address given. E-mail sent December 13, 2011. 45. Susan Vikse, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 13, 2011. 46. Michael Gacek, no address given. E-mail sent December 13, 2011. 47. Melissa Doperalski, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. E-mail sent December 13, 2011. 48. Erika Binger, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 13, 2011. 49. Susan Peckenschneider, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 12, 2011. 50. Jean Williams, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 12, 2011. 51. Isabelle Harder, New York, New York. E-mail sent December 12, 2011. 52. Jen Wilson, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 12, 2011. 53. Shelby Williams, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 12, 2011. 54. Diane Hofstede, Minneapolis City Council – 3rd Ward. E-mail containing comments forwarded by

Mike Hansel of Barr Engineering to William Lynott of the MPCA December 9, 2011. 55. Levi Martfeld, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 9, 2011. 56. Pete Gamades, St. Anthony West Neighborhood Organization. Letter dated December 8, 2011. 57. Paul Labovitz, National Park Service, Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. Letter dated

December 16, 2011. 58. Mary Jamin Maguire and Georgianna Yantos, Above the Falls Citizen Advisory Committee,

Minneapolis, Minnesota. Letter dated December 14, 2011. 59. Michael Neumann, Environmental Justice Advocates of Minnesota. Letter dated December 16, 2011. 60. Lara Norkus-Crampton, RN, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 16, 2011. 61. Diadra Decker, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 62. Bill Kahn, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 15, 2011. 63. Bruce Chamberlain, Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board. Letter dated December 16, 2011. 64. Nancy Ward, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 65. Margie Siegel, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 14, 2011. 66. Elanne Palcich, Chisholm, Minnesota. E-mail sent December 16, 2011. 67. Stephen Ettinger, President, Northern Metal Recycling. Letter dated December 12, 2011. 68. Paul Mattson and Karel Hoogenraad, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America,

Amalgamated Local 1139. Letter received February 16, 2012. 69. Karen Bernthal, Minneapolis, Minnesota. E-mail sent February 17, 2012.

2

Asthma is a chronic lung disease that can be diagnosed at any age.

Symptoms include wheezing, shortness of breath, chest tightness and coughing

What causes asthma to develop in the first place is unknown; but we do know a lot about the factors that can trigger an asthma attack or episode. These triggers can include respiratory infections, pollen, dust and other allergens, cigarette smoke, air pollution, wood smoke, cold air, exercise and stress.

2

As of 2010, 7.0% of children (1 in 14 kids age 17 and under) and 7.6% of adults (1 in 13 adults age 18 and older) in Minnesota have asthma. In 2009, there were more than 20,500 ED visits and 4,000 hospitalizations for asthma. In 2009 there were 60 deaths attributed to asthma; the majority were among residents age 65 and older. Data Sources Prevalence: Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Hospitalizations/ED visits: Minnesota Hospital Association Deaths: Minnesota Department of Health Center for Health Statistics

3

The prevalence of asthma in Minnesota is lower than the national average:

7.6% of adults in Minnesota have asthma compared with 9.1% of adults nationwide.

The same is true for children: 7.0% in Minnesota have asthma compared with approximately 9% nationwide.

Data Sources

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, CDC

National Health Interview Survey, CDC

4

However, there are disparities in asthma prevalence within Minnesota. This graph shows asthma rates in Hennepin County. The percentage of adults (age 18 and older) and children (age 0-17) with asthma is higher in Minneapolis than in suburban Hennepin County. Data Source Hennepin County SHAPE Survey

5

Disparities in Asthma Hospitalization rates This graph shows disparities in asthma hospitalization rates by region of the state. Asthma hospitalizations are an indicator of both the severity of the asthma exacerbation as well as barriers to regular asthma care (e.g., lack of health insurance). Hospitalizations for asthma are theoretically preventable with appropriate and timely asthma care. Children (ages 0-17) in the 7-county Twin Cities metropolitan area have consistently had the highest rates of asthma hospitalizations in the state; although, their rates decreased dramatically between 1998 and 2009 (green line). Hospitalization rates for adults (ages 18 and older) in the Twin Cities are also declining (orange line), while rates for adults in Greater Minnesota (purple line) have remained relatively stable. Hospitalization rates for children in Greater Minnesota (blue line) rose through the mid-2000’s but have since declined. Why differences? -Could be due to higher prevalence of asthma in Twin Cities metro compared with Greater MN (i.e., more people at risk for asthma hospitalizations) -Could be due to greater exposure to asthma triggers in Twin Cities metro compared with Greater MN: e.g., air pollution, housing quality (mold and pests), other triggers -Could also have to do with factors affecting asthma care: access to health care provider, access to medications to treat asthma Data Source Minnesota Hospital Association

6

This map shows in more detail the disparities in asthma hospitalization rates among children (age 0-17) across the state by county and by zip code within Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Note that the highest hospitalization rates are in the zip codes in Minneapolis and St Paul that are shaded in dark blue.

Rates for counties or zip codes that had fewer than 20 asthma hospitalizations over 2005-2008 are not shown since these rates may be unstable (i.e., the rate could change dramatically with the addition or subtraction of one case).

Data Source

Minnesota Hospital Association

7

From the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Fine particles (PM2.5) and ozone are the pollutants of greatest concern across the metro and state (and both are asthma triggers). Air quality in the Twin Cities metro area is approaching the daily PM2.5 National Ambient Air quality Standard. Annual averages have been decreasing over time, but not necessarily on the highest days; that is why we still have an issue with the daily NAAQS standard for PM2.5. Major source of fine particles is fuel combustion: car and trucks, non-road vehicles, power plants, biomass burning, industrial sources, wood-burning stoves, etc.

8

This picture shows the relative sizes of the particles. Note the size of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) compared to a strand of hair; very small, and that’s what allows it to move deep into the lungs and into the bloodstream.

9

The health impacts of air pollution have been demonstrated.

Air pollution epidemiology studies have shown an association between increased levels of PM2.5 and death due to heart disease and respiratory disease.

For every 10ug/m3 increase in PM2.5, there is a 0.4% to 1.5% increased risk of death from short-term exposures. This is a small increase in risk but consistent across many studies done in different cities.

There is a 5-15% increased risk from long term exposure to PM2.5 with the strongest effects seen for heart disease.

Effects have been observed in children in terms of lung development and asthma attacks.

Health effects have been observed even at low levels.

Studies have demonstrated an increased risk of health effects with proximity to traffic.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) tracks air quality in Minnesota on a daily basis using the Air Quality Index.

The AQI is calculated based on 4 pollutants: Ozone, PM2.5, CO (carbon monoxide) and SO2 (sulfur dioxide).

The pollutant with highest value determines the AQI for that hour.

MPCA reports the AQI on its website, through newspaper, tv and radio and a phone hotline.

MPCA also provides alerts when the AQI reaches unhealthy levels and you can sign up to receive these alerts by email.

This is a screen shot of “MN Public Health Data Access” a new tool for the public and others to access health and environment data. Currently there are 10 topic areas represented on the data portal, and we will be adding several new topics and features over the next year. On this portal you can view charts/tables/maps which are useful for comparing state and county averages, and viewing trends over time. On this web site, you can sign up to receive emails when the data portal is updated.

12

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)

Northern Metals Application for Major Permit Amendment

Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

Responses to Comments

MPCA staff assigned a number to each comment letter it received. The numbers behind each comment in this document reference the letter to which that number was assigned. MPCA took comments for both the EAW and the proposed air emission permit during the comment period. Many comments relate primarily to the air emissions permit. Nonetheless, MPCA staff has responded to the comments in an effort to clearly communicate the MPCA’s process and rationale. General Procedural Comments 1. Comment: Commenter requests a public meeting. [7, 8, 10, 17, 48, 58, 6, 63, 64] Response: The MPCA had intended to conduct a public informational meeting in accordance with MPCA rules on February 28, 2012. The MPCA intended to present information on both the EAW and draft permit. However, Northern Metals obtained a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus from the Ramsey County District Court that directs MPCA to bring this case to the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) on March 27 for a decision on whether to order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the project. This left no time to prepare for and conduct a public meeting before the March 27, 2012, Board meeting. The February 28 public meeting was, therefore, canceled. The Board meeting is open to the public and, although it will not be conducted as a public informational meeting, the public may attend the Board meeting and address the Board. 2. Comment: More time is needed for the public to review this project. [1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 17/58, 18, 19/60, 27, 30, 40, 41, 42, 61] Response: More time was granted. A notice was published in the January 23, 2012 edition of the EQB Monitor indicating that the comment periods for the permit amendment and the EAW had been re-opened and would remain open until March 14, 2012. The comment period was subsequently terminated on February 21, 2012, based on the availability of new information and the intent of MPCA staff to revise and re-notice the EAW and draft permit. Also, as described in Response 1 above, MPCA intended to hold a public informational meeting and allow comment at and after it, but is now required to bring the EAW to the Board on March 27, 2012. 3. Comment: Commenter requests better public notice of matters such as this. [44] Response: The MPCA issued a press release to the media and placed the notice in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor, as required by law. In addition, the MPCA sent the notice to everyone on the old Kondirator mailing list, the MPCA permit mailing list, and the interested parties list that was maintained by the MPCA at the time of the first mailing for this project (M-List).

Requests for an EIS 4. Comment: Commenter requests an EIS. [1, 5, 6/63, 8, 10, 11/27, 12, 17, 18, 19/60, 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37/40, 41, 42, 48, 53, 61, 65] Response: The decision on whether to order an EIS depends on the Board making a finding that the project has the potential for significant environmental effects. That question will be brought to the Board for consideration on March 26, 2012, and a decision on March 27. 5. Comment: Commenter suggests issues that should be addressed in an EIS. [24, 40, 61] Response: If the Board orders an EIS, among the first steps in the process will be an EIS scoping process, in which the MPCA, the company, and the public will collaborate on developing the scope of the EIS analysis. Commenter is invited to submit recommendations for the scope at that time. 6. Comment: An EIS should have been done in the first place [18, 11/27, 37/40/61] Response: Unless a project falls into a mandatory EIS category as specified in Minn. R. 4410.4400, environmental review begins with an EAW. 7. Comment: An EIS is required even if these emissions remain below those allowed in the current permit because changes in regional emitters since the permit was issued would affect the cumulative impacts analysis. [24] Response: The EAW included an updated cumulative impacts analysis for air emissions summarized on page 30 and 31, and concluded that the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) would be met and that overall cumulative risk estimates from air toxics were similar to other facilities and areas in the state. According to the 2011 Report to the Legislature at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,15395, pollution levels are decreasing with time, with the exception of daily particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size (PM2.5) levels, which in some areas are increasing or staying the same. Since the EAW comment period ended, MPCA staff has rerun the PM2.5 modeling with 2009-2011 monitored background PM2.5 data from Minneapolis and found that the NAAQS would not be met at the 4.2 pounds per hour (lb/hr) level proposed by Northern Metals in its August 26, 2010, revised permit application. At 1.83 lb/hr, the limit Northern Metals had originally proposed in its March 26, 2010, permit application, facility operations would meet the NAAQS, including the PM2.5 NAAQS. 8. Comment: Commenter is concerned that co-development and noticing of the permit and EAW defeats the EAW’s job of informing the permitting process. The comment period on the permit should therefore be continued for a minimum of 30 days after the completion of environmental review. [11] Response: It is the duty and intent of the MPCA to bring a systematic, integrated approach to the environmental review and permitting of major, priority projects to ensure that the latest and most authoritative information and findings will be made available and considered in administrative and regulatory decision making. The MPCA believes that the efficiency and effectiveness of both the environmental review and permit development processes is enhanced by conducting these process

2

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/component/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,15395

concurrently, thereby engaging staff teams in a more focused manner. Concurrent notice of both the EAW and permit also allows the public to submit one set of comments that can be accepted for both purposes. EQB Rules do not prohibit concurrent review or public notice of draft permits prior to the completion of environmental review, provided that no final decisions to grant or issue permits or approvals are made until after the process has been completed. See Minn. R. 4410.3100, Subp. 2a. 9. Comment: Commenter is opposed to the approval of the permit amendment. [1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 25, 26, 28, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 43, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56] Response: The comment is noted. 10. Comment: Commenter requests that this permit amendment be denied [8, 9, 17, 19, 20, 42, 6/63], or at least not be granted until more study is done. [10, 44] Response: The MPCA is authorized to issue permits and amendments “under such conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution [or] for the emission of air contaminants.” Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4a(a). Minnesota rules provide that air emission permit “shall include emissions limitations, operational requirements, and other provisions needed to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements at the time of permit issuance. The permit shall also include any condition the agency determines to be necessary to protect human health and the environment.” Minn. R. 7007.0800, subp. 2. The proposed permit amendment cannot be approved until after the completion of environmental review. The preparation of an EIS has been recommended by staff to provide for more study. 11. Comment: Commenter requests a contested case hearing on the permit. [8, 11] Response: As noted in the permit public notice, requests for a contested case hearing must comply with Minn. R. 7000.1800 and meet the criteria in that rule. A decision on whether to order a contested case hearing will be made by the Board pursuant to Minn. R. 7007.1900 and Minn. R. 7000.2000 when the Board takes up the permit. By the order of the court described in Response 1, the MPCA is required to make its decision on the air emissions permit no later than 90 days after its decision on the need for an EIS. Comments on Agency Policies 12. Comment: The MPCA seems more concerned with the needs of a discharger than it does with the impacts of the discharges. [11, 18, 48] Similarly, letters noted that “…we can [either] promote industry at any cost or protect citizens from health hazards” [32, 38, 41, 66]. Response: The MPCA is bound by the two following statutory mandates. In the course of drafting this permit, staff have considered both mandates and drafted a permit amendment that protects human health and the environment, but does not impose an undue burden on the facility.

3

1. Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4a says: “The Pollution Control Agency may issue, continue in effect or deny permits, under such

conditions as it may prescribe for the prevention of pollution for the emission of air contaminants, or for the installation or operation of any emission facility, air contaminant treatment facility, treatment facility, potential air contaminant storage facility, or storage facility, or any part thereof, or for sources or emissions of noise pollution.”

2. Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 6 says: “Pollution Control Agency; exercise of powers. In exercising all its powers the Pollution Control

Agency shall give due consideration to the establishment, maintenance, operation and expansion of business, commerce, trade, industry, traffic, and other economic factors and other

material matters affecting the feasibility and practicability of any proposed action, including, but not limited to, the burden on a municipality of any tax which may result there from, and shall take or provide for such action as may be reasonable, feasible, and practical under the circumstances.”

13. Comment: Pollution should be decreased not increased [6, 11, 27, 12, 17/58, 19, 60, 36, 38, 42, 46, 55, 58]. Commenter is concerned about the increase in particulate emission limits. While they may not seem excessive, they are high in comparison to the existing limits. [3]. Response: The current operating permit contains particulate emissions limits on PM and PM10 at 0.43 lb/hr. However, the numerical value of those limits does not include condensable particulate matter, but only filterable particulate matter. Filterable particulate matter (filterables) describes particulate emissions that exit the stack in the solid or liquid phase and can therefore be caught by the air emission control equipment. Condensable particulate matter (condensables) describes particulate emissions that exit the stack in the gas or vapor phases and condense to the liquid or solid phase upon cooling, and may therefore not be controlled by air emission control equipment. In order to correct the fact that the current particulate limits do not include condensables, the particulate limits must be raised to account for condensable, yet still ensure compliance with all state and federal rules and be protective of human health and the environment. Raising the particulate limits does not mean that actual emissions of particulate matter are increasing; rather the limits are increased from the limit contained in the current permit in order to account for condensable particulate matter. When the current permit was issued in 1998, consistent with Minnesota rules, the MPCA included the phrase “including organic condensables” to the PM limit to clarify that the limit included filterables and organic condensables. Minnesota rules also required that PM10 include condensables. However, Northern Metals states that condensables were not considered when the limit of 0.43 lb/hr was adopted, a limit that came from a guarantee from a baghouse manufacturer obtained during the 1995 EAW process. The MPCA is, thus, not expecting a change in actual particulate emissions because condensables have been emitted as part of the particulate matter gas stream since the shredder began operating. As required in the current permit, stack testing was performed for filterables and condensables, and the results indicate that the shredder is emitting particulates at the rate of 1.32 lb/hr, including

4

condensables. There is no reason to expect this to change. An increase in the permit particulate limit is, therefore, to account for the requirement to include condensable particulate matter in the emission limit. Since the EAW and permit public notice period ended on February 21, 2012, MPCA staff redid the particulate matter modeling because new ambient air monitoring data from 2009 - 2011 had then become available. Using these data to describe background conditions, the updated modeling showed that at 4.2 lb/hr, particulate matter emissions would exceed the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. A modeled or actual exceedence of a NAAQS or other regulatory standard creates the potential for significant environmental effects, and would require a positive declaration on the need for an EIS in this matter. To understand why this is true, it is necessary to look at the language of both the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act and the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act. The Minnesota Environmental Policy Act prohibits any state action significantly affecting the quality of the environment where the state action has caused or is likely to cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of the air, water, land or other natural resource within the state, so long as there is a feasible and prudent alternative to the proposed state action. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 6. “Pollution, impairment, or destruction” is defined to mean, in part, “any conduct by any person which violates, or is likely to violate, any environmental quality standard or limitation” that was in place before the date the alleged violation is likely to occur. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02, subd. 5. Taken together, the prohibition in Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, subd. 6 would prohibit any negative declaration on the need for an EIS or any state permit for a project that is likely to violate an environmental quality standard; in this case the 24-hour NAAQS for PM2.5. The MPCA could proceed to a negative declaration on the need for an EIS if this potential significant environmental effect could be mitigated by ongoing public regulatory authority. Minn. R. 4410.2000, subp. 7.C. MPCA staff, therefore, intended to tighten the proposed TPM, PM10 and PM2.5 limits to ensure modeled compliance with the NAAQS to mitigate what would otherwise be a potential for significant environmental effects from the 4.2 lb/hr emission limit. This tighter proposed limit would have been supported by modeling that demonstrates compliance with NAAQS and by the MPCA’s statistical analysis of stack test results, showing that the facility can reasonably meet this lower limit. At the time of preparation of the Board mailing, Northern Metals had not agreed to a specific limit by which its facility can demonstrate, in accordance with MPCA approved modeling protocol, compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, there has not been a specific proposal to mitigate the potential for significant environmental effect posed by the 4.2 lb/hr PM2.5 emission limit. Given the uncertainty regarding the limits to ultimately be placed on particulate emissions, MPCA staff has recommended further study of this matter in an EIS. The mercury limit has been changed in the draft permit amendment from an hourly limit to an annual limit. However, because the current permit limits mercury emissions to the hourly equivalent of 3 lb/yr, and the proposed annual limit in the draft permit amendment is 3 lb/yr, the yearly limitation will not change. The concern with mercury is that it is a bio-accumulative pollutant. This means that mercury emissions over time are more of a concern than short term emissions. In sum, the change from an hourly limit to an annual limit does not increase the amount of mercury allowed to be emitted on an annual basis.

5

Regarding other metals limits, the human health risk assessment performed for this facility in 1995, was redone in an Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) prepared for the current EAW. The emissions rates used in the current AERA analysis changed from those used in the 1995 risk assessment because: 1) MPCA had actual emissions data on which to base the current risk assessment; 2) MPCA needed to evaluate the possible worst-case effect of removing certain feedstock restrictions; and 3) by recalculating emission rates with stack test and other operational data, the MPCA could show direct correlation between other parameters that were measured in the stack test (and are required to be measured in the permit on an ongoing basis such as feedstock output rates and control equipment parameters) and the emission rates. The emission limits for these metals were changed in the proposed permit to match the emission rates used in the new AERA. The revised metal limits are below emission rates (either short term or long term) determined to be health protective through the AERA process. Although these increases in permit limits may seem large relative to the current permit limits, the proposed limits continue to be stringent and protective. 14. Comment: Commenters object to allowing air concentrations of particulate matter to increase to just under the applicable air quality standards [11, 31]. Others recommend requiring additional particulate controls at this time for both health and future compliance reasons [30]. Similarly, commenters are concerned about the cumulative effects of PM2.5 [24] especially on Air Quality Alert Days and Inversions [5]. One commenter recommends that facility suspend operations during air quality alerts [24]. Response: As described in the response to Comment 13 above, new PM2.5 air monitoring data from years 2009-2011 has become available. MPCA staff redid the PM2.5 modeling using the updated monitoring data at the company’s initial proposed PM2.5 emission limit of 4.2 pounds per hour. The results show modeled exceedences of the 24-hour PM2.5 ambient air standard would occur at that emissions rate. As also described above, any environmental effect that would violate regulatory standards presents a potential for significant environmental effects. By law, the MPCA cannot issue a permit with limits that show modeled noncompliance with NAAQS. The modeled noncompliance can be solved through a permit limit that does model compliance with a reasonable compliance margin below the NAAQS. This approach is consistent with longstanding MPCA practice in setting emission limits. The NAAQS analysis is cumulative in that it includes background measurements. The 2009-2011 ambient monitoring data includes Air Quality Alert Days and inversions. Air quality alerts are not exclusively caused by local sources. They are often an indication of regional air quality (including out of state air quality), can be caused by pollution traveling in large air masses from great distances, and may be strongly impacted by weather conditions. Beyond permitting individual projects, the MPCA is looking at how to reduce PM2.5 levels in the Twin Cities area as a whole and appreciates the recommendations. Currently, Northern Metals uses cyclones, baghouses (fabric filters), and wet scrubbers to control emissions from the shedding operation. All three types of control devices are widely applied to effectively control particulate matter. Fabric filters and wet scrubbers especially are capable of high-efficiency particulate matter removal, including control of condensable particulate matter. With proper limits in place, the emission rate achieved by the current set-up of control equipment can be protective of ambient air quality standards.

6

Comments on Potential Health Effects 15. Comment: Several commenters expressed general concern about potential health effects.[1, 2, 3/57, 4, 5, 6/63, 7, 8, 10, 11/27, 12, 16, 17/58, 18, 19/60, 20/59, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32/66, 36/64, 37, 38, 40/37/54/61, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 48, 50, 51, 52, 62, 65] One letter stated that more lax regulations would be devastating [1]. Some letters raise specific concerns about the potential health risks to residents in townhomes near facility (Riverview Homes), users of nearby parks like Ole Olson Park, employees of nearby businesses [1, 16, 24, 39, 45, 48, 49, 50], and people on the other side of the river [44, 51, 52]. Some letters stated that the MPCA should prepare an updated health risk assessment [4, 24, 26, 48, 6/63] and gave the rationale that modification of emission limits is not appropriate since there is no updated risk assessment to support it, and the existing permit is intended to be protective based on the 1995 risk assessment. [4] Response: As explained on page 26 of the EAW, in addition to modeling compliance for the NAAQS, an updated risk assessment, an AERA was conducted for the facility, and it incorporated the proposed permit changes for toxic air emissions. The scenarios considered in this AERA include a short-term visit to an area (for example a walk through a park) as well as living in the area, breathing the air for 70 years and possible exposures related to eating crops grown and eggs produced in the area or gardening and incidental ingestion of soil. The results show that health risk guidelines are not exceeded for the exposure scenarios at their respective zoning locations. This includes the areas mentioned in the comment letters. Staff believes that health effects for the proposed project do not pose an unacceptable risk. If an EIS is prepared, the commenters will have the opportunity to raise such concerns during the EIS scoping process. The risk drivers in the 1995 Human Health Risk Assessment were hexavalent chromium, arsenic, beryllium and manganese. No hexavalent chromium or beryllium has been detected during stack testing at the facility. Tested arsenic and manganese levels were more than an order of magnitude below the existing permit levels, and several orders of magnitude below the proposed permit levels. 16. Comment: Letters included specific comments and questions about potential health effects from chromium [1, 62]. Others state that the analysis left out the evaluation of many other toxic substances in the emissions and their potential health impacts [19, 60] and thus urges that known pollutants should be further regulated. [30]. Some recommend additional study, especially for allowing whole car hulks [11/27]. Response: As stated in the EAW on page 27 and in Response 15, the health effects of hexavalent chromium were included in the AERA. Even though hexavalent chromium was not measured at detectable levels in stack testing at the facility, the detection limits for hexavalent chromium were used in the AERA along with worst case feedstock assumptions. The results of the AERA found the estimated ambient air concentrations of hexavalent chromium, even with these assumptions, to be below pollutant specific health risk benchmarks. The EAW also noted (on page 26) that “All quantitative risk estimates have uncertainty related to the following factors: air emission estimates, air dispersion modeling, exposure assumptions, and toxicity information. These uncertainties are considered qualitatively within the AERA process and assumptions are made to minimize the potential for [underestimating] risks.” The uncertainty includes not having toxicity information for all of the pollutants that may be emitted from the facility. It is not unique to this facility to have possible emissions of pollutants without health benchmarks. A list of these pollutants is

7

given on page 9 of Appendix 10, in the qualitative additional considerations section. Generally regulatory agencies such as the MPCA and federal USEPA minimize the potential for underestimating risks by making health protective assumptions when appropriate and not by further regulating other pollutants. A list of the major uncertainties associated with the AERA analysis and protective assumptions is also discussed in Appendix 10 of the EAW. The emissions assumptions for hexavalent chromium mentioned earlier are examples of protective assumptions. Another example is that the AERA included emission estimates for PCBs/Dioxins/Furans assuming that pollutants, some of which were not present at the detection levels, were emitted at the detection limit, and that some with tests that were potentially contaminated were treated as potential emissions. The AERA also took into account emissions estimated from allowing whole car hulks using an additional factor of 1.6 since car hulks could potentially have more fluff that could lead to the formation of dioxins and furans. 17. Comment: Comments also specifically raised concerns about cancer [20/59]. One letter suggested that no negative health impacts should be acceptable. [41] One stated that it seems very likely based on this analysis that someone in the area will develop cancer because of the new permitted emissions from this facility. [30] More specifically, there was concern about the cancer risks from the urban gardener pathway [65] and that the environmental assessment demonstrates a conflict between the proposal and the consumption of locally grown produce in the local area. [6, 11/27, 12, 22, 26, 27, 30, 40, 6/63] Commenters suggested that the increases in multi-pathway and inhalation risks by multiple factors indicate the need for further investigation. [11/27, 40,19]. On the other hand some were concerned that the further investigation done in the refined risk analysis for the urban gardener pathway is merely “playing with data to suit the permit holder” or was conveniently left out [18, 48]. Response: The MPCA uses the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH) additional lifetime cancer risk level of 1 x 10-5 or (1 in 100,000) as a facility risk guideline to evaluate if cancer risks. A risk level of 1 x 10-5 has previously been adopted in three Minnesota rules: the MDH rules for Health Risk Limits [Minn. R. 4717.7100 to 4717.7800], the MPCA’s Solid Waste Rules [Minn. R. 7035.2815, subp. 4, item H, subitem (5), subsubitem (b)] and MPCA Surface Water Rules [Minn. R. 7050.0218, subp. 6, item C]. The MDH explains the rationale for choosing 1 x 10-5 as the additional lifetime risk level used in calculating Health Risk Values in Proposed Permanent Rules Relating to Health Risk Values (Minn. R. 4717.8000 to 4717.8600, located at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvsonar.pdf. “The use of a lifetime risk level factor to calculate exposure limits for carcinogens results from the EPA assumption that carcinogens are non-threshold agents, i.e., exposure to any level of a carcinogen above zero presents some additional risk of causing cancer. Under these assumptions the only risk-free dose of a carcinogen is zero. The MDH recognizes that setting the HRVs for carcinogens at zero ignores the possible benefits of some chemicals or the processes that produce them. These benefits can be economic, technological and also health related. For example, from the view of public health, the benefit of chlorinating water to prevent the spread of infectious disease far outweighs the small potential risk of developing cancer from the resulting chlorinated compounds. The MDH justifies setting a cancer risk level above zero by weighing large benefits against small additional risks, and by recognizing that the presence of a low level of increased risk does not preclude safety.” As summarized on page 28 of the EAW, the AERA indicated that, even with proposed changes, the facility had an additional lifetime cancer risk estimate above 1 in 100,000 if a person near the fence line of the facility breathed the air for 70 years, consumed home-grown produce (1.4 lbs/week), incidentally

8

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvsonar.pdf

ingested soil (0.7 grams/week), and consumed seven home-grown eggs per week. As several commenters suggested, these multi-pathway and inhalation risks estimates did require further investigation. It is standard risk assessment practice to first screen using standard exposure scenarios and to then look more closely at the applicability of those assumptions and refine the exposure scenario if appropriate. Similar refinements have been done in several past AERAs. Given the industrial zoning of the area adjacent to and surrounding the facility fence line, the exposure assumptions of the urban gardener were unlikely to occur in the immediate area of the Northern Metals fence line. The cancer risks for the urban gardener exposure scenario in the areas that are zoned residential did not exceed the lifetime cancer risk guideline of 1 in 100,000 used by the MPCA and the MDH. All but one receptor across the river were below 1 in 100,000. The urban gardener scenario cancer risk at that one receptor was calculated to be 1.07 in 100,000. Considering the protective assumptions made in the AERA and the magnitude of the risks, it is unlikely that someone in the area will develop cancer because of the new permitted emissions from this facility. 18. Comment: The EAW is incomplete and conceals information rather than disclosing it [11/27, 18, 40/37/54/61]. There is no explanation or justification presented for the increased health risks. [27, 65] Commenter is concerned that information on dioxin emissions, which are projected to increase by 60%, is not readily available in the public review documents. [11] Response: This information is summarized in the EAW (Item 23) and given in detail in the AERA Impact Analysis, which is attached to the EAW (Attachment 10). In addition, all of the materials related to the project, including raw data, are public and can be reviewed at the MPCA upon request. When auto hulks are shredded, the shredder residue will likely contain plastics. Plastics can play a part in the complex formation process of dioxins/furans; therefore, more plastics may mean more dioxins/furans in the emissions. However, this is not a certainty, since plastics could go through a shredder and not necessarily always contribute to dioxin formation. In order to account for this uncertainty, MPCA has taken a “worst case” approach to determine potential dioxin emissions. It is not projected that actual emissions will increase by 60%. This is instead a “worst case” assumption regarding the potential to emit dioxins, based on the assumption that the shredding of auto hulks would add 60% more to the current volume of non-metallic (“fluff”) materials that would enter the shredder with auto hulks. Put differently, our analysis assumed that all the plastic entering the shredder would contribute to dioxin formation. This would most likely not be the case under operational conditions, but it is one of the worst-case assumptions used in the AERA analysis. 19. Comment: The MDH was not asked to provide comments about this proposal. The MPCA should request their advice and counsel on the effects of these toxins, especially on the senior citizens and small children who live nearby [42]. Other letters specifically raised concerns about the potential health effects to people with asthma, especially members of low-income and diverse communities of color, or athletes. Response: The MDH was sent the EAW in the initial distribution, and MPCA staff informally consulted with MDH staff during the project. MDH was not formally asked to participate as a team member on this project because the project assessment followed the AERA guidance agreed upon by MDH (as stated on page 26 of the EAW), and refined risk estimates did not exceed the risk guidelines agreed to by the MDH.

9

The MPCA does not generate its own toxicity values for an AERA; rather, it relies on agencies like the MDH to set pollutant specific health benchmarks (like Health Risk Values) that are protective of susceptible populations such as senior citizens and small children. The MDH explains on its website Frequently Asked Questions about the Health Risk Values Rules (http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvfaqs.html) that health risk values (HRVs) “are developed using public health protective practices that protect susceptible portions of the population (including but not limited to children, pregnant women and their fetuses, individuals compromised by pre-existing diseases, and elderly persons). Asthmatics and athletes would be considered susceptible portions of the public that are considered when individual pollutant health benchmarks are calculated. However, HRVs may not be protective of every individual. HRVs are not necessarily protective of hypersensitive individuals who may respond low level chemical exposures.”

20. Comment: Several commenters stated generally that an analysis of cumulative impacts is needed. [6, 11/27, 36, 38, 65, 24, 30, 43] Some specifically gave the rationale that cumulative effects of exposures to so many kinds of toxins have exponentially higher impacts on health. [28, 19/60 36/64]. Others asserted that there are already high levels of pollutants [30, 48], and that the areas around Northern Metals are the highest level of pollution in the city [39, 45]. Commenters also noted that the project documents show that there are 20 other polluters in the vicinity of the project, and adding more pollutants to what is already out there is unacceptable. [24, 42], or that they were concerned about specific additional sources of pollution [19/60]. Letters specifically mentioned concerns related to HERC [11/27, 19/60, 30] and Cemstone [49], as well as Xcel Energy Riverside. A few letters recommended that the cumulative analysis should not be limited to emission types similar to those from the shredder, but should evaluate those emissions that have similar impacts [4, 24]. Response: As presented in the EAW, the cumulative effects of proposed changes air emissions were analyzed for two types of air emissions. First, air quality modeling was conducted to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS for criteria air pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are pollutants for which ambient air quality standards have been established by rule or statute and that must not be exceeded. Secondly, the cumulative effects of non-criteria, toxic pollutants emitted by Northern Metals were analyzed in the AERA. Non-criteria pollutants are those pollutants for which ambient quality standards have not been established by rule or statute. The AERA addressed cumulative effects in several ways. First, it looked at the combined potential effect of pollutants with the same health effect. This assumed that when mixed together these pollutants have additive effects. As noted by a commenter, some pollutants when mixed together act synergistically, sometimes exponentially so, becoming more toxic. In other cases, when pollutants are mixed together they become less toxic or interact antagonistically. The AERA does not account for synergistic or antagonistic effects between pollutants. This is one of the uncertainties discussed in the EAW Appendix 10 page 12, and is not unique to this EAW. EPA and MDH “endorse the use of the additivity model and, in doing so, recognizes and accepts the inherent risk of underestimating or overestimating the true health risk” (MDH Statement of Need and Reasonableness, Proposed permanent Rules Relating to Health Risk Values Minnesota Rules, Parts 4717.8000 to 4717.8600 at http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvsonar.pdf). The AREA is also addresses cumulative effects by looking at background conditions and other sources of pollution in the area. The Northern Metals AERA included background risk estimates from the closest air toxics monitor (in downtown Minneapolis) and also included risk estimates from the only facility nearby with risk assessment results (Hard Chrome). MPCA staff used MPCA’s statewide cumulative risk

10

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvfaqs.html

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/risk/rules/air/hrvsonar.pdf

assessment tool (MNRiskS) to confirm that the area surrounding Northern Metals was not being uniquely impacted by facilities in the area (including those specifically mentioned in the letters) and later confirmed this with results from EPA’s 2005 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA). As stated in the EAW on page 31 “Overall risk estimates were similar to other facilities and areas in the state.” 21. Comment: Application did not address effects when considering prevailing winds [1] Response: Air dispersion modeling done for this project uses five years of meteorological data, which includes wind speed and wind direction, among other variables. The air dispersion model uses the wind speed and wind direction to determine the dispersion of the pollutants being emitted. Thus, prevailing winds from a representative meteorological surface station are considered. This is consistent with modeling guidelines laid out by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 40 CFR 51, Appendix W: Guideline on Air Quality Models. 22. Comment: The Xcel Energy Riverside plant is one km from the Northern Metals site, not two km. Thus, Attachment 6 is incorrect. Response: Correction noted. 23. Comment: The emissions from I 94 should be included in the cumulative analysis [24]. Response: The exposures to highways are not unique to this area. It is not the MPCA’s standard practice to specifically quantify moving traffic related health risks when evaluating projects. Rather, monitored background concentrations are used in the modeling exercises. The monitored background concentrations include pollutants from mobile sources. In the Northern Metals AERA, data were included from the downtown Minneapolis air toxics monitor, which includes pollutants known to be emitted from mobile sources. 24. Comment: The health implications of land use changes should be evaluated. [65] Response: The MPCA is aware of the interest in having the area near Northern Metals transformed into park and recreational area. However, MPCA has no jurisdiction over land use designation, since land use decisions are made by local governments. Based on the current zoning, the MPCA conducted an in depth and conservative analysis of potential human health impacts and found that health effects are unlikely from the facility as mitigated by appropriate permit conditions. 25. Comment: Commenter is concerned about project impacts on low-income and diverse communities of color [1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 17/58,19/60, 20/59, 30, 42, 49 ]. Letters note that residents in the area have striven to improve their neighborhoods in the vicinity. [1, 6, 30, 31, 42, 43, 48, 52] Response: The MPCA understands this comment to raise concerns generally related to Environmental Justice (EJ). By way of context, EJ activities derive initially from Federal Executive Order 12898, dated 2/11/94. Full text at this link: http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm. The federal order requires that each federal agency, with the assistance of a multi-agency working group, identify EJ populations; collect and examine reasonably accessible data and studies relevant to substantial impacts on areas around federal facilities; develop strategies for addressing EJ issues related to its programs; develop model EJ projects; and, conduct its programs so as to not exclude EJ

11

http://www.epa.gov/fedreg/eo/eo12898.htm

populations from participation in those programs or from access to the benefits of those programs. Under the federal order, the public may submit recommendations to federal agencies relating to the incorporation of EJ principles into federal programs or policies, and the agencies must facilitate the engagement of the public in this process, including translation of documents, public meetings, and public notices that are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to the public. In sum, the EO is a directive to each federal agency that it must create programs and policies that make environmental justice a part of its mission. The MPCA has had an EJ policy since 2008. The agency’s goals under this policy derive from those in the Federal Executive Order and are to ensure “…the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. “Fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies. “Meaningful involvement means that:

1. potentially affected community residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that will affect their environment and/or health;

2. the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; 3. the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision making process; and 4. the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.”

More information at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/assistance/mpca-and-environmental-justice.html The MPCA is applying this policy in the Northern Metals case by several means. The MPCA conducted an in depth and conservative analysis of the facility emissions and the project. This is consistent with how the MPCA has dealt with EJ issues on past projects. In this case, the Agency also sought advice and assistance regarding the EJ issues from the MDH and the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. As a means of outreach to the community, the MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment by a news release provided to media in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The notice of the availability of the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 14, 2011, and the EAW was made available for review on the MPCA website at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. In addition, on November 10, 2011, before the beginning of the EAW comment period, the MPCA sent a separate notice to all names on the mailing list for the 1995 Kondirator EAW, indicating that an EAW on the proposed Northern Metals permit amendment was being prepared and providing information on how to obtain a paper copy of the EAW or access an electronic copy on the MPCA website. Additional time was granted for the public to review and comment on the draft documents. The MPCA was planning to hold a public meeting on the EAW, but at this time, that option has been precluded by the Ramsey County District Court order described in the response to Comment 1.

12

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/assistance/mpca-and-environmental-justice.html

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html

Comments on the Mississippi River and Land Use Plans Affecting the River Corridor 26. Comment: Commenters are concerned about the proposed relaxation of mercury limits [1, 6, 7, 38]. This could result in spikes in mercury emissions that could be missed [3, 45]. More information is needed on the potential for acute mercury impacts on the Mississippi River, especially aquatic ecosystems [21]. Commenters are concerned about the effects on people and the Mississippi River that would be caused by spikes in mercury emissions from shredding of auto hulks [3,11, 24, 42]. Commenters assert that significant amounts of mercury would be released if the occasional mercury switch gets through the required pre-processing removal process [24]. Response: The current mercury limit on the shredder is the hourly equivalent of 3 lb/yr. The proposed limit converts the hourly limit to an annual limit of 3lb/hr. As a result, there is no change in the overall mercury emissions limit on the facility. As the EAW indicates, emissions of mercury to the air are not so much an ambient air problem, but a water quality problem. Minnesota has a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study to address waters in Minnesota impaired by mercury contamination. The TMDL is an evaluation of pollutant sources and the reduction needed to meet water quality standards. Because the source of essentially all mercury in Minnesota waters is from the atmosphere, all mercury-emitting sources in Minnesota must evaluate their mercury emissions control in light of this TMDL, including Northern Metals. Minnesota has a mercury TMDL implementation plan to drive reductions from existing mercury emitting sources while continuing to allow expansion or construction of industries. Minnesota’s TMDL Implementation Plan1 includes guidelines for expanding sources. Facilities that emit more than three pounds per year of mercury must identify “equivalent reductions” of mercury so that the overall emissions of mercury from Minnesota facilities are reduced. The statewide emissions goal is a statewide total of 789 pound per year by the year 2025. The MPCA estimates that current statewide emissions are 1,616 pounds, with significant reductions scheduled at coal-fired power plants and taconite facilities. The MPCA does not generally evaluate short-term emissions of mercury because mercury does not deposit locally, but travels long distances, and the amounts emitted are both variable and well below levels that would cause acute health effects. Rather than evaluating short-term emissions, the MPCA evaluates the air concentrations that occur over a long period of time, in this instance, the annual concentration. As stated in the EAW “the primary route of exposure for most people and wildlife is by eating contaminated fish. Concentrations of mercury in the air are very low, but once deposited in aquatic systems the concentrations can be millions of times greater in fish and wildlife due to bioaccumulation…. Because the concern is a long-term, chronic concern, an annual mercury limit is appropriate.”

1 MPCA, October 2009. Implementation Plan for Minnesota’s Statewide Mercury Total Maximum Daily Load. http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/mercury/minnesota-s-plan-to-reduce-mercury-releases-by-2025.html

13

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/mercury/minnesota-s-plan-to-reduce-mercury-releases-by-2025.html

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/mercury/minnesota-s-plan-to-reduce-mercury-releases-by-2025.html

Mercury is emitted from Northern Metals’ process when an electronic apparatus that contains mercury (usually a mercury light switch) is missed in the mercury removal process prior to shredding. Northern Metals has prepared and operates under a Feedstock Control Plan, proposed for incorporation into this permit. Under the Feedstock Control Plan, only vehicles that have been processed by a certified End of Life Vehicle processor or by the facility’s trained employees will be accepted (see Feedstock Control Plan, Appendix B of the Draft Air Emission Permit). The MPCA is making the plan enforceable so that if mercury testing indicates that the plan is not adequately ensuring the removal of switches prior to shredding, enforcement action can be taken. As indicated on page 10 of the EAW, the AERA evaluated short-term effects in this case in that it evaluated human health impacts of mercury if a switch was missed before shredding. At an emissions rate equal to the value measured in the stack testing that caused the violation of the existing permit requirement (~0.0025 lbs/hr), the resulting short term ambient air concentrations were found to be about 4 percent of the human health acute inhalation benchmark value, which is below levels of concern for this pollutant. 27. Comment: The EAW identifies the Mississippi River as “unfishable,” whereas in fact the river is classified by MPCA as a 1C water. Given the recreational uses of the river in the vicinity, impacts on the river in light of the correct classification need to be reassessed. [4, 65, 40] Response: The MPCA used its MPCA Mercury Risk Estimation Method (MMREM) to estimate impacts on fish tissue concentrations from Northern Metals operations. The results were summarized in the EAW. The MMREM analysis showed no appreciable increase in mercury in fish from the project and confirmed the conclusion of the 1996 Health Risk Assessment that emissions from the facility would not impact fish tissue concentrations substantially in the Mississippi River. The EAW does not identify the Mississippi River as “unfishable.” The Mississippi River adjacent to Northern Metals site is identified as impaired because of elevated levels of mercury in fish tissue. It should be noted that Northern Metals’ mercury emissions alone did not cause this problem, and eliminating Northern Metals’ emissions will not solve the problem. Northern Metals is, however, responsible for addressing its contribution to the mercury problem in Minnesota as a whole. The impairment of the river has been addressed by the Statewide Mercury TMDL. The Implementation Plan for the mercury TMDL requires removal of 80% of switches by 2025, using “raw material specifications,” and Northern Metals is already meeting the 2025 TMDL requirements. It does not appear to MPCA staff that a reassessment of the water classification is required. 28. Comment: Emissions would affect the Mississippi River as well as people and wildlife in the Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area, National Bird Fly Way, MNRRA, Critical Area and 100 Year Flood Plain, and the area covered by the Above the Falls Plan [1,2, 3/57, 9, 11/27, 17/58, 19/60, 21, 24, 38, 39, 40, 48, 58]. The proposal is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan prepared by the National Park Service for this resource [3/57, 8]. The city of Minneapolis is also working on planning processes for riverfront development [1, 2, 5, 6, 48, 58] and the proposal is inconsistent with these plans as well [57]. Commenters are generally concerned about the recreational use of river [50, 52]. The implications for the facility for land use changes in the area should be evaluated. [11/27, 37/40/61] The project would damage property values and discourage the continued revitalization of the Near North river front [16]. The EAW Item 27 discussion should expand on the relevant policies contained in the enumerated plans. [4]

14

Response: See Responses 13, 36, 44, 50, 52, 60, 61, 62. The staff believes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for the Mississippi River National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). Although the CMP envisions a park-like setting for the river in the future, it recognizes that existing industrial development will and should continue. Some excerpts from that report include:

o The MNRRA legislation listed the importance of economic resources along with other more traditional national park system resources, and the plan must "recognize existing economic activities in the area and provide for their management."

o While improvement along the riverfront is desired, this plan should concentrate on new development in the corridor. Existing development is not expected to be substantially changed by this plan.

o (1) Encourage compliance with existing air and water quality standards and provide incentives for reducing emissions and loadings beyond required levels. Potential new sources of pollution will be rigorously reviewed to maximize pollution prevention opportunities and to further reduce the effect of pollutant loadings on the quality of the fishery, the quality of drinking water supplies, or air quality in the corridor. (Emphasis added)

Policies and Actions —

Following are policies and actions for economic resource management, most of which are also found in other parts in the plan and are explained in greater detail in those sections of the document. (Emphasis added)

(1) Recognize the importance of economic activities and provide for commercial use in the corridor.

(2) Encourage businesses to invest in the river corridor consistent with the values identified in the MNRRA legislation.

(3) Preserve riverfront land for economic uses that rely on the river. (4) Protect historic buildings for adaptive reuse. (5) Encourage economic investment that preserves and rehabilitates historic

structures. (6) Continue existing land uses in the corridor. (7) Allow redevelopment and expansion of corridor businesses. (8) Encourage sustainable economic activities that improve the quality of life. (9) Promote tourism in the corridor. (10) Continue barge fleeting areas and allow for some expansion in fleeting

activity. (11) Interpret the working river. (12) Encourage special events that draw people to the river. (13) Increase visitor access and recreational use in the corridor. (14) Minimize NPS land acquisition. (15) Preserve riverfront investment and encourage riverfront improvement

with a wide variety of land uses. (16) Encourage local land use control and local, regional, and state economic

development activities that promote sustainable development. (17) Promote coordination and consolidation of regulations for new

development and redevelopment activities. (18) Recognize the transportation system's important role in the metropolitan

economy and how transportation is necessary to preserve economic resources in the corridor.

15

The proposal is also consistent with current city of Minneapolis zoning ordinances and conditional use permit. While the city of Minneapolis “Above the Falls Master Plan” envisions a more park-like setting on the west bank of the river, it provides as follows:

o “Rezoning of property does not imply an immediate change; what does change is the regulatory environment and classifications. Existing uses are “grandfathered;” that is the owner may continue the current use as a “nonconforming use” for an indefinite period.”

29. Comment: The Asian Carp threat may result in permanent closure of the St Anthony locks, meaning in turn that Northern Metals would lose its access to barge transportation. In light of this, continuing to permit the facility at this site makes no sense. [8, 13] Response: While the staff is aware that this has been discussed in various forums, no action is known to be imminent and the outcome is conjectural. Other transportation modes are available to Northern Metals if this does happen. Comments on Zoning 30. Comment: Commenter states that the vicinity is zoned residential. [45, 52] Response: The Northern Metals site is zoned industrial, according to city zoning maps. The staff is aware that there are residential areas at various locations around the site. The staff’s review of the proposal indicates that the project as proposed will not demonstrate compliance with the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. All other impacts from the proposal would be within acceptable limits. Comments on Facility Operations 31. Comment: Why is the stack height 68 feet, rather than more or less? [11] Response: According to the company, the height of buildings in the river area is restricted by city zoning ordinances and by the conditional use permit. The stack can be no higher than it is now. Consequently, downwash from winds hitting the building would result in higher ambient air impacts. 32. Comment: Request: please explain how these values [from EAW Table 23.2) were calculated and why the ratios of hourly limits changes to annual limit changes are quite different in some cases. Include an explanation about shredding auto hulks (mercury vs. dioxins) [11, 27]. Response: As indicated in EAW Table 23.2 the hourly limits were based on several different worst-case scenarios depending on the specific pollutant. Some were based on the worst case of aluminum, brass, copper, or stainless steel. As stated in the EAW, dioxin estimates both hourly and annual were multiplied by a factor of 1.6 to account for the potential increase in mass of fluff (non-metal) components of auto hulks, which theoretically could provide more material for the formation of dioxins/furans. Mercury was not adjusted such because mercury switches are legally required to be removed and the expectation is that they will be removed under standard operating conditions.

16

33. Comment: The city of Minneapolis cannot confirm that its Conditional Use Permit (CUP) limits Northern Metals hours of operation, but believes that, if it does, the air emission dispersion modeling performed for the EAW must account for operations outside of limitations (which appear to occur, based on the complaint record), as well as what “hours of operation” limits actually apply to—the entire facility, the shredder, and/or hours open to the public. [4] Response: Northern Metals has indicated in submittals to MPCA staff that the facility operates from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. for Saturday, Sunday, and holidays. These operational hours were used in the air dispersion modeling for the main stack (SV001), but were not used for fugitive sources. In evaluating the facility impacts, MPCA staff made an assumption that the fugitive sources are producing emissions 24 hours/7 days a week/365 days a year. This assumption is a conservative “worst case” scenario. The modeling takes into account normal operations and these hours of operation will be referred to within the air permit as conditions. The draft permit amendment contains requirements to only operate the shredder Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, Sunday and Legal Holidays, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The draft permit amendment also contains requirements to maintain daily records of hours of operation. If Northern Metals does not maintain daily records of hours of operation, or is found to be operating the shredder outside of these hours, they would be in violation of the permit. MPCA has received no complaints regarding Northern Metals’ hours of operation. 34. Comment: Commenter asks “What is the residence time of materials in the shredder and associated separation and pollution control equipment? For example, if, say, a copper tank were to enter the shredder, how soon would increases in copper discharges occur at the stack and how long would these continue?”[11/27] Response: The MPCA does not know the exact amount of time, but the process is a continuous process, not a batch process, and it is expected that emissions occur, for practical purposes, nearly instantaneously as the material is shredded 35. Comment: Emissions are of particular concern because Northern Metals wants to expand its hours of operation [1, 4, 44, 45, 46, 54, 55]. Response: See Response to Comment 33. The draft permit does not change the hours of operation for the shredder, nor did Northern Metals request to extend these hours. 36. Comment: Commenter requests information on control efficiencies, how they are determined, whether best attainable technology is a feasible requirement, how compliance is determined, and manufacturer information on the shredder and control technology. [11] Response: Based on the MPCA’s review of a cross section of metal shredding facilities in the United States, Northern Metals has more control equipment than any of the facilities reviewed. The MPCA has not found any information to dispute the company’s claim that this facility has the best air pollution control system in the nation for a metal shredder. Northern Metals is not required to conduct a Best Available Control Technology (BACT) analysis. This type of analysis is only required under federal law for facilities with far greater potential emission than Northern Metals.

17

The controls in place at Northern Metals are commonly used, well understood controls. As explained in Section 3.7 of the permit Technical Support Document (TSD) and Attachment 1 to the TSD, control efficiencies of the equipment are estimated based on default control efficiencies in Minnesota’s Control Equipment Rule, Minn. R. 7011.0070. This rule was promulgated to establish the efficiency of common types of control equipment. It is common practice for the MPCA to use these efficiencies, as conservative estimates of control equipment control efficiencies in permits and supporting permit calculations. The overall control efficiencies for the shredder and Cascade Cleaning System air emission controls were calculated for control equipment in series based on the Control Equipment Rule efficiencies for each type of control equipment. An overall control efficiency for combined emissions from these sources was calculated based on stack testing results and estimates of uncontrolled emission rates. Compliance is determined through testing. The MPCA occasionally requires testing of the actual value of control efficiency for a piece of control equipment, but more often, testing is required to determine whether the emission rate of the pollutant meets the limit in the permit while the pollution control equipment is operating. The permit also establishes key operating parameters that are good indicators of the control equipment performance. The key operating parameters are monitored during the performance test to set an acceptable range for the parameters. These parameters are then maintained within the range established in the performance test during normal operation. This provides reasonable assurance the emissions limits are being met at all times. This is standard practice. In the case of Northern Metals, the key parameters are (1) pressure drop across the cyclones, baghouses, and scrubbers and (2) make-up water level on the scrubbers. The draft permit contains limits on these parameters and requires daily monitoring and recordkeeping of these parameters. This parameter monitoring combined with requirements for proper operation and maintenance, periodic inspections, and corrective actions provides reasonable assurance that the emissions limits are met on a continual basis. Periodic stack tests provide supplemental assurance that the equipment continues to operate properly and that emissions limits are met. Scrubbers – Manufacturer: Thiel, Model: WDS28C-BL Fabric Filters (Baghouses) – Manufacturer: Thiel, Model: Mist Stop'r MSSD40-40 Cyclones – Manufacturer: Osborn, Model: HEC 3-108 37. Comment: Commenter notes that HAP emissions [EAW Table 23.2 p. 27] would increase if the permit amendment is approved as currently written, and wishes to know:

- How the values were calculated and why the annual:hourly ratios vary among the parameters; - What authorities/sources were used for the dioxin TEQs and whether they are the same as in

the current permit; - What MPCA’s rationale is for switching from hourly to annual limits; and, - How long it takes for HAP emissions to occur at the stack once the source materials enter the

shredder. [11] Response: Annual to hourly ratios vary because some pollutants are limited and others are not. For example, if a pollutant is limited to an annual emission rate, the worst-case hourly emission rate is often not the limited annual rate divided by hours of operation. The worst-case hourly rate has to accurately reflect the potential for emitting greater than the limit/hours of operation on a short term basis. Section 3.7 of the Technical Support Document of the Draft Air Emissions Permit explains this subject in detail.

18

The 2005 World Health Organization Re-evaluation of Human and Mammalian Toxic Equivalency Factors for Dioxins and Dioxin-like Compounds were used to calculate the dioxin TEQ factors. The permit does not specify which TEQs factors would be used to sum the 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) toxic equivalents if the MPCA were to require performance testing. Emission rates were switched from hourly to annual to require that compliance is demonstrated on an ongoing basis through monitoring of the feedstock and the control equipment, rather than periodically through a stack test. Many of the pollutants do not have acute risk values. For those pollutants that do, the hourly risk estimates, based on hourly PTE, are below all risk driver levels, so short term limits are not needed. 38. Comment: Continuous monitoring should be performed for particulates and mercury, and frequent (monthly) testing should be performed for metals and dioxins. All findings, including violations, should be reported in real time on a website [11]. Response: Northern Metals does not have any continuous monitoring equipment onsite. If they did, it would be required by permit to report that fact and any testing results in a quarterly deviations report. Continuous monitoring systems for particulate matter and mercury are not needed because the MPCA has established a reasonable assurance of compliance with the permit limits through continuous periodic monitoring of control equipment parameters, continuous monitoring of the feedstock, and periodic stack testing. Performance testing cannot be made available on a real time basis. After the performance test is conducted, the testing company analyzes the results and has up to 45 days to submit a performance test report for review by the MPCA according to Minn. R. 7017.2035. Once the report is reviewed by the MPCA, a letter is sent back to the Regulated Party stating whether the test was in compliance or noncompliance. Breakdown notifications are reported to the Minnesota duty officer. The breakdown notifications, if any, are public unless a decision has been made to pursue an enforcement action that may lead to a civil legal action. In order to see the breakdown notifications a file review request would need to be made since they are not on the MPCA website. Deviation Reports are submitted semiannually. These reports are reviewed and then put into the filing system. These reports are also public unless a decision has been made to pursue an enforcement action that may lead to a civil legal action. In order to see the deviation reports a file review request would need to be made since they are not on the website. Monthly stack testing would impose an undue burden on the facility and is not warranted by the current circumstances. Monthly stack testing would provide substantial disruption to the facility’s operations and be very costly. The MPCA has several other monitoring requirements contained in the permit that provide a reasonable assurance that permit limits are being met. 39. Comment: Please elaborate on the meaning and validity of the following statement: “The control equipment controls all of the pollutants for which the facility has limits. Although the limits were not calculated assuming a specific control efficiency, the proper operation of the control equipment ensures that there is a reasonable assurance that the permit limits will be met.” [TSD p. 24] [11]

19

Response: See Response to comment 36. This is one of the foundations of periodic monitoring in air permits – a Permittee uses control equipment parameters that can be measured easily on a continuous basis as a surrogate for emission rates. The acceptable parameter ranges are established during a performance test where the permittee demonstrates compliance with an applicable emission limit. The permittee is required to maintain the operating parameters within those ranges at all times. Comments on Dust or Particulate Matter 40. Comment: Commenter is concerned about relaxation of dust control requirements [1, 3, 42, 48]. This will have negative effects on stormwater pollution from the site [21]. A “sweep only when necessary” requirement will be difficult to enforce [45]. Being currently in compliance with a regulation does not render it obsolete. Operations could change in the future [3]. Response: The draft air emission permit amendment does not relax dust control requirements. Instead, it includes a more comprehensive approach for controlling dust on the site. This approach includes a new requirement to comply with a Fugitive Emissions Control Plan. Northern Metals must submit the plan within sixty days of permit issuance for MPCA approval. The draft permit amendment spells out what the plan must include. The plan must identify all fugitive emissions sources, and shall include, but is not limited to:

o Paved roads o Product storage piles o Material Handling (including: truck loading/unloading, barge loading/unloading, rail

loading/unloading, and other material transfers). The plan must also identify primary and contingent control measures, and include recordkeeping of control measures taken and any corrective actions taken. Once MPCA approves the plan, Northern Metals is required to operate under the plan at all times. If the MPCA finds that Northern Metals is out of compliance with fugitive dust rules the MPCA may require the company amend the plan to take further measures to control fugitive emissions. The draft permit does not contain a requirement to “sweep only when necessary.” This was originally proposed by Northern Metals but rejected by MPCA. That type of requirement is indeed difficult to enforce, which is the reason that MPCA rejected that proposal. The requirement in the draft permit amendment is to clean daily with exceptions for days with precipitation events. This exception is warranted because precipitation reduces fugitive dust emissions (a proven, and frequently applied method of controlling fugitive dust emissions from a roadway is to water the roadway). The one-inch snowfall number refers to the amount of precipitation that falls in a given day, not the total snow-cover. The requirement to pave roads was removed from the draft permit because the facility has already paved all parts of the facility except for a small area behind the North Warehouse and Metal Recycling Building that remains unpaved as required by the MPCA-approved Voluntary Response Action.

20

It is common practice for the MPCA to remove requirements that have been completed. The permit serves as not only a document for the Permittee, but also as a guide for MPCA’s compliance and enforcement staff to use in routine inspections. It is not efficient for these staff to work off a permit that contains requirements that have already been completed. 41. Comment: Condensable particulates were taken into account in the current permit, so the need to raise PM limits now is not clear. [4] Response: See Response 13. Condensable particulates were taken into account to the extent that the words “includes organic condensables” were in the current permit, but condensables were not evaluated or accounted for in the calculations for setting the PM and PM10 limits. The resulting limits in the current permit did not include condensables. 42. Comment: The requirement to pave the site should not be simply eliminated but replaced by a requirement to maintain the site so as to suppress dust generation. The company’s dust control plan should be made available for public review. If snow removal is needed, the snow should be stored in an area that will be treated by the facility’s storm water management systems to prevent entrained materials from running offsite without treatment. [4] Response: The draft permit amendment does contain requirements to maintain the site to suppress dust generation (see requirements on pages A-1, A-17-A-19 of the draft permit amendment). Also, see the Response to Comment 40. Snow is stored on the site and controlled by the site stormwater system. 43. Comment: Commenter has observed a cloud of particulates in the area on windy days. [20, 21, 38] Are the recycled metals monitored for materials like asbestos or other potentially toxic or hazardous materials? [38] Response: If a citizen wishes to report an incident they have observed that they believe may be in violation of environmental regulations they should either use the MCPA citizen complaint form on the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/assistance/citizen-complaints.html?menuid=378&redirect=1 or call the MPCA at 651-296-6300. Please see the response to Comment 40. The draft permit amendment contains appropriate fugitive emission control requirements and associated monitoring and recordkeeping to mitigate dust. The permittee is required to submit a Fugitive Dust Control Plan to the MPCA for approval, as noted above. The plan will identify all fugitive emission sources, primary and contingent control measures, and recordkeeping requirements. If the MPCA determines the permittee is out of compliance with Minn. R. 7011.0150 or the fugitive emission control plan, the agency will require Northern Metals to take appropriate corrective actions and may require Northern Metals to amend the control plan. The shredder operation is designed such that the metals that exit the shredder are very clean. Metal that is sent to be recycled in a smelter or furnace in the US would be subject to Federal Regulations that address emissions from melting these metals.

21

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/assistance/citizen-complaints.html?menuid=378&redirect=1


Non-metallic byproducts from the shredding process (shedder residue, or “fluff”) are addressed in accordance with hazardous waste and solid waste rules. 44. Comment: Commenter’s workplace is required to use negative pressure to keep particulates out of the air, and Northern Metals should have to do the same. [29] Response: A combination of requirements, including the application of proper limits, ensures that state and federal rules and regulations addressing fugitive and stack particulate matter emissions are met. These requirements include: the shredding operation and the Cascade Cleaning system are totally enclosed in a building; the in-feed conveyor is covered; pollution control equipment is required to be operated at all times when the shredder is operating; and the permittee is required to take reasonable measures to control fugitive dust on site. Comments on the Feedstock Plan 45. Comment: If feedstock changes are approved, emission testing requirements should be as in the current permit for a minimum of two years, or until compliance with permit terms is demonstrated. [4, 6, 61] Response: The draft permit amendment requires annual mercury performance tests (after the proposed feedstock changes are implemented) for a minimum of three years. After three consecutive years of compliance, the draft permit amendment requires testing no less than once every three years. The draft permit amendment will require the permittee to perform one-time confirmation testing for metals limits and dioxin/furan/PCB emissions. MPCA staff is satisfied that all assumptions and calculations regarding metals and dioxin/furan/PCB emissions are accurate and reliable. The MPCA recognizes that the public remains concerned about these pollutants. Therefore, Northern Metals has agreed to conduct a test of the pollutants to confirm that emissions are consistent with the calculations. MPCA has employed this approach in the past with other facilities and it has been a good tool to demonstrate the reliability of the calculations. 46. Comment: The Feedstock Control Plan should be made available for public review, as well as other referenced documents such as “Operation and Maintenance Plans.” [11] Response: The Feedstock Control Plan is posted as Appendix B to the draft air emissions permit amendment on the MPCA website. The MPCA does not have nor does it request to have a permittee’s Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Plan. The information in the O&M plan that is necessary to or contributes to compliance with applicable requirements is included in the permit. The permit identifies the control equipment and includes operating parameters (pressure drop, water level), minimum inspection and corrective action requirements, and recordkeeping requirements. Other aspects of the complete O&M plan do not necessarily contribute directly to compliance with applicable requirements (for example, employee training requirements, replacement part numbers, etc.). The draft permit amendment, does however, specify what the O&M Plan should include: “…all air pollution control equipment and control practices and shall include a preventive maintenance program for the equipment and practices, a description of (the minimum but not necessarily the only) corrective

22

actions to be taken to restore the equipment and practices to proper operation to meet applicable permit conditions, a description of the employee training program for proper operation and maintenance of the control equipment and practices, and the records kept to demonstrate plan implementation.” Specific Suggestions for the Permit 47. Comment: Instead of increasing emission limits, commenter suggests changes in controls to limit emissions consistent with the current permit [4, 11, 21, 41, 46], and that no increased range of materials processed, such as whole car “hulks”, changes in hours of operation or processing rates, should be allowed until compliance with the existing permit limits is demonstrated for at least one year [27, 37/40/61]. If the shredder cannot meet current limits it should be shut down [27/37, 48, 61, 62, 65]. The plant should be relocated. [51] Response: See Responses 14 and 51. The MPCA has no authority to require relocation of a regulated facility. The MPCA also does not shut down facilities in the absence of egregious and willful violations. 48. Comment: The applicant is proposing to eliminate testing for some parameters. This is not acceptable. [42, 43, 45] Response: Testing for mercury has not been eliminated. See Response 46. The MPCA has a reasonable assurance that other metal limits will be met through surrogate parameter monitoring. This monitoring includes ongoing monitoring of control equipment and control equipment parameters and ongoing monitoring of the composition and mass of feedstock. Monitoring surrogate parameters is a well established and effective way of ensuring compliance with an emission standard or limit. It is at the foundation of air pollution control and is a procedure that is applied in almost every air quality permit. The initial performance test provided data for characterizing the metal emissions from the facility, but is not needed to determine continued compliance with emission limits. The MPCA will require a one-time performance test within 6 months of shredding auto hulks as described in Response 46. 49. Comment: The MPCA should suspend operations at the facility until proper environmental review and permitting are completed. [61] Response: The facility has lawful permits to operate and is seeking an amendment to its MPCA Air Emission Permit. Barring serious and egregious violations of regulatory requirements, there is no provision in law for revoking a permit to operate pending the outcome of review and regulatory processes. Compliance and Enforcement 50. Comment: Northern Metals has been found in violation of its current permit and its solution is to loosen requirements, including the current emission limits and the current prohibition on processing auto hulks. This is not acceptable [2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20/59, 27, 36, 41, 42, 43, 45, 54, 55, 61, 62, 66].

23

Response: The violations in question are for PM, PM10, and mercury noncompliant performance tests. Northern Metals retested for mercury on June 22, 23 and 29, 2010, and demonstrated compliance with the existing permit limits. See Response 13. Also, see “Changes to the Permit through this Permit Action” Item 1 in Section 1.3 of the proposed permit amendment Technical Support Document. 51. Comment: The city of Minneapolis has received numerous complaints about Northern Metals operations, including noise and dust emissions, particularly from barge loading. [4] This report confirms odors, noise and dust [38]. There is a general concern about noise [46] Response: NOISE: The draft permit amendment requires compliance with noise standards in the Minnesota Rules (Minn. R. 7030.0010 to 7030.0080). The MPCA’s noise rules set limits for noise allowed during the nighttime and daytime hours, with the nighttime limits being more restrictive. Different standards apply in different land use areas. The draft permit requires an annual noise monitoring survey to measure noise. Monitoring plan and results must be approved by the MPCA.

Historical Noise Survey Results Year Monitor

Location Noise Area

Classification* L10

(1 hr dBA)1 L50

(1 hr dBA)2

2011 Gluek Park 1 59 57 2010 Gluek Park 1 58 57 2009 Gluek Park 1 59 57 * 1 is the most restrictive noise area classification (includes residential areas) 1Limit for L10: 65 dBA 2Limit for L50: 60 dBA

The noise monitoring events from the past three years conducted in accordance with the current Air Emissions Permit found noise levels to be below the Sound Level Limit for Noise Area Class I of Minn. R. ch. 7030 (the most restrictive noise area classification). There is no evidence to indicate that the proposed permit amendment would change noise levels. There is no change in hours of operation or the amount of material allowed to be shredded. Requirements for annual noise monitoring will verify that noise levels remain below levels specified in Minn. R. 7030.0010-7030.0080.

DUST (see also Response 40): The draft permit amendment contains appropriate fugitive emission control requirements and associated monitoring and recordkeeping to mitigate dust. The facility is also required to comply with Minn. R. 7011.0150 and thus may not cause or permit the handling, use, transporting, or storage of any material in a manner which may allow avoidable amounts of particulate matter to become airborne.

COMPLAINTS: The MPCA has only one complaint on record related to the air emission permit, from 04/22/2010, regarding fugitive emissions from the source. MCPA enforcement staff followed up on the complaint and did not observe fugitive emissions at the time of investigation. MPCA enforcement staff called back the complainant to follow up on the complaint and get more details about the issue, but the complainant did not return the enforcement staff’s call. The case was closed on 05/10/2010.

24

After receiving the comment letter from the City of Minneapolis that contained of a list of complaints received by the city, the MPCA followed up with Mr. Patrick Hanlon of the City of Minneapolis to see if there were any additional complaints other than those listed in the comment letter and to see what if any action the City of Minneapolis took in response to the complaints. Mr. Hanlon did not identify any additional complaints and stated that none of the complaints reached violation level. The City of Minneapolis conducted noise monitoring and determined that Northern Metals was not in violation of noise standards during the operating hours specified in their air permit If a citizen wishes to report an incident that they have observed that they believe may be in violation of environmental regulations they should either use the MCPA citizen complaint form on the MPCA website http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/about-mpca/assistance/citizen-complaints.html?menuid=378&redirect=1 or call the MPCA at 651-296-6300

52. Comment: Was any effort made to determine whether the current permit was consistent with state and federal requirements at the time of shredder startup? [11] Response: The MPCA fully reviewed the permit for consistency with state and federal rules prior to issuance. MPCA is not aware of any subsequent review of the permit prior to startup in 2009. The Northern Metals permit is a non-expiring state operating permit. The MPCA would not routinely review non-expiring permits to ensure they are consistent with state and federal requirements at the time of a facility’s startup. However, when, as now, MPCA processes an amendment, the agency evaluates the permit for consistency with state and federal requirements 53. Comment: The press release announcing the startup emission limit violations was dated eight months after the violations were discovered. Why did the MPCA wait so long to inform the public about these violations? [11] Who monitors them now, to ensure they are in compliance? [48] Response: Information on on-going compliance cases may not be released until the case is closed under state law. The executed stipulation agreement was dated August 31, 2010, which is about eight months after the violations occurred. It is not uncommon for an enforcement action of this nature to take eight months from discovery of the violations to final resolution. In general, the MPCA will manage data that it collects and generates related to compliance activities as public data, until a decision has been made to pursue an enforcement action that may lead to a civil legal action, i.e., an administrative or judicial proceeding. If the decision is made that enforcement action is appropriate, the case will be considered not public at that time. In this case a Stipulation Agreement was the enforcement tool used to resolve the noncompliance. The Stipulation Agreement does not become public until it has been executed (signed) by the MPCA. Once a Stipulation Agreement becomes public a press release is issued. Additionally, air permitting sources are largely self-regulated, based on permit requirements. Facilities are required to keep records on an on-going basis to prove that they are complying with the conditions in their permits. When an inspection occurs, compliance and enforcement staff will inspect these records. The MPCA also monitors Northern Metals for compliance through several reports that the Permittee is required to submit to the MPCA. Northern Metals is required to notify/report to the MPCA in the following ways:

25



o Performance Test Report: Submit results of performance tests for approval o Shutdown Notification: submit a notification in advance of a planned shutdown of any

control equipment or process equipment if the shutdown would cause any increase in the emissions of any regulated air pollutant. If the owner or operator does not have

o advance knowledge of the shutdown, notification shall be made to the MPCA as soon as possible after the shutdown

o Breakdown Notification: submit a notification within 24 hours of a breakdown of more than one hour duration of any control equipment or process equipment if the breakdown causes any increase in the emissions of any regulated air pollutant

o Notification of Deviations Endangering Human Health or the Environment: submit a notification of any deviation from permit conditions which could endanger human health or the environment.

o Semiannual Deviations Report: submit semiannually a report of any deviations from permit conditions

o Annual Compliance Report: submit annually a compliance certification o Emission Inventory Report: submit annually a report of actual emissions

54. Comment: Commenter objects to “backsliding” in this case. [27, 36, 38, 42] Response: This does not represent backsliding. See Response 13. 55. Comment: Noise from the site, which begins early in the morning, is a quality of life issue in the surrounding area. Northern Metals has not been helpful in resolving this issue. [38, 44] Response: See Response 53. Northern Metals reports that the company has procedures in place for responding to quality of life and other complaints, and follows those procedures diligently. 56. Comment: Commenter requests that the Compliance Plan from a 2010 MPCA enforcement action against Northern Metals be made public and asks how it will be tested and evaluated [19]. Response: The Compliance Plan is part of the public record and may be viewed upon request. Upon submittal, the Compliance Plan was reviewed and approved by MPCA compliance and enforcement staff. It was required as a corrective action described in the MPCA August 13, 2010 Stipulation Agreement. The MPCA sent a letter to Northern Metals on September 27, 2010 acknowledging that Northern Metals completed the corrective actions described in the Stipulation Agreement. Comments from Northern Metals 57. Comment: The draft permit amendment public notice says the increase in total HAPs is 0.12 tons per year, when in fact it is only 0.08 tons per year. [67] Response: Correct. The MPCA incorrectly reported the total HAP potential to emit of an additional 0.12 tons per year when it should have reported the increase in potential to emit of 0.08 tons per year. We will make the correction. 58. Comment: Northern Metals disagrees with the requirement to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emission limit for three consecutive years after the start of auto hulk shredding, because (a) the 2010 stack testing has already demonstrated compliance, and (b) the reliance on ELV suppliers will assure that no mercury switches will be shredded.

26

Response: Northern Metals currently accepts “processed” auto hulks at the Pacific Street facility. However, under the terms of the current permit, the Permittee is not allowed to shred auto hulks, specifically to address minimizing mercury emissions from the facility. The MPCA believes that to amend the permit to allow the processing of auto hulks, more frequent testing of mercury is necessary to demonstrate that the policies and procedures of the Feedstock Control plan are sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the three pounds per year mercury emissions limit. The MPCA monitors the effectiveness of the ELV program, and has calculated that the ELV program overall has captured at best 80 percent between 2007 and 2010. The rate is overall for the industry and does not reflect any achievement made by Northern Metals, but simply indicates that there is considerable mercury within auto hulks, and not all of it is caught by the required removal programs. Stack emission sampling will help demonstrate the effectiveness of the Feedstock Control Plan at Northern Metals. 59. Comment: Northern Metals asserts that the testing frequency interval for mercury should actually be five years, since this is MPCA policy when the tested emission rate is less than 60 percent of the limit. Response: Because the ban on auto hulks was specifically to address mercury emissions, mercury emissions testing is now necessary to demonstrate compliance with the mercury emissions limit. If the annual testing shows compliance with the mercury emission limit for three successive years, testing will decrease to once every three years. See Response to Comment 60. 60. Comment: No other shredder has to do the things being asked of Northern Metals, making the MPCA requirements arbitrary and capricious. MPCA should follow the TMDL and require similar testing for all other shredders. Response: The requirements that apply to Northern Metals were part of the resolution of concerns raised when the facility was first proposed as the Kondirator facility in the 1990s. American Iron, Northern Metals’ predecessor at the site, agreed to all of the requirements in the current permit. Northern Metals’ purchased the facility while the litigation over the Kondirator project was still active and knew the requirements that would apply to this facility. As regards mercury specifically, the MPCA is following Minnesota Statutes and Minnesota’s TMDL implementation plan related to the permitting of mercury emission source facilities. Because this permit has a mercury emissions limit and the facility owner is seeking modifications to process scrap that potentially has more mercury than under previous permit, stack sampling is necessary to demonstrate no increases in mercury emissions. Other Comments from Governmental Units 61. Comment: The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has no comment. [47] Response: None required. 62. Comment: The Metropolitan Council finds the EAW complete and accurate. An EIS is not necessary. [15] Response: Comment acknowledged. The MPCA staff has recommended preparation of an EIS to address the control of particulate emissions.

27

28

63. Comment: Modification of feedstock restrictions is acceptable as long as it is supported by an updated risk assessment. [4] Modification of mercury limits from hourly to yearly would be appropriate under the described conditions of no net permit limit increase [4]. Response: An updated human health risk assessment was conducted taking into account the proposed feedstock restrictions. 64. Comment: The Minnesota Department of Transportation has no comments on the proposed permit amendment. [14] Response: None required. 65. Comment: The city agrees that the permit should be amended to reflect actual operations and obsolete language. [4] Response: None required.

APPENDIX C

From: Yasiu Kruszynski [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2012 12:54 AM To: Lynott, William (MPCA) Subject: Deny Northern Metals Permit Request

Dear Mr. William Lynott, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

Cc: Governor Mark Dayton, Senator Al Franken, Senator Linda Higgins, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Representative Keith Ellison, Representative Joe Mullery, Representative Bobby Joe Champion, 3rd Ward City Council Member Diane Hofstede

I am writing on to voice my strong opposition to the Major Permit Amendment of Northern Metals. The lax regulations they are seeking will have devastating effects on our community. I am calling for the draft permit to be withdrawn and for a full Environmental Impact Statement to be done. Northern Metals should be required to perform within existing permit limits, to measure emissions on an hourly basis, and display results in real time on the web and be required to submit an acceptable maintenance plan.

I ask that Northern Metals be denied permission to shred car hulks, which would result in changes to its 1998 air emissions permit based on increasing particulate emissions limits (section 6.b.4 of draft permit), modifying mercury emissions limits (6.b.5) and changing emissions limits on arsenic, beryllium, and chromium (6.b.6). I support daily cleaning of the paved roads at the work site rather than “as necessary” cleaning (6.b.10), and continuous emissions monitoring rather than decreasing or eliminating performance test frequencies (6.b.11), with posting real-time results of particulate emissions for public review. Within a 1.5-kilometer radius of the site, we have Olson Park, Farview Park, Perkins Hill Park, Marshall Terrace Park, Edgewater Park, Gluek Park, and Sheridan Memorial Park, as well as the McKinley Community Supported Agriculture, the EcoVillage Community Garden, the Historic Hawthorne Community Garden, the future site of the proposed Farview land bridge, several schools, and numerous businesses. Attachment six of the draft permit appears not to fully account for the potential impact on these amenities. I request MPCA to perform a full Environmental Impact Survey that will measure the cumulative impact of particulate matter and other pollution by not only Northern Metals but also other neighboring businesses such as Xcel, G.A.F., LaFarge, and Cemstone. It is important that the survey specifically identify the additional risks posed on the health of residents, workers, and natural resources due to the proposed permit increases.

Northern Metals Wants to: - Increase emissions of particulate matter by 1,000%, leading to increased cancer risks. - Increase hazardous air pollutant emissions by 300%, leading to increased asthma risks. - Change the required testing for emission limits from hourly to annual. - Shred auto hulks with no means to test for mercury. - Change its hourly mercury emission limit to an annual limit of three pounds per year. - Decrease requirements for cleaning the paved surface area of their facility from a daily to asneeded basis.

Example of Untimely Comment Letter

APPENDIX C

Northern Metals HAS NOT: - Complied with its existing permits. In December of 2009, performance tests showed particulate matter emissions exceeded the permit levels by 204%, and mercury exceeded permitted levels by 32%. A press release on this matter was not released until eight months later! - Appropriately understood their own community. The draft permit application makes no mention of the nearby Olson Park along the Mississippi River, and does not detail potential environmental impacts to this land. - Provided an adequate plan for mercury emissions control in their draft permit request. - Disclosed the time and distance impacts associated with shredding emissions.

Increased emissions could lead to: - A doubling of cancer risk. - An increase in urban gardener cancer risk of 50%. - Increase acute inhalation of hazardous particles by a factor of 5.5. - Unknown cumulative effects of particulate matter emissions in the area.

PLEASE LISTEN TO THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!

Sincerely,

Yasiu Kruszynski Chicago, Illinois

Example of Untimely Comment Letter

ATTACHMENT 2

Glossary of Acronyms and Selected Terminology AERA – Air Emission Risk Analysis

CMP – Comprehensive Management Plan

Condensable Particulate Matter – Particulate emissions that exit the stack in the gas or vapor phases and condense to the liquid or solid phase upon cooling, and may therefore not be controlled by air emission control equipment.

CUP – Conditional Use Permit

EAW – Environmental Assessment Worksheet

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EQB – Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

Filterable Particulate Matter – Particulate emissions that exit the stack in the solid or liquid phase and can therefore be caught by the air emission control equipment.

HAPs – Hazardous Air Pollutants

HRV – Health Risk Value. The concentrations of a chemical which, if not exceeded, will be protective of human health, including susceptible populations such as senior citizens, pregnant women, people with pre-existing health conditions and small children.

MDH – Minnesota Department of Health

MMREM – Mercury Risk Estimation Method

MNRiskS – A statewide cumulative risk assessment tool for air quality.

MPCA – Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

MNRRA - Mississippi National River and Recreation Area. A unit of the National Park Service extending from Anoka to Hastings.

NATA – A report on National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment prepared by the US Environmental Protection Agency.

NESHAPs – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant Sources

NAAQS – National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NPS – National Park Service

O&M – Operation and Maintenance

PCB – Polychlorinated biphenyls

PM – Particulate Matter

PM10 – Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter

PM2,5 – Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter

PSD – Prevention of Significant Deterioration

PTE – Potential to Emit

Risk drivers – Chemicals that account for greater contributions to a risk estimate that combines the risks from several chemicals with the same type of health effect.

RGU – Responsible Governmental Unit

TCDD – 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin

TEQ – Toxic Equivalency

TSD – Technical Support Document

TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load

2

northern metals application for major permit amendment ... · compliance with the 24-hour pm2.5...

Documents