COMMENTS SUBMITTED TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE STEVE M. MIHALCHICK
REGARDING THE MESABA ENERGY PROJECT
PUC DOCKET NO. E6472/GS-06-008
OAH DOCKET NO. 12-2500-1715-2
Submitted by: Citizens Against the Mesaba Project
Judge Mihalchick,
The recent notice of public hearing states that the purpose of this docket is to compile a record in making a final decision on the JPA and designation of a plant site, HVTL and pipeline routes, and issuance of the respective permit requests. CAMP believes that Excelsior Energy's Joint Permit Application is so deficient as to preclude an accurate and informed decision.
Deficiencies of the Joint Permit Application:
The DOC/DOE are currently reviewing several hundred pages of comments regarding the Draft EIS. Excelsior's Joint Permit Application, upon which the DEIS is based, does not reflect the current proposal, especially with respect to the West Site. Excelsior's plans have changed numerous times, most recently with regard to water discharge. This is because the previous plans would have resulted in exceeding water quality standards and Excelsior could not have obtained permits for water discharge. The agency comments on the DEIS reveal that Excelsior has not been able to develop a plan which allows them to comply with environmental permitting, and the environmental impacts Excelsior has anticipated to date have been incorrect and misleading.
Agencies such as the Minnesota DNR, MPCA, MDH, and Department of the Interior have all reviewed the Draft EIS and found multiple areas of concern. Many of these concerns were submitted during the scoping process but were not addressed. When we read through all of these comments, it is obvious that Excelsior Energy has done an inadequate job of putting this proposal together, and until at least the major deficiencies are corrected, a reasonable assessment of sites and routes cannot be made.
Deficiencies of the Applicant:
The deficiencies of the Applicant are increasingly evident, and were quite apparent at the January 29th hearing in Taconite. Excelsior's own experts had difficulty answering basic questions raised by CAMP and the public. Excelsior stated they would provide additional information to clarify issues raised at these meetings, yet no information has been provided to clarify the questions raised.
For example, Ron Rich asked for flare information but nothing useful has been received to date. Ross Hammond asked Mr. Skurla for information related to input data for the IMPLAN modeling. The information provided by Mr. Evans in the recent exhibit list also does nothing to clarify the issue. This leads us to be even more certain that basic and critical input data is not known. A similar study performed by Mr. Skurla's department for Itasca Economic Development Corporation admits that the study authors asked for the goods, services, and materials able to be provided by Itasca County, yet Excelsior did not provide this information.
Because time to question Excelsior's witnesses was limited at the January hearings, many of CAMP's concerns were not able to be raised. Most of the questions we were able to ask still have not been answered. However, based on the quality of Excelsior's responses the first day of the hearings, we're not confident the other witnesses would have shed any more light on the issues. This further leads us to doubt the ability of Excelsior Energy to provide accurate information on critical project impacts as well as their ability to properly design and site this project.
Enhanced ZLD Plan Needs Agency Review
As an example of questions that were not directly addressed, changing the water discharge plan will have a ripple effect throughout the JPA. Because of this many sections of the DEIS/JPA will need to be reassessed. This causes the current JPA and DEIS to be even more deficient. The MPCA said "The DEIS includes little or no information about the design of the ZLD for both the east and west range sites. It is important to understand the design and operation of the system for both potential locations as it is an integral part of the proposed project".
Excelsior's "anticipated impacts" inaccurate and misleading
CAMP has advocated for enhanced ZLD all along and sees this as a positive development. However, the reality is that Mr. Evans has repeatedly denied the adverse impacts from cooling tower blowdown, despite contrary evidence from the MPCA, DNR, and Minnesota Department of Health. DEIS comments submitted by the MPCA called such statements "misleading". This is a perfect example of why we cannot take Excelsior's new plan and promises at face value, but instead need appropriate agency oversight. Again, CAMP believes this agency oversight and commentary is critical before any decision can be made regarding the JPA in this docket.
JPA Not Reflective of Current Project Proposal
Enhanced ZLD will increase solid waste generation and subsequent disposal and increase air emissions. The JPA has already given inaccurate information regarding solid waste disposal capacity, underestimating the potential capacity for East Range solid waste disposal by a significant amount. The MPCA and Department of the Interior already have concerns regarding NOx and SO2 emissions and regional haze, and the DEIS indicates that Best Available Control Technology (BACT) is not proposed for NOx and SO2. The most recent water discharge plan will only serve to make this worse. Excelsior's expert witnesses testified that the "enhanced ZLD" has not even been designed and engineered yet. Turbine design and manufacturer has changed. Flare emissions have been misrepresented or not represented at all. Excelsior's performance to date should give us no confidence in their ability to make these systems work unless the current project proposal undergoes inspection and comment by the appropriate agencies.
Canisteo Overflow Prevention Not Proven:
Excelsior Energy claims prevention of Canisteo Mine Pit (CMP) overflow as a benefit of the project. The Minnesota DNR refutes this, saying that Excelsior has not proven this threat as significantly higher water outflow from the CMP is occurring than previously expected.
Inadequate Water Supply:
Excelsior's estimate of available water in overstated, and there is a definite problem with having an adequate water supply at both the East and West locations. In the DEIS, the DNR comments that the "plan relies on water that is not readily available for the project." These comments also state that "Many issues seem to have been oversimplified, or briefly stated with little discussion". This is the case throughout the JPA.
Loss of Canisteo Mine Pit Recreation and Trout Fishery
Another major concern at the West site is Excelsior's plan to close the Canisteo Mine Pit to recreational use. As you heard at the January public hearings, the Canisteo is an extraordinarily clear lake trout lake with great recreational value. It is one of only four such lakes managed by the DNR in Itasca County, and the recreational value of this lake is not even mentioned in the Draft EIS. Enhanced ZLD does not guarantee that the Canisteo will remain open for recreational use, and Excelsior's plan in the JPA calls for barring the public from these waters. Mr. Evan's testimony that the Canisteo would be closed due to "national security" would be laughable if it were not so unacceptable to CAMP and the fishermen of Itasca County.
Summary of Significant Problems:
- CAMP strongly believes that this project is in the wrong place. The West location is a particularly poor choice. It is not a brownfield site, adequate infrastructure is not in place, and local governments, taxpayers, and ratepayers will be placed at significant financial risk. The economic impact of this project is far less than promoted by Excelsior Energy and no cost-benefit analysis has been performed. (See attachment, Economics of the Mesaba Energy Project) Negative economic impacts to Itasca County and the State of Minnesota are great, and likely outweigh the benefit.
- The West Range in particular has seen great public controversy and heavy public opposition since Excelsior announced the change in preferred location.
- The change in preferred location appears to be due to poor early planning with Excelsior not anticipating the difficulty in permitting on the East Range.
- Continued poor planning has led to ongoing difficulty in drafting a plan that will allow Excelsior to be permitted on the West Range, resulting in the JPA not reflecting the current proposal.
- Poor planning on the part of Excelsior should not result in premature judgment as to a preferred/recommended location.
- A rare lake trout fishery on the West Range would be closed to the public.
- Future mining expansion on the West Range may be precluded by this project. (See public testimony by Robert Norgord)
- Carbon Capture and Sequestration is not feasible for the Mesaba Project. This is indicated by the DOE, and takes away perhaps the main benefit of this expensive technology.
- Excelsior's "plan" for CCS is vague and poorly developed. If Excelsior really believes they have a viable plan for CCS, then specifics for routing, cost, and environmental impacts should be part of this application.
- Enhanced ZLD has not been designed or engineered. A new water discharge plan affects many aspects of the JPA. Permitting agencies have not reviewed the new plan. Until this review, judgment as to the anticipated impacts and siting is premature. (see MPCA DEIS comments)
- The Minnesota DNR has commented that Excelsior's plan is oversimplified, and it is likely there is insufficient water for plant operations at either site. (DNR comments attached)
- BACT for NOx and SO2 is not currently planned for this project.
- Regional Haze issues complicate air permitting for either site.
- 100% SO2 credits would need to be purchased, and it is unlikely they would be able to be purchased locally thus increasing regional haze.
- Flare emissions are significant and misrepresented.
- Air quality improvements under way by Minnesota Power would be negated by the additional emissions from Mesaba.
- Cumulative effects have been poorly addressed. The DNR states it is possible that there will be insufficient water for Minnesota Steel/Essar and Mesaba, and there may be insufficient water for Mesaba alone.
- Adverse health impacts of the Mesaba Project have been poorly analyzed for either site (see attachments)
Conclusion
The many inadequacies in the JPA should raise serious doubts as to the competence of the Applicant to properly design and site this project. Without correction of these deficiencies, proper analysis of the sites and routes cannot be accomplished. Until these issues are adequately addressed, making a site selection is premature.
Many of the environmental impacts "anticipated" by Excelsior Energy throughout this process have been incorrect. Therefore, we cannot rely on Excelsior's assurance of a new plan which has yet to be designed and engineered. The JPA and DEIS should be resubmitted to reflect the actual project proposed. Because Excelsior Energy has not developed a comprehensive and viable Joint Permit Application reflective of the current project proposal, neither the East nor the West Sites should be considered an acceptable location. The burden needs to be placed on Excelsior Energy to submit such an application. Until such a plan has been submitted, neither site should be approved, and we should not allow Excelsior Energy to continue wasting the time and resources of citizens and the State of Minnesota.
Return to Take Action page