HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-02 PACKET 08.B.REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTION COUNCIL AGENDA
MEETING ITEM #
DATE 02/02/2011 0
Engineering
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
Jennifer Levitt
COUNCIL ACTION REQUEST
Approve 3M NPDES comment letter to the MPCA.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the approval of the 3M NPDES comment letter to the MPCA.
ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION
❑ ❑
DATE REVIEWED
❑ PLANNING
❑
❑ PUBLIC SAFETY
❑
PUBLIC WORKS
❑
❑ PARKS AND RECREATION
❑
❑ HUMAN SERVICES /RIGHTS
❑
❑ ECONOMIC DEV. AUTHORITY
❑
® Environmental Commission
01112/201
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
® MEMO /LETTER: Myron Bailey, February 2, 2011
❑ RESOLUTION:
❑ ORDINANCE:
❑ ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION:
❑ LEGAL RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVED DENIED
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
El El
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ OTHER: ;
_,v w2,
� City Administrator Date
w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w x
COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: V ❑ DENIED ❑ OTHER
Orm City of
�otta Grove
Minnesota
7516 80th Street South / Cottage Grove, Minnesota 55016 -3195
www. cottage-grove.org
February 2, 2011
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Industrial Division
Attn: Scott Knowles, P.E.
525 South Lake Avenue, Ste. 400
Duluth, MN 55802
Re: 3M Cottage Grove NPDES /SDS
Permit MN0001449
Dear Mr. Knowles:
651 -458 -2800 Fax 651- 458 -2897
TDD 651- 458 -2880
The City of Cottage Grove would like to provide comments on the draft 3M Cottage Grove Wastewater
Facility, Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) /State Disposal System (SDS) Permit
MN0001449 for consideration by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA).
The City appreciates the efforts of the MPCA to limit the perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
concentrations before discharge to the Mississippi River. This is a big step toward addressing the
impairment of Pool 2 on the Mississippi River for PFOS.
The first comment is to have discharge limits established for additional perfluorochemicals and not just
monitoring as outlined in the permit. The requested permit limits for discharge points SD007, WS001,
and SDO03 for are as follows:
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) = 0.3 ppb
Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) = 7 ppb
Perfluorobutane sulfonate (PFBS) = 7ppb
These values correspond with the Minnesota Department of Health's established Health Risk Limits
(HRL) for drinking water. The establishment of HRLs is not done without substantial scientific data to
support the risk. Clearly, if hurnan consumption of drinking water has established limits for these PFCs,
then the discharge to a surface water feature should also have some established limits.
The following tables indicate the mean concentration of PFCs that have been discharged since 2007. As
shown, the average is considerably higher than drinking water HRLs. If there is no limit placed on PFOA,
PFBA and PFBS, the damage to the environment will only increase. If this permit is approved without
additional PFC limits, the Mississippi River will continue to see a rise in the concentration of these
chemicals into the future. At a minimum, the permit should reference a goal or objective for lowering
other PFCs in the PFC Treatabiiity Alternative Identification Plan orTreatability Study, as outlined in the
special requirements compliance schedule. The public needs to be assured that PFC concentrations will
decrease in the final implementation plan.
EQUAL OPPOR T UINII Y EMPLOYER
SD001 MEAN Discharge Concentrations
SD002 MEAN Discharge Concentrations
PFBA
PFOA
PFBS
PFOS
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
2010 (Jan -July)
45.60
10.45
22.50
1.86
2009 (Jan -Dec)
53.50
1.50
20.74
0.21
2008 (Jan -Dec)
63.85
1.80
14.30
0.24
2007 (Jan -Dec)
49.10
1.08
18.05
0.55
Mean
53.01
3.71
18.90
0.72
SD002 MEAN Discharge Concentrations
* Data compiled from the Program Fact Sheet of the permit.
It is concerning what the ultimate time frame would be for limiting other PFCs, especially based upon
the PFC Treatability Alternative Plan requirement that indicates, "The Plan shall include a preliminary
analysis of all potential feasible treatment alternatives /technologies that may be capable of meeting the
applicable effluent, water quality, and public health requirements for 20 years." If the Plan must
address a 20 year time horizon, shouldn't there be greater emphasis placed on removing other PFCs in
the permit today? The State needs to take action to stop this contamination now, and work toward the
technology to remove PFCs from 3M's discharge waters.
The second comment is in regards to Chapter 1 Special Requirements, Section 1 Compliance Schedule
for PFOS. There are well defined time frames for the PFC Treatability Alternative Identification Plan and
a Treatability Study for the Permittee, but there are no specific time frames addressing the MPCA's
review and approval of these items. Without those dates or more established deadlines or milestones in
the permit, there is no guarantee of when the contaminated discharge will stop.
The third comment is related to Chapter 2, Surface Discharge Stations, 2 Special Requirements, Section
2.3, "The Permittee may request a change or reduction in monitoring frequency for fluorochemical
analysis 12 months after permit issuance." Since this permit is effective for five years and continued
research is occurring on PFCs, it would be important to continue the monthly monitoring of PFCs as has
been done since 2007 for discharge points SD001 and SD002. The City requests that monitoring for
fluorochemicals be conducted monthly for the duration of the permit.
The fourth comment is in regards to the reference of a temporary treatment system for the Woodbury
disposal site groundwater in Chapter 1.1.6. The City is supportive and highly encourages treatment to
2
PFBA
PFOA
PFBS
PFOS
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
(ppb)
2010 (Jan -July)
3.07
2.56
1.95
1.69
2009 (Jan -Dec)
2.97
2.43
1.94
1.27
2008 (Jan -Dec)
5.17
2.18
1.71
1.11
2007 (Jan -Dec)
3.67
2.74
2.27
1.5
Mean
3.72
2.48
1.97
1.40
* Data compiled from the Program Fact Sheet of the permit.
It is concerning what the ultimate time frame would be for limiting other PFCs, especially based upon
the PFC Treatability Alternative Plan requirement that indicates, "The Plan shall include a preliminary
analysis of all potential feasible treatment alternatives /technologies that may be capable of meeting the
applicable effluent, water quality, and public health requirements for 20 years." If the Plan must
address a 20 year time horizon, shouldn't there be greater emphasis placed on removing other PFCs in
the permit today? The State needs to take action to stop this contamination now, and work toward the
technology to remove PFCs from 3M's discharge waters.
The second comment is in regards to Chapter 1 Special Requirements, Section 1 Compliance Schedule
for PFOS. There are well defined time frames for the PFC Treatability Alternative Identification Plan and
a Treatability Study for the Permittee, but there are no specific time frames addressing the MPCA's
review and approval of these items. Without those dates or more established deadlines or milestones in
the permit, there is no guarantee of when the contaminated discharge will stop.
The third comment is related to Chapter 2, Surface Discharge Stations, 2 Special Requirements, Section
2.3, "The Permittee may request a change or reduction in monitoring frequency for fluorochemical
analysis 12 months after permit issuance." Since this permit is effective for five years and continued
research is occurring on PFCs, it would be important to continue the monthly monitoring of PFCs as has
been done since 2007 for discharge points SD001 and SD002. The City requests that monitoring for
fluorochemicals be conducted monthly for the duration of the permit.
The fourth comment is in regards to the reference of a temporary treatment system for the Woodbury
disposal site groundwater in Chapter 1.1.6. The City is supportive and highly encourages treatment to
2
occur at the Woodbury disposal site for PFCs. At a minimum, the desire would be to see the language of
the permit define 'temporary' as the length of time the barrier wells are operational to contain the
contaminate plume at the site.
Following the public meeting on January 26, 2011, it was clear that the general public struggled to
understand the details of the permit and the steps toward improving the discharge water quality from
the 3M facility. In an effort for the public to stay informed and educated about the situation as it
develops, the City requests that the MPCA conduct public meetings in Cottage Grove when the PFC
Treatability Alternative Identification Plan and Treatability Study are completed.
The final comment is to ensure that there is coordination of the remediation design of the excavation of
contaminated sediment in the area known as the East Cove and the discharge from SD003. The concern
is that the environmental clean -up will occur in this cove area, while high levels of PFC discharge will
continue into the cove area, if the timing between the implementation of the permit and the excavation
work are not properly coordinated. It is important that if such a large scale remediation effort is
undertaken with a significant financial investment to this valuable resource, discharge to the cove
should be treated.
On behalf of the City of Cottage Grove, we request that the MPCA consider our recommended changes
to the permit and the request for additional public meetings in our community. The City appreciates the
notification and dialog that has taken place regarding the permit by MPCA staff. The City's goal is not to
have the waters of the Mississippi River compromised from industrial discharge on the shores of our
community.
Sincerely,
Myron Bailey
Mayor
C: Governor Mark Dayton
MPCA Commissioner Paul Aasen
State Senator Katie Seiben
State Representative Denny McNamara
State Representative John Kriesel
Washington County Commissioner Chair Gary Kriesel
City of Woodbury Mayor Mary Giuliani Stephens
City of Hastings Mayor Paul Hicks
Matt Moore, South Washington Watershed District