3M: Hutchinson, Minnesota

3M: Letter from Andrew Ronchak to Fred Hanson

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

August 8, 1996

Mr. Fred Hanson
EPA Deputy Administrator
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
RE: 3M Project XL Permit Compromise Language

Dear Mr. Hanson:

The following is specific compromise language to be added to the 3M XL permit. After numerous hours of negotiations between MPCA and 3M, 3M has agreed to make the following two additions to the XL permit in an attempt to address the EPA concerns.

The first addition is to address the area of superior environmental performance. The following language will replace Section IV.B. of the XL permit:

IV. Other Requirements.

B. Air Quality Analysis

1. Environmental Release Limit Analysis. The permitee and the MPCA shall complete an air quality regulatory analysis to compare the pollutant limits in section II.A.1, Tables 1 and 3 to evaluate the environmental performance under this permit. This analysis shall compare the actual emissions in the previous year to 90 percent of the allowable emissions under state and federal regulations during that year. This analysis is based on maximum production capacity on a facility-wide basis.

2. Air Quality Superior Environmental Performance Analysis. The permittee and the MPCA shall complete VOC and HAP analysis to evaluate the environmental performance under this permit. This analysis shall compare the actual emissions in the previous year to 90 percent of the allowable emissions under state and federal regulations during that year. This analysis is based (e,g., tanks and mixers). The pemittee shall maintain records necessary to conduct these analyses, At the time each of these analyses are completed, the MPCA will decide whether it needs to amend this permit either to keep the pollutant limits in section II.A.1, Tables 1 and 3, at or below state and federal regulatory requirements, or to ensure air quality superior environmental performance.

The second issue addresses the concern for unilateral withdrawal and stakeholder involvement during implementation. As a result of negotiations, 3M has agreed to move the commitments made in the Final Project Agreement (FPA) into the XL permit. The following language will be incorporated into Section IV of the XL permit:

Section IV.

C. Reports and Notifications

8. 3M will prepare and submit annually, to the MPCA and 3M's stakeholders, a pollution prevention report which will include information on pollution prevention goals set for the facility.

9. 3M will add Project XL actual emissions data to its Internet homepage.

G. Stakeholder Participation. 3M will hold two meetings per year with, and will share and receive comments from 3M's stakeholders on: 1) EMS sections submitted to the MPCA; 2) pollution prevention related information; 3) the Air Quality Environmental Release Limit Analysis; and 4) the Air Quality Superior Environmental Performance Analysis

As a result, all major FPA commitments are now enforceable in the XL permit. Therefore, revocation of the XL permit will only result from due process through the XL permit (via Minn. State. 114C), and not through a party exercising a right to unilateral withdrawal in the FPA.

The MPCA would appreciate a response to these additional 3M commitments by Friday August 9 at 4:30 p.m. (central). This prompt response will enable 3M to determine if the Minnesota project can proceed to permit issuance.

Sincerely,

Andrew E. Ronchak
Project XL Coordinator
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

AER:cmbg

cc: Lisa Thorvig, MPCA Deputy Commissioner
Peder Larson, MPCA Commissioner
David Wefring, 3M
David Ullrich, EPA Region V, Deputy Administrator

XL PERMIT CHANGES

The following is an attempt by the MPCA to put down in permit and FPA language the what the MPCA thinks the attached counter proposal from EPA (Jon Kessler) means. Please note: Peggy Bartz from the MPCA was attempting to confirm this on August 7th, but was not able to contact Jon Kessler. There are additional issues to address and this is only intended to address SEP issue and stakeholder issue. As outlined in the August 6th Kessler memo. Please note this language has not been reviewed by 3M.

Permit Change 1.

III. Environmental Management System.

A. Development, Implementation and Audit of Environmental Management System.

4. The permittee shall conduct an annual internal audit of the EMS each year, except in 1998, and 20001 and 20005. In 1998, and 20001 and 20005, the permittee shall submit to the MPCA by November 1 a summary of the results of an audit conducted by an independent third party auditor qualified to conduct an EMS audit. All audits shall address the EMS criteria in Attachment 3.

Permit Change 2

IV. Other Requirements.

B. Air Quality Regulatory Limitation Analysis. The permittee and the MPCA shall complete an air quality analysis report to compare the pollutant limits in section II.A.1, Tables 1 and 3 to state and federal regulatory requirements at the time of the analysis. The regulatory analysis report shall be completed on each of the following date: November 1, 1998; November 1, 20001 and November 1, 20005. The regulatory analysis shall establish what the new allowable emissions based on maximum production capacity. In addition, the analysis shall establish what 90% of the allowable emissions were for VOC and HAP, emissions of each pollutant would be based on actual production data, on a facility-wide basis under state and federal regulations at the time of the analysis. The regulatory analysis shall be performed for each unit for major emissions units but units may be grouped for smaller emission units (e.g., tanks and mixers). The permittee shall maintain records necessary to conduct the regulatory analysis. At the time each of these analyses are completed, the MPCA will decide whether it needs to amend this permit to keep the pollutant limits at or below state and federal regulatory requirements.

Permit Change 3

G. Permit Revocation, [(Ann Seha)] In addition to the grounds for permit revocation in Minn. Stat. §114C.12, subd. 5, the termination of the Final Project Agreement for the facility dated August, 1996, or the permittee's unwillingness or inability to lower air pollutant emission caps for the facility to a level at or below the level required by section IV.B constitute justification for the MPCA to revoke this permit.

XL FPA CHANGES

FPA CHANGE 1

Criteria for determining Superior Environmental Performance in the FPA.

1) an 90% of allowable emissions compared to actual emissions;
2) units of production compared to units of pollution;
3) 1995 baseline emissions compared to actual emissions;
4) amount of waste (solid and hazardous) reduced or recycled;
5) amount and type of pollution prevention;
6) stakeholder and public participation in the process;
7) permit limits (including risk analysis limits) compared to actual emissions
8) an evaluation of the effect an Environmental Management System has in obtaining continuous environmental improvement; and
9) an evaluation of 3M, MPCA, and EPA resources saved due to the pilot.

FPA CHANGE 2

Stakeholder Participation during Implementation Phase.

3M, MPCA, and EPA will share and receive comments from stakeholders on 1) EMS sections submitted to the MPCA; 2) pollution prevention related information submitted; 3) the regulatory analysis results; and 4) the superior environmental performance evaluation.

FPA CHANGE 3

The following constitute justification for any one of the parties to terminate this FPA:

1) superior environmental performance, evaluated as described in this FPA, has not been achieved;
2) the Project XL pilot is more administratively burdensome than the existing regulatory process;
3) the stakeholder/public participation commitments in this FPA criteria have not been met;
4) 3M is in significant noncompliance with the other commitments in this FPA; or
5) MinnesotaXL Permit No. 96-01 for the facility has been revoded under Minn. Stat. 114C.12, subd. 5 or any or the additional grounds stated in Section IV.G. or the permit.

3M: Hutchinson, Minnesota

Local Navigation