HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.b. Flint Hills Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) � ROSE1ulOLINT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL
City Council Work Session Date: January 12, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: Flint Hills Environmental Assessment AGENDA SECTION:
Worksheets (EAWs) Discussion
PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. � b
. •
ATTACHMENTS: Location Map; Comment Letter for the
Tier 3 Clean Fuels EAW; Comment Letter APPROVED BY:
for the Combined Heat and Power (CHP)
Cogeneration EAW; Tier3 Clean Fuels
EAW; CHP Co eneration EAW.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review comment letters.
ISSUE
The Minnesota Polluuon Control Agency (PCA) has released two Environmental Assessment Worksheets
(EAWs) for Flint Hills Resources (FHR). The first Er�W is tided "Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects"which is
processing to remove additional sulfur from gasoline and create Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATF) fertilizer
from the additional sulfur. The second EAW is titled "Combined Heat and Po�ver (CHP) Cogeneration
Project"which addresses the proposal to construct a 49 MW power plant that will generate electricity and
steam used by FHR. The PCA is the responsible unit of government (RGU) for the EAWs,which were
released on December 23, 2014 and comments are due on January 21, 2015.
Staff wanted to briefly review the comment letters which will be scheduled for the January 20, 2015 Council
meeting for action and also discuss the power plant proposal in general. Because construction of a CHP is
usual for private company use only, staff has difficulty tracking down information about land use
regulations, permitting authority, and tax implications.
SUMMARY
Tier 3 Clean Fuels and ATF
The Tier 3 Clean Fuels project is prompted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3
sulfur standards recendy enacted to improve ambient air quality. FHR currently removes some sulfur from
the crude oil and sells the sulfur removed as "elemental" molten sulfur that is transported to market in
heated railroad tank cars. With the removal of additional sulfur, FHR is investing in equipment to convert
the sulfur removed into Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATF) fertilizer that can be sold to crop farmers. The
production of the fertilizer will require minor changes to the existing refinery equipment, but the largest
changes will be for the storage and shipment of the fertilizer.
FHR is proposing to construct a fertilizer storage and shipping terminal at the former Continental Nitrogen
and former Rosemount Clean Energies site on the southeast corner of US Highway 52 and MN Highway 55.
This site is across US Highway 52 from the FHR refinery and the fertilizer will be shipped to this site using
existing pipelines under US Highway 52. The current site has ten (10) tanks, a truck terminal in the middle
of the tanks and a railroad terminal to the northeast of the tanks. The proposed terminal would remove
eight (8) of the tanks, keep the two (2) cylindrical tanks in the middle and install the two (2) larger cylindrical
tanks. The truck terminal would remain in its general location and the trucks would use the same routes as
Continental Nitrogen had in the past. The railroad terminal would be relocated to the southwest side of the
tanks and include the construction of almost one (1) mile of new track from the existing line near SKB to
the new rail terminal. This use would be permitted under the e�sting Heavy Industrial zoning district.
Combined Heat and Power Cogeneration Plant
The combined heat and power (CHP) cogeneration plant is a natural gas fired power plant that will also
produce steam that is used in the refining process. FHR is proposing the CHP facility because it would be
more efficient (and hopefully cheaper) than continuing to produce steam by burning natural gas without
generating electricity. The CHP will have two turbines, the first that fires natural gas and generates steam
and power and the second that uses the steam to generate additional power.
The CHP is proposed to have a maximum capacity of 49 MW. If the plant were 50 MW or larger, the
Minnesota Public Utility Commission (PUC) would regulate and approve the CHP,if there were a
determination that additional electrical power were needed in Minnesota. Being 49 MW, the CHP would be
not be regulated by the State and no determination of electrical need would be required. The Department of
Commerce is currendy evaluating cogeneration rules in Minnesota to encourage uses such as this.
The two turbines�vithin the CHP�vould be able to generate a tota154.9 MW of power but FHR has stated
that they would install software to prevent power generation above 49.9 MW. A comment within the letter
to the PCA states that if FHR were ever to consider using the CHP to it full power capacity, then that
should be stated in the EAW and review and approved by the PUC.
The CHP facility will be housed within a 300 feet long, 100 foot wide and 85 foot tall building. Outside of
the building will be an air chilling tower, an ammonia tank to be used for pollution control, and the electrical
transformers and power lines needed to transfer the power to the refinery. The building will be located
about 300 feet west of US Highway 52, on the south side of the existing refining equipment and to the north
of the railroad line and maintenance shop. About 75 feet of the 85 feet of building height will be visible
from US Highway 52. The Er�W does not state what the building materials will be, but FHR staff stated
that they intend to use steel siding.
Zoning Ordinance
The EAWs do not describe any planning or zoning approvals that would be required. For the ATS fertilizer
terminal, it would be a permitted use within the HL• Heavy Industrial zoning at the sites, but a Site Plan
review would need to conducted and approved. The largest issues to be addressed would be screening
through landscaping and berming;paving of the truck access to the truck terminal; and the new rail terinirial.
The new railroad tracks to the rail terminal go through an area that contains wedands. A Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) permit will be required for the new railroad tracks and terminal to determine if any
wedands would be impacted. If wedands are to be unpacted, then a determination would need to be made if
theYe were any way to avoid the impacts. The presence of the existing rail terminal to the north may provide
an alternative to unpacting wedands for a new terminal.
The CHP project is not an allowed use within the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district. FHR would need to
apply foi a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add CHP or po��er generation as an allowed use.
Likely, staff would recommend that it be either an accessory use or a conditional use. Both uses have
positive and negative aspects and Community Development staff is working with the City Attorney to
determine the best course of action.
2
Once the Zoning Ordinance is amended to allow the CHP use, either a Site Plan or a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) would need to be revie�ved and approved. The largest issues to be addressed would be
screening through landscaping and berming; and building materials. The Zoning Ordinance would require
100% masonry on all sides of the builcling facing the public right-of-way (US Highway 52) and at least 40%
masonry on the other sides.
Staff is still investigating if there is any State oversight of the construction and operation of the CHP. Flint
Hills noted in the EAW that the building approval is through a typical building permit process reviewed by
the City building department and Fire Marshall.
Taxation
Commonly, large power plants have requested a Legislative exclusion so that the power generation
equipment is excluded from taxation. Great River Energy had requested that the City of Rosemount
support such exclusion for a power plant that they had proposed about a decade ago. That power plant was
never built. The City had anticipated a Host Agreement with Great River Energy to recover the lost local
property tax revenue and to mitigate any harm caused by the plant.
PropeYty tax exclusions or exemptions have not been discussed in the EAW. FHR staff has stated that the
CHP project would be taxed. The Department of Commerce staff has stated that they expect that the CHP
project would be taxed. Minnesota Department of Revenue staff has stated that if a Legislative exclusion is
not approved, the building and poweY generation and distribution equipment�vould be taxed. Department
of Revenue staff has stated that the ammonia tank and associated equipment likely would not be taxed due
to a pollution control equipment exemption. The ammonia tank is a minor part of the entire project.
If FHR were to request a Legislative eYemption, staff would recommend that the City request a Host
Agreement from FHR for the CHP project.
RECOMMENDATION
Review the �AWs and the comment letters and provide recommendarions on any changes.
3
Ffint Hills EA�Ns
^ �M,„.� .��...� .... ,,�6e ....y..._..._..m_. 1 _. _..._„
�y,�� y �••� 'a.: � ,S-�+ �� � ( e ,�° � '�a e� '`� � ��
y.. ,k,,.
;; x � ' �.,��� �y ,'} � 4..- s 1� +��t •T�� '' �. '
, +
. .
� � * T , ,
. '� �� .
� r �y ^ �,e`t 17TH`�r� r � �„ " ��.*`#3 I
. _. � �y
�.,/1►• .,}.
�� � Y��j wE 4 ..'-"�wYe�c�'^w�,* �� '�. ,;� �� t . �e_i �.r ���� �,,,,
G��� `�t—,� � � � � f. ��_ e � � � �
� � � ' (� � ,� � �$ i
i t_ ! t� ,O� 4 '� 1
. . '.�. ` �����'. .�� . "�"�� �" �°'� r + c�r�"�++t-7
.. " � � . . ;' ',�5°i.. . "v'��... � ■.'� h� .t,< ;
—._ .... _— —'— ---'—°---'-- `— '---' ---
-e—�+.. ' - '-.' - I
_� . � �... .•�1 wwt.Y� J -+. . * � ��..�
" . �. `, •_ ,J' +'��-.:
,e..� t � ' !jj y� 't , ��, y� Q�.=/ • .�� +* t �� 7
t � � y � �. �d ? i�« � � 4�q,� �,'�"+.
, , ��1 _ , .
, .�a `=;•-�'� `�' � ` , x . �.
•.� , ,,: , t 1 t � � ""�"i a �«,. ' �
. .
� .. . - �
,
�_.. �, � v �� � � � ,
�. � � , _.
� '�. , . � � rp�.► � ' �'� �� r � ' ,�. r��, �' ,� t��•9:
���y� '�, �z,� �, � ''. �,'�F � I�►. � �� � �� � r ����
"`# Y � � •► , '� � , �� + L{� ,�� 1 4'�" Y ���3 ��s.♦ f
r ' � ":� � ���9I • + � jj,�''!�p}[3� I �. A � ��'tiS '�x xy,��+ #
�� �.._ �� ' ��1- � _. ��" "� i'. �'i .� t '' 4{� ay�f�'� -�� � +`' ��. }�� �_�
r r ..{s � �� i��"��� 1'� ,�d °�„i Jo: i�," �, � `w� ���
— ��F . y� . } � � 8 .`"�,
`
. .
. , , -
l� L�f.� �rt{ <- ;��� ���r�`� � + ,��� F;� �����' t�
. ,
'.. ' .� ) �a` t 9' }, ;� �+ '� *�`���a �. �`� -�'•
._ _ ;� �� ��,�;�'�t°-7� ;�.��e� 4' � s ��� ���c,��
7
� ' ` • �� � `J � •�?��� . �
' T�4 ,`� r '` �'4 �`�'4`0
� . � � �� ..�!F� ~� '�' ��y,R.r w�,a � P �,. i� ��'k, �"�_
<
'�: . � F ¢,� 'G�, i k 4°"'�" � sa�,°��P - 1`w.
� " ' ���4� � ►� '_ S�i,t �,'�,;•�+„'� g'+�,F.�,�` t� {� � w
�'. .;�' =-!' .���T�'�. `'��t'��''�.��
� � ` �• t ��p.� � 1 ., �a
, i k w'�4a..
� �f.f`'„ ' � 1 �h`.�; ht `�4��, �� +.Y .
� � "`� `.
-. - �
a �"� •�° �+IC; �'1' �sz ATS ._ �'�r`c �
,
� -- �-- � �% �•,..,,k ,N
` ' �t ,- —T •.l tI r � �c * '�'�.. F�.
a._ �� '�� t! 1 ,�, '=�� ♦ .�.�'i �. �r'` l7.�.
- ✓ ♦�+, • � �� 'ri: .
_. ?�.r � � .�� ` A .. �;.--.�
F # � .! � i* ��� " �� ~ .� �`
� ��.. CHP '. �. '� � �-�
, . ��v'� ` �� n� J ...�}� � � y �
�- , • � �� �� � � � � ��
( � ,� „
t ,�,. 4.. ���� �` +�` �';`� �.
..; #., ....,� . ! '' i� ; "� 3. ;` j •, {, �.f�,trh
-'� � _ �i.� �,,. �„�c f .�� �
� ,�x � � �. �� � � ��,,.
_
'�,*� �,�� � `� s.� ..�� �.� � a'b � "��s.,. � ^�� *� .. �4 �a.�i
r
�. M� � ., . ` ' j ' - - .�� . a . �,,, `�i,'�` 7
�l�. , �" ` �i ,K.. �.�
� ....,M„,.... . � � � � �'M�R� ��rF� � ..
� � .. •�.
\
� � „ � ,fi :'�
_• �: i i�i,_ � �.{ '� _ _ '� � _ 4'.�'. '�°°�_ .
_ , _
�� r r � y �, � � � � -, ,,r ^'�...
j� ,� J
� ,�� �r�,, rj af,��, ' `'�"•�;y -=l� ���� �`
, , .
� " r • -� r s '- ' �i „ap_ ��.. °.
f -� . ' ',� �' ^., ��� .....,. – t�..r� V= �' �+� �•
� � �t, � � ,r,,,� ,' � ;,��. �,� �
� � ��� �
� � #, t�`t��« °� �T�`'';'; �w����` t�h,� � .. .
� �. ,_ ° , s��,,,�da��` �s�� a �
� -i j ta, � � 'Q �y � �
y T,�r � . y "� ��` , �`,� ,,,��
��. . ."iir 1PI+`a'���`��`�t 1 a.. � � v'�...'
+a5111 ,'[ ,Mi, ,-r • *�' x,�.•� �"__h��'c .t2
�rl�'r"` �� � '��:: �?�� '� '� '���"�i`.'
� . t��l.:. . . ��i'. �- .F-�� . .. . �j����.
�r �� � / M� �'`� � � A.: ��[ � `
��_r &= � .� ' +'���'. • .�' y,: .;'S�'
�.��,y � " t'S} �� �i w �
,
, `
s . . �
. .,
. P� ��� � rvMM� . ♦ . � ,'%; �.... .! ` ,�.. ,. '��. ' .
�
. _ +'�4ir'.°.r.. "'� .� w �:.
L��SCfF1��TEr �•lip and p3�:B�Od:2 3fQ,�)B1�18V2C tD CF BCC:Li.2, bb:2CC:.r3Cy�g•'1ot g:.ar,�ntPaa r�rs�s r.o:a rigai htap Sca:-e
documrnt rn.d should rtot be sub�b'tuted for s tr;'e s�aKi!,appra�sa�,surv2y, or f4r zo�rng verihcaaon Dake:� 1 InCh = 2000 feet
Coun;y assumea no le�ia�resFo�arbi��ty for Lhe rr,fo�mat�vn cortta��ed�.�;h:s ds.�a. 1�8;'2015
January 12, 2015
Kim Grosenheider
Resource Management and Assistance Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
RE: Flint Hills Resources Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Grosenheider:
The purpose of this letter is to submit comments, questions and responses to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (I'CA) from the City of Rosemount on the Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
TieY 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA�. We have reviewed the
EAW and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. The City of Rosemount's comments are
as follows:
Page 9, Item 8. Permits and approvals needed: The EAW does not identify all the Ciry of
Rosemount permits and approvals needed. The Tier 3 Clean Fuels project,particularly the
ammonium thiosulfate (ATF� fertilizer terminal at the former Rosemount Clean Energies (Yocum
Oil) site,will need at least three additional approvals:
1. Site Plan Review
2. Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Permit
3. Stormwater Discharge Permit
Page 14, Item 11. a. i. Surface water—wetlands: The EAW stated that the projects do not
coincide with any National Wedand Inventory (NWI) wetlands. This statement is correct for the
Tier 3 Fuels projects occurring within the refinery property located west of US Highway 52, but
there are NWI wedands in the vicinit�� of the Ne�v Rail Loading Rack and Planned ATS RR Load
In/Out Containment at the former Yocum Oil site and there are NWI wedand along the proposed
New Rail Spur. r� WCA permit�vill be required to Ue submitted and approved either before or
concurrendy with the Site Plan Review to address any�vedand impacts or receive a no loss
determination.
Page 17, Item 11. B. ii. Stormwater: The former Yocum Oil site is not a part of the FHR
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Any redevelopment of the former Yocum Oil site
will need to receive a stormwater discharge permit and comply with Rosemount Surface Water
Management Plan and other applicable City regulations.
Page 19, Item 11. B. iv. a) Surface Water Wetlands: The EAW states that the projects will not
involve any physical modifications to�vedands. This statement cannot be verified with the
information provided. As stated the comment for Item 11. A. i. above, the EAW does not identif��
the NWI wedands on the former Yocum Oil site and along the proposed New Rail Spur. A WCA
permit will be required to be submitted and approved either before or concurrendy with the Site
1
Plan Review to address any wetland impacts or receive a no loss determination. Any wetlands that
are impacted by these projects will require avoidance or mitigation as required by the Rosemount
Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan.
Page 35, Item 16. Air Health Risk Evaluation: There is a list of five bullets that describe the
incremental risks for this project. These are the same as included in the Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) EAW and seem to be mistakenly placed in the Tier 3 EAW. The first bullet describes natural
gas combustion while no combustion is included in the Tier 3 projects. The last bullet discusses the
ammonia screening model that seems to describe the aqueous ammonia-based selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) system included in the CHP project. Do these five bullets accurately describe the
aiY health risk of the Tier 3 projects?
Page 43, Item 19. c. Cumulative Potential Air Qualiry Effects: The EAW states that the table
on page 43 is the cumulative air quality effects of both the Tier 3 and the CHP projects, but the
maximized modeled concentration of CO is less that the CHP's CO concentration sho�vn on page
33 of the CHP EAW. Also, this cumulative air quality table has different CO,NO2, SOZ and HZS
concentrations than the cumulative air quality table on page 44 of the CHP EAW. How can these
differences be explained?
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW. We look forward to working�vith the
PCA and FHR on permits needed to install, construct and operate the Tier 3 Clean Fuels projects
and the ATS fertilizer terminal.
Sincerely,
William H. Droste
Nlayor
2
January 12, 2015
Kim Grosenheider
Resource Management and Assistance Division
1�linnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
RE: Flint Hills Resources Combined Heat and Power Cogeneration Project Environmental
Assessment Worksheet
Dear Ms. Grosenheider:
The purpose of this letter is to submit comments, questions and responses to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (PCA) from the Cit�� of Rosemount on the Flint Hills Resources (FHR)
Combined Heat and Po�ver (CHP) Cogeneration Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EA�. We have reviewed the EAW and appreciate the opportunity to provide feedback. The City
of Rosemount's comments are as follows:
Page 3 and 4, Item 6. b. Proposed project: The EAW states that the CHP cogeneration project
�vill generate up to 499 I��XI,while the two turbines�vithin the CHP could generate up to 54.9 1�1W.
It is our understanding that FHR is proposing the 49.9 MW maximum to avoid approval and
regulation from the Minnesota Public Utility Coininission (PUC). If FHR would ever consider
generating electricity at the design capacity of the generators or any at any level above 49.9 MW, that
should be stated within the EAW and be revie�ved and approved by the PUC.
Page 9, Item 8. Permits and approvals needed: The EAW does not identify all the Ciry of
Rosemount permits and approvals needed. The CHP project is not an allowed use in the HI: Heavy
Industrial zoning district and therefore an ordinance amendment and site plan revie�v would be
required. Please add the follow to items to the list of City of Rosemount permits or approval
required:
1. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
2. Site Plan Review
Page 10, Item 9 b. Land Use Compatibility: The EAW states that the proposed project is
consistent�vith the City of Rosemount's rules and regulations. This statement is not correct because
the CHP use is not allo�ved in HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district. r,s stated above, a Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment would be required to add CHP as an allowable use in the HI: Heavy
Industrial zoning district.
Page 23, Item 15. Visual: The CHP building will be 85 feet tall. It is estimated that the upper 75
feet�vill be visible from US High�vay 52, based on the topographical informarion provided on page
12 of the EAW. The CHP building will not be screened from view from the public right-of-way by
any other structure and no mitigauon measures are discussed. Building materials of the CHP
building are not described, but the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district requires that 100% of the
1
fa�ade facing a public right-of-way be constructed of masonry and that all other facades be at least
40% masonry. Additional mitigation measures will be evaluated during the City Site Plan Review
process.
Page 44, Item 19. c. Cumulative Potential Air Quality Effects: The EAW states that the table
on page 44 is the cumulative air quality effects of both the Tier 3 and the CHP projects, but this
cumulative air quality table has different CO, NO2, S02 and H2S concentrations than the
cumulative air qualiry table on page 43 of the Tier 3 EAW. How can these differences be explained?
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the EAW. We look forward to working with the
PCA and FHR on the City Code amendments and permits needed to install, construct and operate
the CHP project.
Sincerel��,
William H. Droste
Mayor
2
Notice of Availability of an
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
Doc Type: Public Notice
Public Comment Information
EAW Public comment period begins: December 22, 2014
EAW Public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 2015
Notice published in the EQB Monitor: December 22, 2014
P ermit public comment period begins : December 23, 2014
Permit public comment period ends : 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 201 5
Facility Specific Information
Facility name and location : Facility contact :
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery
137 75 Clark Road
Rosemount, MN 55068
NW ¼, SW ¼, Section 13 , T115N, R19 W
Rosemount Township
Dakota County, MN
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
Mark Manninen
Senior Air Permitting Engineer
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
P.O. Box 64596
St Paul, MN 55164 -0596
Phone: 651 -480 -2685
Fax: 651 -437 -0581
Email : Mark.Maninen@fhr.com
MPCA Contact Information
MPCA EAW contact person : MPCA Permit contact person :
Kim Grosenheider
Resource Management and Assistance Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 -757 -2170
Fax: 651 -297 -2343
Email: kim.grosenheider@state.mn.us
Admin staff phone: 651 -757 -2100
Tarik Hanafy
Industrial Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 -757 -2404
Fax: 651 -296 -8717
Email: Tarik.hanafy@state.mn.us
General Information
T he Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) for a 30 -day
review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any
comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691 .
If you would like a copy of the EAW or Air Emissions Permit or have any questions on the EAW or Air Emissions Permit , contact the
appropriate person(s) listed above .
Description of Proposed Project
The Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects involve refinery changes to meet the requirements of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agenc y
(EPA) Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard, which targets improvements in ambient air quality. In order to produce gasoline meetin g th e
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651 -296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 •TTY 651 -282 -5332 or 800 -657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats
i-admin12 -08 • 10/2 /14 Page 1 of 2
p-ear2-65a
Tier 3 standard, Flint Hills Resources (FHR) must remove and recover more sulfur from fuel blends, increasing hydrotreating (a
process that removes sulfur). FHR also proposes to install a process to convert recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen in to a
salable aqueous liquid fertilizer, ammonium thiosulfate (ATS). Additionally, FHR is proposing to improve the refinery’s sour water
skimming and storage and switch to a more efficient amine solution in the existing amine units (for sulfur recovery).
An air emissions permit was prepared and will be posted for public notice on December 22, 2014.
To S ubmit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit
Written c omments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to comment on the Air Emissions Permit , contact the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.
NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS
(1) A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made after the end of the comment period.
(2) If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the MPCA Commissioner (Commissioner) recommends
the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA C itizen s’ Board (Board) will make the final decision.
(3) If a request for an EIS is not received , the final decision will be made by the Commissioner.
The Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items. Information on the Board is available at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406 .
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651 -296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 •TTY 651 -282 -5332 or 800 -657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats
i-admin12 -08 • 10/2 /14 Page 2 of 2
E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT W ORKSHEET
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30 -day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor . Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1.P roject title: Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
2.P roposer: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend,3.RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
LLC (FHR)
Contact person: Mark Manninen Contact person: Kim Grosenheider
Title: Senior Air Permitting Engineer Title: Project Manager
Address: P.O. Box 64596 Address: 520 Lafayette Road North
City , State, ZIP: St Paul, MN 55164 -0596 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194
Phone: 651 -480 -2685 Phone: 651 -757 -2170
Fax: 651 -437 -0581 Fax: 651 -297 -2343
Email: Mark.Manninen@fhr.com Email: kim.grosenheider@state.mn.us
4.R eason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required:Discretionary:
o EIS Scoping o Citizen Petition
x Mandatory EAW o RGU D iscretion
o Proposer I nitiated
T he EAW is being prepared because of the following mandatory category for which the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the responsible governmental unit (RGU):
Mi nn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 10 (B) for construction of a facility on a single site designed for or capable
of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more of hazardous materials.
5.P roject Location:
County: Dakota
City/Township: Rosemount
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW ¼, SW ¼, 13, 1 15, 19
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River -Lake Pepin Watershed (Refinery),
Mississippi River -Twin Cities Watershed (ATS storage tanks/load -out only)
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07040001
GPS Coordinates: UTM NAD83 Zone 15N: Easting: 497053.21007, Northing: 4956432.04424.
Tax Parcel Number: 34 —01300 -75 -010
A ttached to the EAW:
F igure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. Site Plan – Aerial Imagery
Figure 3. Site Plan – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4. Site Plan Aerial – Project Details
p-ear1 -04
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651 -282 -5332
Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
Figure 5. Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Process Flow Schematic
Figure 6. Site Map – Land Use
Figure 7. Site Map – Land Cover
Figure 8. Site Map – Zoning
Figure 9. City of Rosemount Zoning Map
Figure 10. Site Map – Soils
Figure 11. Water Quality Management within Refinery Fenceline
Figure 12. Site Map – Key Areas of Prior Soil Impact
Figure 13 . Site Map – Ecological Resources
Appendix A. Soil Map Unit Description
Appendix B. CWI Well Details
Appendix C. Material Safety Data Sh eets
Appendix D. DNR NHIS Letter
Appendix E. SHPO Letter
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50
words).
The Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects involve refinery changes to meet the requirements of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard, which targets
improvements in ambient air quality. In order to produce gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standard,
Flint Hills Resources (FHR ) must remo ve and recover more sulfur from fuel blends, increasing
hydrotreating (a pr ocess that removes sulfur). F HR also proposes to install a process to convert
recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a sala ble aqueous liquid fertilizer, ammonium
t hiosulfate (ATS). Additionally, FHR is proposing to improve the refinery’s sour water skimming
and storage and switch to a more efficient amine solution in the existing amine units (for sulfur
recovery).
b. Give a complete description of the proposed proj ect and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the enviro nment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing
equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing
structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Refinery Overview
The FHR Pine Bend (PB) R efinery (Refinery) is located at the intersection of State Highway 55
and U.S. Highway 52 in the city of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota (Figure 1). Figure 2
shows an aerial view of the current Refinery and the location of the componen ts of the
proposed Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects (referred to as the “Projects”). Figure 3 is a United States
Geological Survey (USGS) map, showing the location of the Refinery and proposed Projects .
The Refinery primarily processes heavy, sour crude oil, and has the capability to process a
variety of different crude oil types. Pipelines currently deliver all of the crude oil to the Refinery,
where FHR processes it to produce a wide variety of products . These products include gasoline,
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 2 Worksheet
diesel fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, petroleum coke, asphalt, and elemental sulfur. FHR distributes
these products to customers in Minnesota and nationwide via pipelines, trucks, barges, and rail
cars. The Refinery has a n atmospheric crude -oil distillation capacity of 339,000 barrels per
stream day 1 .
Proposed Projects
The proposed Projects described in this EAW involve Refinery changes to meet the EPA Tier 3
gasoline sulfur standard, which targets improvements in ambient air quality. Starting in 2017,
the Tier 3 program sets new vehicle emissions standards and lowers the sulfur content of
gasoline, considering the vehicle and its fuel as an integrated system. Based on the EPA’s Tier 3
announcement 2 , the standard is expecte d to have the following positive impacts:
• The gasoline sulfur standard would make emission control systems more effective for
both existing and new vehicles, and would enable more stringent vehicle emissions
standards. Removing sulfur allows the vehicle’s catalyst to work more efficiently. Lower
sulfur gasoline also facilitates the development of some lower -cost technologies to
improve fuel economy and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which reduces
gasoline consumption and saves consumers money.
• The vehicle emission standards combined with the proposed reduction of gasoline sulfur
content would reduce motor vehicle emissions, including nitrogen oxides (NO x ), volatile
organic compounds (VOC), direct fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in
diam eter (PM 2.5 ), carbon monoxide (CO), and air toxics.
• Emission reductions from the Tier 3 program will lead to immediate air quality
improvements that are critically important for states to attain and maintain the existing
health -based National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). In the absence of
additional controls such as the Tier 3 standards, many areas would continue to have air
pollution levels that exceed the NAAQS in the future.
• The Tier 3 program will also reduce exposure to vehicle pollution for the millions of
people living, working, and going to school near major roads.
In order to consistently produce gasoline meeting the Tier 3 standards, FHR will increase the
hydrotreating in the 33 and 38 Unit Gas Oil Hydrotreaters (GOHTs) to remove sulfur from
intermediate fuel products. No physical changes will be required at the GOHTs to accommodate
the additional increase in hydrotreating. However, increasing the remo val of sulfur via
hydrotreating will also result in increased removal of nitrogen, both of which tax existing sulfur
management units, including the amine systems, sour water system, and sulfur recovery plant,
which support desulfurization.
In response, F HR proposes to install a process to convert gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into
a salable, non -hazardous, aqueous liquid fertilizer, ammonium thiosulfate (ATS ). Production of
ATS in this manner does not require the production or import of ammonia or sulfur like
1 Crude -oil distillation capacity is reported annually by FHR to the United States Energy Information Administration.
Reported information can be viewed at http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/.
2 U.S. EPA Tier 3 Motor Vehicles Emission Fue l Standards Regulatory Announcement. EPA -420 -F -14 -009. March
2014. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420f14009.pdf
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 3 Worksheet
traditional ATS production. Additionally, FHR is proposing to switch to a mo re efficient amine
solution (for sulfur recovery) in the existing amine treatment units and improve the Refinery’s
sour water skimming and storage systems. Sour water is process water containing sulfur and
nitrogen compounds that is skimmed, stripped, and re -used within the Refinery.
As indicated on the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) from another ATS manufacturer (see
Attachment C), ATS liquid has a low (safer) National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) rating for
fire hazard and reactivity, which is u nique in comparison to other conventional nitrogen -based
agricultural fertilizers (the ATS solution planned to be produced by FHR is expected to have
similar properties and NFPA rati ngs). Aqueous ATS is already being produced and sold in the
United States . FHR sees the opportunity to be more efficient than the average producer of ATS
based on the availability of feed streams at the Refinery containing both ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide, as compared to facilities that must deliberately manufacture ammonia to produce ATS.
This efficiency combined with a heat recovery boiler to recover energy translates into ATS
production with a relatively lower greenhouse gas footprint.
ATS Process Unit
The planned con figuration to produce ATS is a two -stage process that manufactures aqueous
ATS solution containing approximately 40 % water and 60 % ammonium thiosulfate salt. In the
first stage of the ATS production, a sour water steam stripping process will be installed that
separates ammonia (NH 3 ) an d hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) f rom sour water streams that are
generated by Refinery process units used to produce low -sulfur gasoline. There are two steps in
the sour water stripping process. The first step involves the separation of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfi de and the second step involves the reaction/recombination of ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide to form ATS. Refer to Figure 5 for a diagram of this process. With the exception
of fugitive equipment, there are no additional emissions units included as a part of the sour
water stripping process.
In the second stage of ATS production, the new ATS unit will use a multistage absorption process
to convert the ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from the new sour water stripper to produce the
final ATS product. From an ai r emissions perspective, a burner in the ATS u nit combustion
chamber, and any unconverted SO 2 and ammonia from the reactor will be the main source of air
emissions from the process (a single stack vent). The burner operates on natural gas during
start -up c onditions (expected to last less than eight hours per event), and converts hydrogen
sulfide to SO 2 during normal operations. With the efficient design of the process, over 99.9% of
SO 2 generated from hydrogen sulfide oxidation will be recovered and used in the reaction to
produce the ATS solution.
While the nitrogen from the ammonia feed steam is efficiently converted to fertilizer in the ATS
process, the oxidation process will generate some NO x and other product s of combustion. Due
to the potential for formation of salts and sulfuric acid mist, the final absorption column will be
equipped with a demister filter system to control particulate and acid mist emissions generated
in the process. Emission estimates are described further in response to Question 16. The process
design will also include a heat recovery boiler downstream of the oxidation chamber to generate
Refinery process steam and as a result of energy efficiency built into the project through a
change in amine chemistry (described below), no increase in steam production or boiler
utilization is required. The design will include good engineering practices to reduce air emissions
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 4 Worksheet
during any unplanned malfunctions of the ATS p rocess u nit, including a diversion line upstream
of the ATS p rocess u nit so that the stripper off -gases could be redirected to the existing sulfur
recovery units (SRUs).
ATS Product Storage
Two existing tanks , with designed capacity of approximately 117,000 gallons each, located near
the proposed ATS p rocess u nit site will be used as day tank storage for ATS product.
Additionally, new ATS product storage tanks will be constructed on a parcel of land south of the
int ersection of U.S. Highways 52 and State Highway 55 that FHR acquired from Yocum Oil on
J une 16, 2014. The project is still early in the design phase, and the current estimate of tankage
needs, excluding the day tank storage noted above, is two new tanks (with a design capacity of
approximately 2.8 million gallons each ) in addition to using two existing tanks (with a design
capacity of approximately 1 million gallon s each ) to store the ATS solution produced at the ATS
p rocess u nit. An alternate design is also under consideration which would not utilize the existing
tank s; instead, the proposed two new tanks would be enlarged to contain the entire required
design capacity of approximately 4 million gallons each . The included figure s were prepared
based on the first design scenario.
The MPCA tanks permit will be amended to include the day tanks, pipeline to the terminal,
valves, instrumentation and appurtenances associated with the pipeline . However, the
Minnesota Departmen t of Agriculture (MDA) will regulate the ATS p roduct storage tanks , load -
out , and all operations directly after the aboveground flange downstream of the ATS facility
receive valv e . FHR has considered construction of the ATS product storage and load -out facility
as a connected action with the other components of the Projects.
Amine Efficiency Project
FHR operates a number of amine units that use an amine solution to capture and transfer
hydrogen sulfide from the gas oil hydrotreaters and other process units, which reduces sulfur in
Refinery waste gas and other Refinery process streams.
In gas oil hyd rotreating, hydrogen gas is consumed by reaction with sulfur in the gas oil to
produce hydrogen sulfide and other impurities. The recovered gas is first sent to an amine
contactor, where the amine solution is used to remove all hydrogen sulfide and other i mpurities
from the hydrogen gas before it is compressed and returned to the hydrotreaters. The hydrogen
sulfide -rich amine solution is then stripped by steam in the amine regeneration units to recover
hydrogen sulfide for processing in the existing sulfur recovery units and, in the future, in the
new ATS unit. Although the hydrogen sulfide is removed, virtually no amine is lost in the
Refinery units or the amine regenerator while it circulates through the system. The regenerated
amine is then recirculated b ack to the Refinery contactors to bring additional hydrogen sulfide
to the amine unit on a continuous basis.
As part of the Projects, FHR is planning to switch the amine solution in the Refinery’s amine
units from monoethanolamine (MEA) to diglycolamine (DGA), which is intended to improve the
efficiency and level of removal of sulfur -containing substances from Refinery process streams.
DGA has been demonstrated to be more effective in recovering H 2 S and other reduced sulfur
compounds. As a result, addition al sulfur will be removed from fuels and Refinery intermediates.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 5 Worksheet
Using DGA instead of MEA is also expected to increase the energy efficiency of amine
regeneration. The change will reduce the steam demand at the amine regeneration system
which will in turn allow for FHR to install the ATS sour water stripper system without the need
for any additional steam production.
Sour Water Skimmers and Tanks Improvements
As a product of the fuels desulfurization processes, the Refinery generates process water
containi ng hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and VOCs, referred to as “sour water”. The Refinery
utilizes skimmers to separate out oil from the sour water and dedicated storage tanks to store
and manage inventories of sour water. The skimmed sour water is transferred to the sour water
strippers where the hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and other impurities are removed from the
sour water prior to reuse of the water.
The sour water project involves replacement of the existing sour -water skimmers and storage
tanks. The skimmer s and storage tanks will be sized larger than the existing units to improve
retention time and separation. This equipment is planned to be installed away from the center
of the existing Refinery process units, applying industry best practices to also minim ize process
safety risk. The three storage tanks will have external floating roofs and a layer of sponge oil
(diesel fuel or similar) to control air emissions from these tanks. As shown in Figure 5, if the ATS
project is approved and constructed, one of th e sour -water skimmers and one sour -water
storage tank are planned to be utilized primarily for process feed to the ATS p rocess u nit, but
would be built regardless of the installation of the ATS p rocess u nit.
The sour water skimmers and tank improvements w ork is independently sought to reduce
potential process safety risks aligning with industry best practices. The work is expected to be
funded separately and will be completed independent of construction of the ATS process unit or
other project -related work . However, given the synergies between the sour water skimmers and
tank improvement work and the ATS process unit , FHR has combined these Projects as part of a
single air permit application and in this common EAW. The EAW is triggered by the construction
of the new sour water tanks.
Descrip tion of Construction Activities
Site preparation for construction will include demolition of the existing (no n -operational)
equipment located between the 33 and 38 p rocess u nits, the existing skimmers, the existing
sour water tanks, and an existing structure at the location of the proposed new ATS plant. As
sho wn on Figure 4, three new skimmers and sour water tan ks will be constructed southwest of
the Refinery process area. Each of the new sour water tanks will have a design capacity of
approximately 2.9 million gallons, with an estimated diameter of 110 feet and a 48 -foot wall
height. Consistent with the MPCA abo ve ground storage tank (AST) permit requirements, the
tank secondary containment dike (common to all three tanks) will be adequate to hold 110% of
the approximate 2.9 million -gallon design capacity of one tank. Process piping will be
constructed to carry s our water from process units to the new sour water tanks. A new feed line
will also be constructed to connect the sour water tanks to the new sour water stripping process
constructed as part of the ATS process unit . The new ATS process unit will be constru cted on the
east side of the FHR facility, between the 33 and 38 p rocess u nits where existing non -
operational equipment is located.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 6 Worksheet
New pipeline will be installed to transfer ATS fertilizer from the ATS process unit to two day -
tanks, which will be re -purposed horizontal storage tanks (approximately 117 ,000 gallons each)
located near the proposed ATS process unit site. Product will be transferred from the day -tanks
at the refinery through a n underground pipeline that runs to the Yocum Oil site. Pending results
of complete integrity testing, product transfer would take place via an existing six inch
underground gas pip e line running from the refinery to the ATS terminal on the e ast side of U.S.
H ighway 52. Alternately if the six inch pipeline is found to be unsuitable, FHR will use a different
exist ing line (one of two existing four inch acid pipelines crossing under U.S. H ighway 52). The
four inch pipeline, if used, would require approximately a 2,000 f oo t extension into the ATS
terminal. These existing pipeline options are shown on Figure 2.
As described above and shown on Figure 4, the ATS storage tanks at the Yocum Oil site will
include two new storage tanks and potentially two existing storage tanks. The two existing
storage tanks have a 40 feet wall height and a diameter of 90 feet. Based on the high specific
gravity of the ATS solution, FHR doesn’t anticipate utilizing the full storage capacity of these
existing tanks. Two other existing tanks on the northwe st portion of the site would be
demolished to provide space for the two new ATS storage tanks. Each of the new ATS storage
tanks is expected to have an estimated maximum diameter of 138 feet and a maximum 40 -foot
wall height. The tank secondary containment dikes for both the new and the existing tanks will
be main tained or constructed to adequately hold the content of the shell capacity of the largest
tank in the respective location.
ATS fertilizer will be transported from the terminal location via truck using an existing truck
load -out facility at the site and via a new 5,800 –foot rail spur and load -out facility and may also
be transported from the terminal using an existing rail siding on the n orth side of the ATS tank
farm. As shown on Figure 4, three existing tanks on the southwest side of the Yocum Oil site
would be demolished to provide space for the new rail spur and load -out facility. The new rail
load -out area is proposed to be constructed adjacent to the ATS storage tanks on the south side
of the property and connected to the main railroad southeast of the tank storage area. The
existing rail load -out area on the n orth side of the ATS tank farm will need to be repaired and
upgraded to meet current railroad specifications.
Construction of the Projects is anticipated to begin in the first quarter of 2015. FHR anticipates
an operation start date in the third quarter of 2016.
Combined Heat and Power (CHP ) Cogeneration Project
The MPCA has prepared an EAW currently on public notice for a separate project, a proposed
natural gas based combined heat and power cogeneration facility, generating up to a net 49.9
megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purc hases from the grid and improve the efficiency
of ste am production at the Refinery. This project requires a major air permit amendment for
FHR to construct , the draft permit will be placed on public notice starting Dec. 22 nd . The project
is evaluated in this document for cumulative potential effects.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 7 Worksheet
c. Project magnitude:
Project magnitude estimates below are based on the projected footprint of each of the project
elements identified on Figure 2. The values reported below are early phase estimates that
reflect current preliminary project design.
Total Project Acreage 12.4 acres
Linear project length 18,3 00 feet
Number and type of residential units 0
Commercial building area (in square feet) 0
Industrial building area (in square feet) 3,500 square feet
Institutional building area (in square feet) 0
Other uses – specify (in square feet) 0
Structure heights ATS process unit : approximately 30 feet
ATS process unit Stack: a pproxi mately 195 feet
Sour water storage tanks: a pproximately 48 feet
ATS storage tanks: a pproximately 40 feet
Sour Water Strippers: approximately 130 feet
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain
the need for the project and identify it s beneficiaries.
As noted above, fuel produced at the FHR PB Re finery must meet upcoming EPA Tier 3 fuel
standards, including a lower gasoline sulfur standard , which will have a beneficial impact on
ambient air quality.3 The proposed Projects include measures to accommodate additional
hydrotreating needed to remove sulfur to meet the Tier 3 fuel standards as well as elements
that more broadly address the function, efficiency, and safety of sulfur processing systems at
the Refinery.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned
or likely to happen? Yes x No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes x No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
3 EPA’s Tier 3 Motor Vehicles Emission Fuel Standards Regulat ory Announcement (EPA -420 -F -14 -009) dated March
2014. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/documents/tier3/420f14009.pdf
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 8 Worksheet
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types befo re and
after development:
Cover type conversion estimates below are based on the projected footprint of each of the project
el ements identified on Figure 4. This reflects current project design.
Before After Before After
Wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 0
Deep water/streams 0 0 Impervious surface 11.68 12.40
Wooded/forest 0 0 Stormwater Pond 0 0
Brush/Grassland 0.72 0 Other 0 0
Cropland 0 0
TOTAL 12.40 12.40
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing
permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial
assistanc e including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these
final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See
Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Government Type of Applica tion Status
MPCA Air Emission Permit Application for state major
amendment submitted
MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)/State Disposal System
(SDS) Industrial Stormwater Multi -Sector
General Permit
Application to be submitted
for coverage of ATS product
storage and load -out area
MPCA Construction Stormwater NPDES /SDS
Permit
Application to be submitted
as required (>1 acre of
disturbance)
MPCA NPDES /SDS Wastewater Discharge Permit In effect
MPCA Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Permit Application for major facility
modification of existing
permit to be submitted
Minnesota Department of
Agriculture
Agricultural Fertilizer License Application for agri cultural
fertilizer license to be
submitted
Minne sota Department of
Agriculture
Bulk Fertilizer Storage Permit Application for the bulk
fertilizer storage permit to
be submitted
Rosemount Fire Marshall Plan Review and Approval Application to be submitted
City of Rosemount Building Permit To be obtained when
required
City of Rosemount Excavation and Grading Permit To be obtained when
required
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 9 Worksheet
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including
parks, trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The FHR Refinery is located in the Pine Bend Industrial District (Industrial District), an area
of industrial development in the c ity of Rosemount near the junction of U.S. Highway 52
and State Highway 55. The Industrial District was formed in 1954 when th e Chicago and
Northwestern Railroad purchased approximately 6,000 acres in the Pine Bend area. The
FHR Refinery was the first industrial facility developed in the Industrial District and
industrial development has continued over the last five decades. At t his time there are
more than 30 companies conducting industrial activities located within a five -mile radius
of the junction of U.S. Highway 52 and State Highway 55. Figures 6 and 7 show current
land use and land cover in the Refinery area. There are no pa rks, trails, or prime or unique
farmlands immediately adjacent to the site of the Projects . The Mississippi River is located
approximately one mile east of the east boundary of the FHR Refinery. This stretch of the
Mississippi River is part of the Mississi ppi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA).
Recently, the Mississippi River Regional Trail (MRRT), a paved bike trail that will eventually
connect Hastings and South St. Paul, has been extended through the Pine Bend Bluffs
Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). This Pine Bend Bluffs segment of the MRRT is located
northeast of the Refinery along the west side of the Mississippi River.
The Refinery is located approximately 8 miles northwest of the c ity of Hastings
(population 22,172), 6 miles northeast of the c ity of Rosemount (population 21,980), and
6 miles south of the city of Inver Grove Heights (population 34,008). Other nearby cities
includ es Eagan to the northwest (7 miles), Apple Valley to the west (8 miles), and St. Paul
to the north (13 miles).
I n addition to the nearby population centers, there are three small residential subdivisions
located near the existing Refinery site. One of these subdivisions, owned by FHR for
employee use, is located two miles southwest of the Refinery. The other subdivi sions in
proximity to the Projects are located one mile to the northwest and one mile due north of
the Refinery. As shown in Figures 6, the Projects ’ components will be located entirely
within areas currently in industrial and utility use with nearly a one mile buffer between
the proposed ATS plant and the nearest residence, located southeast of the proposed ATS
plant location (Figure 8).
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and
any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local,
regional, state, or federal agency.
The Refinery is located within the city of Rosemount, which has adopted a comprehensive
plan. The plan includes the Refinery and recognizes it to be part of the 6,00 0 -acre
Industrial District.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 10 Worksheet
A portion of FHR’s property extends east of the Refinery complex. This allows for pipeline
transfer of materials from the Refinery to the Mississippi River, along with loading and
unloading of material at the river. This stret ch of the Mississippi River is part of the
MNRRA, and FHR’s planned land uses overlap with MNRRA land use plans along the river
corridor. MNRRA’s land use plan includes a requirement that “developments and
programs” be “sensitive to the limitations of natu ral resources.” Any Refinery Projects in
this area must be consistent with this MNRRA requirement; however, none of the
elements of the proposed Pro jects are located within the MNR RA.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and
scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The proposed Projects will lie within the boundaries of the existing Refinery complex in
areas zoned as heavy industrial, or on adjacent property that FHR recently acquired fr om
Yocum Oil, which also is zoned as heavy industrial. Figures 8 and 9 show the land use
zoning of the Refinery and nearby properties.
The areas adjacent to the Refinery complex to the south and west are zoned as
agricultural land and have been in agricultural use throughout the development of the
Industrial District.
The Projects are not located within any water -related land use manage ment districts,
including shore land zoning districts, delineated 100 -year flood plain, or state or federally
designated wild or scenic river land use districts.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9 a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The Projects are compatible with the city of Rosemount’s current comprehensive plan, which
recognizes the Refinery as a part of the 6,000 -acre Industrial District. The proposed activities at
the Refinery c omplex are consistent with the city of Rosemount’s rules and regulations for areas
zoned for heavy industrial uses. Additionally, the proposed ATS storage and load -out facility on
the adjacent property that FHR recently acquired from Yo cum Oil is consistent with the city of
Rosemount’s rules and regulations for areas zoned for heavy industrial uses.
As described above, the p rojects are not proposed to be located within or immediately adjacent
to the MNRRA and therefore, are not expected to conflict with the MNRRA's land use plan.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above .
Based on a review of existing land use, zoning, and planning information available for the Projects ’
area, the proposed Projects are not expected to conflict with adjacent and nearby land uses.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 11 Worksheet
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features for
the pro ject and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
Based on the Dakota County Geologic Atlas published by the Minnesota Geological Survey,
surficial g eology in Dakota County includes modern deposits a few feet thick along streams,
rivers, wetlands, and lakes as well as glacial deposits that are tens to hundreds of thousands of
years old and a few tens of feet to several hundred feet thick. Bedrock in Da kota County
includes Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock that is 450 to 520 million years old and 200 to 800 feet
thick as well as Precambrian bedrock, more than 1 billion years old. The sedimentary bedrock in
the Twin Cities area forms a shallow basin, and the bedrock in the area of the Projects dips
gently to the north toward this basin.
Surficial geology at the site consists of glacial deposits that are 50 to 100 feet thick and are
composed of gravel and sand outwash from the Superior lobe. While the surfici al deposits of
gravel and sand in the area have high permeability, there is no shallow aquifer. The water table
is in the bedrock, likely due to the high permeability of the glacial deposits and the bedrock, and
the proximity of the Mississippi River, whic h is the regional discharge.
The uppermost bedrock underlying the site is the Prairie du Chien Group, made up of dolostone,
sandstone, and variations of those two. While the uppermost bedrock includes a carbonate
component, this component is dolomitic whi ch tends to be less soluble than limestone. No
sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions are present in the vicinity of the
Projects based on mapping by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR).4 There are
no mapped faults at or a djacent to the site.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography , any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep s lopes,
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activi ties (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other
measures. Erosion/sed imentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed
in response to Item 11.b.ii.
The industrialized part of the site is classified as urban land. Soils present on the FHR facility
property are primarily sands and loams. No peat soils are p resent, but one small area contains
ponded aquolls and histols. The soil types within the FHR PB boundary are: Hubbard loamy sand,
Wadena loam, Estherville sandy loam, Plainfield loamy sand, Mahtomedi loamy sand, Waukegan
silt loam, Urban land -Waukegan com plex, Urban land, Gravel pit, Zumbro loamy fine sand,
Chetek sandy loam, Hawick coarse sandy loam, and smaller areas of Antigo silt loam, Colo silt
4 htt p://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/lfrm_karstpt3.html Accessed 1/3/2014.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 12 Worksheet
loam, Lindstrom silt loam, Kennebec silt loam, and Cylinder loam. All of the upland soils are
considered wel l to excessively -drained with moderate to very rapid permeability. Soil types in
the project area are shown on Figure 10. Full descriptions of the soil units shown on Figure 10
are provided in Appendix A Soil Map Unit Description.
Soil in the vicinity of the proposed sour water tanks is classified as Estherville sandy loam, 2 to
6% slopes. The Estherville component is a non -hydric soil, making up 90 % of the soil unit. The
parent material of the Estherville component is outwash and the component is located on
outwash plains. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. Estherville sandy loam
is classified as somewhat excessively drained, with a high level of water movement in the most
restrictive layer and low available water levels to a dept h of 60 inches. Shrink -swell potential for
this soil is low. This soil is not flooded, not ponded, and has no zone of water saturation within a
depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 %.
The new sour water strippers and process piping between the sour water tanks and ATS process
unit are proposed to be located on soils classified as u rba n land -Waukegan complex, 1 to 8%
slopes. The Waukegan component makes up 10 % of this map unit and urban land makes up the
remaining 90%. The Waukegan component is a non -hydric soil located on outwash plains with
parent material consisting of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive
layer is greater than 60 inches. This component is w ell drained, with a high level of water
movement in the most restrictive layer and low available water levels to a depth of 60 inches.
Shrink -swell potential for this soil is low. This soil is not flooded, not ponded, and has no zone of
water saturation wi thin a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is
about 4 %.
The ATS p rocess u nit, ATS day -tanks and ATS storage tanks are proposed to be located in areas
simply classified as u rban land with no major soil components.
Potential impacts to erosion and sedimentation considered in this EAW are associated with
project construction and stormwater management. Operation following implementation of the
Projects is not expected to cause erosion or sedimentation and no erosion or sediment control
measures are anticipated to be necessary.
There are no steep slopes or highly erodible soils in any of the areas where project construction
will occur. The proposed ATS storage tank site is currently flat and minimally vegetated. The
proposed sou r water tank location is flat and mostly covered with vegetation. During the
construction phase of the Projects , control measures will be used to manage erosion and
sedimentation at the construction site. Construction activities at the P roject site will require
excavation activity on approximately 20 acres of land and will require approximately 170,000
cubic yards of soil to be removed and relocated. All excavated materials will be used in project
related or subsequent construction at the Refinery.
Sinc e construction of the proposed Projects will disturb more than one acre of land, FHR will
apply for a Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES/SDS Permit) from the MPCA. The permit
will require FHR to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Projects .
The SWPPP will include best management practices (BMPs) for site erosion and sediment
control.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 13 Worksheet
During the construction phase, FHR will utilize BMPs such as silt fencing and drain blocks to
manage erosion and sedimentation. All excavated materials will be used in project -related or
subsequent construction at the Refinery. Tank containment berms will be re -vegetated. All
disturbed areas will be compacted with Class V rock or otherwise stabilized. Re -vegetated areas
will be pla nted with standard slope stabilization seed mixes as soon as construction activities are
completed. Rip rap is typically used around drainage inlets and exits. Rubbish grates are typically
used on culvert inlets.
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface wate r and g roundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii., below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife
lakes , migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water.
Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA
303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public
Wat ers Inventory number(s), if any.
Figure 11 shows hydrologic features in the vicinity of the Refinery. The location of the
proposed components of the Projects does not coincide with any National Wetland
Inventory wetlands or Public Waters Inventory watercourses. As noted above, a portion of
FHR PB’s property extends east of the Refinery site allowing for pipeline transfer of
materials to the Mississippi River. Howev er, none of the components of the proposed
Projects will impact this area.
There are no water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA
303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the Projects .
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include : 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MD H wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby
wells , including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on
s ite or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the Projects is estimated to be 150 feet on
average, with a measured minimum depth of 70 feet based on soil borings in the project
area. County Well Index (CWI) well locations within the FHR facility boundary are
summarized below and shown on Figure 11. CWI well records for the wells nearest to the
proposed sour water tanks location and proposed ATS storage tanks location are provided in
Appendix B.
None of the elements of the proposed Projects are located within a Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) wellhead protection area.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 14 Worksheet
Unique ID Well Name
Location UTM NAD83 Zone
15N Meters Well Log
Included in
Appendix B? Easting Northing
00752110 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES NO. 10 497043.953 4956248.84 Yes
00594998 TK505 -BW3A 496787.094 4957175.554 No
00509068 KOCH REFINING RW -4 497194 4957407 No
00612663 W -35 497175.934 4957394.214 No
00208391 GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 5 496464 4957233 No
00208393 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.2 496670 4956984 No
00612014 TK88/EW -2 496130.167 4957560.901 No
00509070 KOCH REFINING RW -6 497197 4957430 No
00509066 KOCH REFINING RW -3 497194 4957382 No
00509063 KOCH REFINING RW -1 497196 4957338 No
00612003 BDP/EVW -3 497142.731 4957618.61 No
00666490 FLINT HILLS REFINERY 497115.411 4957471.605 No
00208394 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.4 496852 4957116 No
00554202 PR12 -1 496865.556 4957435.668 No
00509065 KOCH REFINING RW -2 497197 4957360 No
00612015 MP -1 496850.496 4957302.932 No
00208392 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.1 496835 4956993 No
00612004 PW -1 495891.049 4957485.495 No
00617783 (Unnamed) 497179.903 4957120.369 No
00509071 KOCH REFINING RW -5 497199 4957450 No
00612010 PW -2 496735.402 4957296.979 No
00213584 KOCH REFINING NO.7 496813 4956961 No
00208390 GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 3 496499 4957344 No
00643923 MW -50 497115.411 4957191.807 No
00612729 MW -1 496221.448 4957672.027 No
00161421 KOCH REFINING NO.8 497042.875 4956230.75 Yes
00612008 MP -1 495953.557 4957459.698 No
00272261 W -6 496345.965
1 4956276.649 No
00198326 WAYNE TRANSPORT 496857.266 4958172.250 No
00207292 DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION 496676.000 4958161.000 No
00129266 FEGLES POWER SERVICE 496731.891 4958149.375 No
00208410 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES
KSAU#1 498117.000 4956269.000 No
00489231 MW -110 498280.959 4955791.812 No
00255723 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES
KSAU#2 498123.554 4956199.748 No
00489230 W -109 498244.975 4956162.238 No
00489229 W -108 498355.044 4956094.503 No
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 15 Worksheet
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, m unicipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the ability of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
Sanitary wastewater is generated by FHR's employees and sent to t he city of
Rosemount’s publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The Projects will result in
minimal additional sanitary wastewater from approximately five additional employee s
that will be needed for operation of the ATS process, and from a new small office
building supporting the ATS storage and load -out area. This very small amount of
additional sanitary wastewater will not have a significant effect on the Rosemount
POTW.
2) I f the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a
system.
Wastewater generated from the Projects will not be discharged to a subsurface s ewage
treatment system.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from was tewater discharges.
Industrial wastewater is generated by a number of industrial processes at the Refinery.
The Refinery operates a wastewater treatment facility (WWTF) to treat its industrial
waste as well as onsite stormwater and recovered groundwater from an onsite
remediation system. Treated effluent from the facility is either discharged into the
Mississippi River or reused in the Refinery’s firewater and boiler feed water makeup
systems.
The Refinery's WWTF treats an average of 4 million gallons pe r day (mgd ) of wastewater
and has a calculated design maximum flow rate of 5.2 mgd . The facility is subject to
operating requirements and effluent limits specified in its NPDES/SDS Permit No.
MN0000418.
The proposed Projects will not result in the generation of any additional industrial
process wastewater. The only potential increase in wastewater generated by the
Projects will result from an increase in stormwater that could be collected in the
facility's stormwater ponds (see item 11bii below). If the stormwater cannot be reused
for firewater supply, any excess inventory would discharge to the facility's WWTF.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 16 Worksheet
However, since the Refinery's WWTF has the capacity to treat 5.2 mgd of wastewater,
and the cur rent actual average treated is only 4 mgd , and because any increase in
overall stormwater generation is expected to be small, no negative impact is expected
on the Refinery's ability to treat wastewater and meet its WWTF permit limits.
ii. Stormwater - Descri be the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any envir onmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
prevention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimen tation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
Stormwater from areas located within the Refinery fenceline is managed according to the
requirements of FHR's SWPPP, which is required under its existing NPDES/SDS Permit No.
MN0000418. Stormwater will be generated in the vicinity of the new sour water storage
tanks, at the ATS p rocess u nit site, and at the proposed ATS storage tank site.
The stormwater in the vicinity of the proposed sour water s torage tanks currently is routed
to a small vegetated swale to the northwest for infiltration. Following construction of the
new sour water storage tanks and the associated secondary containment area, the
stormwater will either be directed to the Refinery’s WWTF or drained from the secondary
containment area to the small vegetated swale to the northwest if no treatment is required.
Planned equipment located within the Refinery area (ATS p rocess u nit, ATS day tanks, sour
water strippers) will tie into the existing storm sewer at the Refinery site. The stormwater
runoff from the Refinery site is collected by FHR's stormwater ponds. Any water collected in
FHR's existing stormwater ponds is used to supply the firewater safety system. Any excess
firewater inven tory is treated in FHR's WWTF. After treatment, the water is discharged to
the Mississippi River near FHR's Barge Dock facilities (see Figure 11). Stormwater constitutes
a minor part of the WWTF's load, and the Projects will create a minor (less than 1%) i ncrease
in impervious cover in the areas where stormwater is rout ed to and treated by the WWTF.
Therefore, the Projects are expected to have a negligible increase in stormwater generation
and minimal impact to FHR's WWTF.
Stormwater collected in the secondary conta inment areas will be checked for contamination
and is anticipated to be pumped to a separate, currently existing, infiltration pond on the
southern portion of the property, similar to past Yocum Oil management practices. It has been
reported to FHR by Yocum Oil that the site consists largely of a granular sand subsurface that
results in localized infiltra tion of surface water run -off. Stormwater collected in load -in and
load -out areas will be managed in a manner similar to the secondary con ta inment areas as
noted above. A Notice of Intent has been filed by FHR for this location to obtain coverage
under the Industrial Stormwater Multi -Sector General Permit No. MNR050000. Stormwater
compliance will be maintained consistent with this permit, and the required SWPPP .
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 17 Worksheet
A construction stormwater permit will be obtained to support construction activity at the
proposed terminal if the activity disturbs one acre or more. Appropriate permit provisions
and BMPs will be designed and incorporated int o t he site construction SWPPP. Site
construction managers will ensure that BMPs are appropriately implemented, or as
neces sary, modified to be effective. Necessary changes to site BMPs will be incorporated
into the SWPPP as required by permit conditi ons. The SWPPP will also contain the required
figures that identify potential stormwater impacts and associated drainage plans. Some
examples of BMPs that may be used during the site construction are check dams, silt fences,
settling ponds, phased construction, wat er management, inspections and traffic
management.
FHR will utilize BMPs such as silt fencing and drain blocks to manage erosion and
sedimentation during the construction phase. All excavated materials will be used in
project -related or subsequent const ruction at the Refinery. The containment berm will be
re -vegetated. All disturbed areas will be compacted with Class V rock or otherwise
stabilized. Re -vegetated areas will be planted with standard slope stabilization seed mixes as
soon as construction act ivities are completed. Rip rap is typically used around drainage
inlets and exits. Rubbish grates are typically used on culvert inlets.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water sour ce and any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including
an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects from the water appropriation.
In order to minimize fresh water use, the ATS unit will utilize air cooled condensers (fin fans)
in addition to cooling water to meet the cooling demand of the Project. Use of air cooling
reduces overall water consumption that would occur if cooling water were used because
there will be n o evaporative losses of water. An estimated 60 gallons per minute (gpm ) of
make -up water will be needed to supply the cooling tower serving the Projects.
In addition, an estimated 25 gpm of clean water will be needed as an input for operation of
the ATS process.
Water needs for this Project can be accommodated under FHR’s existing water
appropriations permit # 1954 0071. FHR PB currently uses approximate ly 94% of the
refinery’s limit each year, leaving capacity to accommodate the water needs of the
proposed Projects within the existing appropriation limits.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 18 Worksheet
iv. Surface Waters
a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland f eatures
such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal.
Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of
wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland alterations may
have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives
that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands.
Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable
wetland im pacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those
probable locations.
The Projects will not involve any physical modifications to wetlands.
b) Other surface waters - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surfa ce water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
ditches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct
and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surfac e
water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to
avoid or minim ize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water
features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any
water bod y , including current and projected watercraft usage.
The Projects will not involve any physical modifications to surface waters.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre -project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water
cont amination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks, and
hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre -
project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project constructi on and
operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from existing
contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency
Plan or Response Action Plan.
MPCA’s “What’s in My Neighborhood” databa se and Leaking Undergrou nd Storage Tanks
records indicate no potential conflicts involving environmental hazards in the vicinity of the
Projects due to past site uses . Refer to Figure 12 for existing contamination near the proposed
site .
There will be mi nimal ground disturbance associated with construction of the ATS process unit,
ATS day tanks, sour water strippers and process piping. Given the minimal disturbance and the
absence of known sites of contamination in the areas where these Project components will be
located, construction and operation of these project components are not expected to result in
environmental effects from pre -project site conditions.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 19 Worksheet
No existing docum ented contamination or known environmental hazards are present at the
proposed sour water tank site.
The proposed site for the ATS storage tanks and loading racks is a property located in an area
that is zoned Heavy Industrial by the city of Rosemount. This property has been developed and
occupied by various industrial operations, (which include chemical and fertilizer operations)
since the 1950s. A review of the available information indicates releases of petroleum products,
agricultural chemicals, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the most significant of which are
described below.
Soil Nitrogen Contamination and Nitrogen Groundwater Monitoring
As a part of an investigation, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) required
Contine ntal Nitrogen (a former owner of the propose d ATS storage and load -out property ) to
evaluate the soil and groundwater at the property for impa cts from nitrogen compounds. The
results of the soil investigation identified nitrogen contamination in the soil. Soil clean -up
activities consisted of removi ng 1,800 cubic yards of co ntaminated soil from the site. Following
completion of the clean -up, a No Further Action letter was issued by MDA in 2005.
Historic ground water monitoring results indicated that the concentration of nitrogen in the
groundwater b eneath the site was above groundwater standards for potable water.
Groundwater monitoring was conducted at an on -site monitoring well that was installed in
1998, at several off -site monitoring wells, and from natural springs below the site. Groundwater
mo nitoring continued until 2009. The MDA issued a No Further Action letter on September 14,
2010 since the nitrate -nitrogen concentrations had decreased over time in the wells and springs
that were being monitored, the known and accessible sources of nitroge n contamination in soil
had been removed, and since there were no potable well users down -gradient of the site and
the risk to surface water was low.
PCB Soil Contamination
An unpermitted PCBs waste disposal site was identified as being present on the southeast
portion o f the ATS storage and load -out property prior to 1980. Soils within the identified area
were removed and remaining soil concentrations were found to be below the MPCA health ris k
based levels. A No Further Action letter was issued by the MPCA on February 27, 2013.
As part of the construction of the proposed ATS storage and load -out facility, FHR will utilize the
available environmental site assessment data to develop an approp riate con taminated soil
management plan. FHR will consult with the MDA and the MPCA to establish appropriate
measures if it is anticipated that a historically impacted area will be disturbed or if other
environmental concerns are encountered as site work p rogresses.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe solid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 20 Worksheet
Typical construction waste, including scrap metal, welding rods, etc. is anticipate d to be
generated during the construction phase of the Projects. All such solid waste will be managed
within the boundaries of the existing facility until properly disposed of offsite by licensed
contractors. With proper handling and disposal, the tempora ry and relatively minimal
generation/storage of construction waste is not anticipated to cause any notable environmental
effects.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction a nd/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardo us materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from
the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction and recycling.
Include development of a spill prevention plan.
The FHR PB Refinery processes an d refines crude oil. The Refinery produces large volumes of
various petroleum products including: gasoline, diesel fuels, asphalts, kerosene, aviation fuel,
liquefied petroleum gas, butane, and coke. In addition to end products, the refining process
genera tes numerous flammable or combustible intermediate products.
A mmonium T hiosulfate is not believed to be a hazardous material because it does not contain
any hazardous air pollutants (product contains only water and ATS salt), is not a hazardous
waste (not a waste), and is not listed on the Department of Transportation Hazardous Materia ls
Table (49 CFR 172.101). The MSDS for ATS is provided in Appendix C.
The ATS day tanks, pipeline to the terminal, valves, instrumentation and appurtenances
associ ated with the pipeline will be regulated under the MPCA aboveground storage tank
permit . The permit requirements aim to reduce the potential for p roduct release and will
include secondary containment, leak detection, inspections, and monitoring and recordkeeping
requirements . Since ATS will be a commercial grade fertilizer, the MDA will regula te the ATS
final product storage tanks, load -out and all operations after the aboveground flange
downstream of the ATS facility receive valve . The MDA permit will ensure product quality and
prevent product releases.
Sour water associated with the project has been identified as a hazardous material because it
contains small amounts of hazardous components (benzene and hydrogen sulfide). Material
Safety Data Sheet for sour water components are provided in Appendix C.
The sour water tanks will be built in a ccordance with American Petroleum Institute standards
and will comply with the existing MPCA aboveground storage tank requirements. The tanks will
be located in a containment area sized to contain 110% of the capacity of one sour water vessel.
Because the proposed Projects will involve simply moving sour water to new storage tanks and
improving the skimming and stripping to remove hazardous components, the project is not
expected to pose any new risks related to hazardous material associated with sour water .
Details regarding the number, location and size of aboveground tanks associated with the
Projects are provided in the response to Question 6.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 21 Worksheet
The Refinery has an Integrated Contingency Plan (referred to as the One Plan), which will be
modified to includ e the proposed sour water storage tanks. The One Plan provides a description
of procedures used to detect spills, identifies emergency coordinators, provides for
implementation of emergency procedures, describes the availability and use of emergency
equipm ent, and outlines response coordination within the Refinery and with outside agencies
and jurisdictions. A copy of the current One Plan is maintained on -site.
The Refinery has emergency response planning systems in place that will be updated as
necessary to address any safety -related issues associated with the Projects. The plan will be
updated and is periodically shared wit h the MPCA, Dakota County, and city of Rosemount
emergency response officials.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potential environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimi ze or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Normal operation of the storage tanks and ATS p rocess u nit will not generate hazardous wastes
(see discussion above in response to question 12c). Occasionally the new sour water tanks will
need to be cleaned (likely on a 10 year schedule). Contaminated wastewater will be generated
as a result of the cleaning. Contaminated wastewater will be treated on -site at the Refinery’s
WWTF. In addition, the existing sour water tanks will need to be cleaned when
decommissioned. Contaminated wastewater will be generated as a result of this cleaning and
will be treated on -si te at the Refinery’s WWTF.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site.
Because the FHR facility is heavily de veloped, fish and wildlife resources and habitats are not
abundant within the project area or within the immediate vicinity of the project. However,
agricultural land adjacent to the north, west, and south portions of the FHR facility is utilized by
wildli fe species typically associated with old field communities. Commonly occurring species include
pheasants and white -tailed deer. In addition, there are a variety of rodents, songbirds, and
predators such as red fox, raccoon, and skunks.
High quality fish a nd wildlife resources and habitats are present east of the FHR facility within the
East Rosemount Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Site of Biological Significance (SBS; high
biodiversity significance); the Pine Bend SNA and Inver Grove Heights SBS (outstanding biodiversity
significance); within the Mississippi River; and along the Mississippi River bluff area (Figure 12).
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 22 Worksheet
b. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,
na tive plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance,
and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the
license agreement number and/or correspondence number from which the data were obtained
and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species
survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
c. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, t hreatened or special concern) species,
native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance,
and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the
license agreement number and/or correspondence number from which the data were obtained
and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species
survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
Barr Engineering (Barr), the project proposer's consultant, has a license agreement (LA -674)
with the MDNR to access the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database. Barr
queried the NHIS database in October of 2013 (Natural Heritage letter from DNR is included as
Appendix D). According to the NHIS database, no endangered, threatened, or special concern
species have been documented in the immediate project area. Rare and sensitive ecological
resources in the vicinity of the project area are shown on Figure 12.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW S) technical assistance website 5 lists two federally listed
species - the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii; federally and state -endangered) and
the prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya; federally a nd state -threatened), and one
species proposed for listing – the northern long –eared bat (Myotis septentrionalisas; proposed
federally endangered and state -special concern), as occurring in Dakota County. According to
the NHIS database, none of these spec ies has been documented within one mile of the FHR
facility. Suitable habitats, which consist of large rivers for the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel, native
prairie for the prairie bush clover, and caves, mines and upland forests for the northern long -
eared ba t are not present within the FHR facility or adjacent to the FHR facility boundary
(including the Refinery and the proposed location of the ATS storage and loading facility). The
USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) includes a third f ederally listed
species for Dakota County, the Minnesota dwarf trout lily (Erythronium propullans; federally
and state -endangered). The Minnesota dwarf trout lily was added to the IPaC list in 2013
following a joint M DNR/USFWS soil type study indicating th at although Minnesota dwarf trout
lily is not known or believed to occur within Dakota County, the soils in the very southern
portion of the county might support its growth. According to the NHIS database, the dwarf trout
lily has not been documented withi n one mile of the FHR facility. Suitable habitat, which
includes northern -facing slopes of rich hardwood forests dominated by maple and basswood
and floodplains dominated by elm and cottonwood, is not present within the FHR facility or
adjacent to the FHR facility. The M DNR Rare Species Guide
(http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html ) also includes three federally -listed mussel species
for Dakota County: the sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus; fe derally and state -
endangered), the spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta; federally and state -
5 Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program. Available at URS:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/minnesot -cty.html. Accessed October, 2013.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 23 Worksheet
endangered), and the winged mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa; federally and state -
endangered). According to the NHIS database, none of these species have been documented
within one mile of the FHR facility. Suitable habitat, which consists of large rivers, is not present
within the FHR facility or adjacent to the FHR facility.
The NHIS database indicates a 2011 observation of the presence of a pair of peregrine falcons
(Falco peregrinus; state -special concern) and a nest within the FHR facility boundary. According
to the NHIS database, the state -endangered loggerhead shrike (Lan ius ludovicianus) has been
documented in the farmlands and rural areas adjacent to the FHR facility within the past four
years. Loggerhead shrike generally prefer broad open areas such as croplands, lawns and
pastures, with adjacent perching sites in small trees and shrubs, Therefore, the species is
unlikely to occur within the developed FHR facility. Undeveloped and agricultural lands on the
south side of the FHR facility include cropland, dry grassland, short grass, and maintained tall
grass cover types w hich may support loggerhead shrike. However, because of the limited
footprint of the Projects, and the abundance of suitable habitat outside of the p roject area, it is
unlikely that loggerhead shrike would utilize the p roject area. According to the NHIS da tabase,
occurrences of the fox snake (Elaphe vullpina; formerly state -special concern but as of August,
2013 no longer state -listed) and the bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus; state -special concern)
have been reported about 0.5 miles to the east of the FH R facility. Both reports, however, are
more than 70 years old and no recent sightings have been reported in the area. It is not likely
that either species will be present on or in the immediate vicinity of the FHR facility due to
highly industrialized land use. Both snake species generally prefer wooded and open field river
bluff habitat. Habitat of this type is located east and northeast of the FHR facility in the
Mississippi River Valley. The closest potential habitats are located in the Pine Bend Bluff S NA
northeast of the FHR facility and further south and east along the Mississippi River bluffs.
According to the NHIS database, several rare species and rare ecological communities have been
documented within the East Rosemount MBS SBS, the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove Heights
SBS, the Mississippi River, and along the Mississippi River bluff area. All of these ecologically
sensitive areas are outside of the Project areas and FHR facility boundary.
d. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communit ies, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from
the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and
endangered species.
The proposed Projects will have a limited footprint within the FHR facility boundary. Given this
limited project footprint, and the general lack of suitable habitat within the facility boundary, no
direct impacts to endangered, threatened or special concern s pecies, or rare communities are
anticipated. The proposed Projects will also not involve conversion of habitats preferred by rare
species. Because of the industrial land use within the project area, and the routine maintenance
activities at the facility, t here will be limited opportunity for the introduction of invasive species
during construction and operation. Additional impacts during construction and operation are not
expected as operational controls and safeguards, such as stormwater management and dus t
control, will be in place to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on fish, wildlife, or other
ecologically sensitive resources. The construction and operation of the proposed Projects is covered
by the existing emergency response planning systems in th e Refinery.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 24 Worksheet
There is no suitable habitat within the FHR facility or areas adjacent to the FHR facility boundary for
the federally -listed species occurring in Dakota County (see response to question 13b). The four
federally -listed mussels are aquatic specie s and habitat for these species is not present in the FHR
facility. The prairie bush clover requires high -quality prairie with specific associated species not
present within the FHR facility or project area. In addition, the rich hardwood forest habitat an d soil
types necessary to support the growth of d warf trout lily do not occur in the part of Dakota County
where the Projects are proposed to be located. No caves, mines, or upland forests are present
within the FHR facility or adjacent areas to provide ha bitat for the northern long -eared bats.
The limited footprint of the Projects combined with the general lack of suitable habitat within the
facility boundary make it highly unlikely that there would be project -related impacts to the state
listed species wi th documented occurrences within one mile of the facility boundary. Impacts to
peregrine falcon individuals or populations are not anticipated because the specific project areas are
not in the immediate vicinity of the documented nest within the FHR facili ty boundary. Moreover,
construction activities will not occur in the immediate vicinity of the site where the nest was
observed. Finally, there has been no documentation of peregrine falcon activity on the site since the
2011 observation.
There will be no impacts to loggerhead shrike. This is because the proposed project activities will be
located within the FHR facility boundary and not in high quality habitat areas typically utilized by
loggerhead shrike.
While several rare species and rare ecological com munities have been documented within the East
Rosemount SBS, the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove heights SBS, the Mississippi River, and the
Mississippi River bluff area, these documented NHIS records are outside the project areas and FHR
facility boundary. The Projects are not expected to impact rare species or communities within these
areas.
Elevated noise levels from the proposed project activities may normally have the potential to disrupt
wildlife behavior and utilization of the higher -quality habitats in the vicinity of the FHR facility.
However, the existing FHR facility has generated periodic elevated noise level events since operation
of the facility commenced. Wildlife species in the area are therefore likely to be habituated to
periodic elevated no ise levels. Moreover, the FHR facility is separated from the highest -quality
wildlife habitats to the east and northeast by U.S. Highway 52, and t he proposed ATS tank and load -
out area is separated from these high -q uality wildlife habitats by State Highway 55 . Both highways
also contribute to elevated noise levels in the area. Considering the existing combined noise levels
generated by the current FHR facility and the U.S. Highway 52 and State Highway 55 traffic, it is not
expected that the proposed Project s will significantly increase noise to levels that disrupt wildlife
behavior. More information regarding noise is provided in response to Section 17.
e. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
As discussed above, operational controls and safeguards, such as stormwater management will
be in place to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on fish, wildlife, or other ecologically
sensitive reso urces. Because no adverse impacts are expected as a result of the proposed
Projects, no additional measures need be taken to minimize impacts, and no additional survey
work has been conducted.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 25 Worksheet
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, arc heological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SH PO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construction and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
The Minnesota Historical Society was contacted with respect to the existence of known historic
properties in the vicinity of the FHR facility. There are no reported historic properties in the
potential project area (see Appendix E ).
15. Visual:
Describe a ny scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from
the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitiga te visual effects.
The onsite equipment for the proposed Projects will have an industrial appearance consistent with
existing facilities at the Refinery. While the ATS storage tank and load -out area will be new visual
elements to the east of the existing f acility, these project components are visually consistent with
the adjacent property which includes numerous tanks, spheres, and load -out facilities. As such, the
Projects will not create significant changes to visual impacts, either from new structures or lights on
structures.
There are no scenic vistas on or near the Refinery which require special attention with regard to
adverse visual impacts. The Projects are not expected to alter scenic vistas in the MNRRA as these
vistas face eastward, away from the project area. The Projects will not significantly alter views from
the MRRT as the project components are consistent with the existing industrial elements in the
viewshed in this area.
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality
including any sensitive receptors, h uman health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a
discussion of any methods used assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of that
assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken to
avoid, mini mize, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
Air Emission Sources
The proposed Projects will result in increases in air emissions of criteria pollutants and
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The table below summarizes the new air emi ssion sources
associated with the proposed Projects. Potential emission rate increases are discussed in the
following section.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 26 Worksheet
Emissions Unit : Pollution Control Measures :
ATS process unit Demister System
New Components in VOC Service at the ATS process
unit , 26 Unit, 45 Unit, and Tank Farm
Leak Detection and Repair
Sour Water Storage Tanks External Floating Roofs
Haul Road Truck Traffic Paved Roads and a Dust Management Plan
Projects Air Emissions
The new equipment associated with the proposed Proje cts will result in changes to the
Refinery's limited potential to emit. Additionally, the potential to emit will also increase for the
existing SRUs due to the Projects. The overall change in potential to emit is indicated in the table
below. The percent c hange from the Projects is less than 2% for all pollutants consi dered.
Pollutant Total Refinery
Pre -Projects
(tpy) 1
Tier 3 Clean
Fuels Projects
(tpy) 2
Total Refinery
Post -Projects
(tpy) 3
Percent Change
due to Projects (%)
Nitrogen Oxides (NO x ) 3,952.6 33.53 3,986.1 0.85 %
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 4 3,770.0 19.71 3,770 0.0 %
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2,391.0 7.60 2,398.6 0.32%
Particulate Matter (PM) 1,032.7 10.53 1,043.2 1.0 %
Particulate Matter <10
Microns (PM 10 ) 641.1 8.53 649.6 1.3 %
Particulate Matter <2.5
Microns (PM 2.5 ) 627.6 7.44 635.0 1.2 %
Volatile Organic
Compounds(VOC) 2,610.4 34.96 2 ,645.4 1.3 %
Greenhouse Gases
(GHGs) 5 7,837,536 33,121 7,870,657 0.42%
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs) 854.6 6.35 861.0 0.74%
1 Current Total Refinery PTE is based on the values in the Title V permit Technical Support Document (TSD) dated
9/9/13 and 4/15/14 . GHG values from a June 26, 2013 letter from FHR to Mr. Tarik Hanafy of MPCA, updated to
reflect current global warming potentials for CH 4 and N 2 O plus those GHG va lues from new EU’s permitted in
03700011 -011 .
2 Limited PTE of propo sed Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects.
3 Limited PTE of Total Refinery (current facility plus proposed Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects).
4 The Tier 3 project will result in SO 2 emissions ; however t hese emissions will not require the refinery to increase its
SO 2 air permit emission limit .
5 GHGs mean the following pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), sulfur hexafluoride
(SF 6 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarb ons (PFCs). These values are expressed as carbon dioxide
equivalents (CO 2 e).
Air Emission Permitting
Title V
The current Refinery is a permitted major air emissions source under Title V of the federal Clean
Air Act Amendments. The proposed Projects will result in increased criteria pollutant, GHG , and
HAP emissions. FHR has applied for a major amendment to its Ti tle V air emissions permit (Air
E missions Permit No. 03700011 -011 ) in order to implement its proposed Projects. The draft
permit public notice period is expected to begin soon.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 27 Worksheet
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The current Refinery is a major s ource under federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 because its
facility -wide potential to emit (PTE) is greater than 100 tons per year (TPY) for several criteria
pollutants. The air emissions increases associated with the proposed Projects are less than t he
PSD significant emission rate thresholds. Therefore, the Projects are a minor modification under
the PSD regulations.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
New equipment to be installed as part of the Projects is subject to New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) at 40 CFR Part 60. Applicable standards include the following:
• The proposed ATS process unit will be subject to NSPS Subpart Ja. Subpart Ja regulates
emissions of SO 2 from the unit.
• The proposed sour wate r storage tanks will be subject to NSPS Subpart Kb. Subpart Kb
regulates emissions of VOC from the tanks.
• The new components in VOC service will be subject to NSPS Subpart GGGa. Subpart GGGa
regulates fugitive emissions of VOC from the components.
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
New equipment to be installed as part of the Projects is subject to National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) at 40 CFR Part 63. The new sour water storage tanks and
new co mponents in VOC service will be subject to NESHAP Subpart CC.
Air Emissions Mitigation
As indicated below, FHR's air emissions permit will include requirements designed to minimize
the amount of air emissions from the proposed Projects, both from the emission units
themselves, as well as from fugitive emissions from piping components. Actions also will be
taken to minimize fugitive emissions associated with the ATS storage and load -out facility.
Stack Sources
The process equipment is designed to captu re sulfur as the commodity ATS. Inherent to the
process is an economic driver to reduce SO 2 emissions through a high recovery rate of the sulfur.
Also, the ATS process will employ a heat recovery boiler to recover energy. Additionally, a
demister will be o perated to control emissions of particulate matter (PM, PM 10 , PM 2.5 ) and
sulfuric acid mist. The demister will be operated at low temperatures to simulate atmospheric
conditions (to allow for proper condensation of entrained materials) and then the exhaust will
be reheated prior to release from the stack. Finally, the exhaust stack is well engineered to
minimize downwash and provide good dispersion characteristics.
Tank Sources
The proposed sour water storage tanks will be regulated by 40 CFR pt. 60 , subp . Kb. External
floating roofs will be installed to minimize VOC emissions. The sour water stored in these tanks
will have a floating oil (likely diesel fuel) layer that will absorb hydrogen sulfide and other
volatile components from the sour water.
The A TS storage tanks will be atmospheric fixed roof tanks with negligible air emissions.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 28 Worksheet
Fugitive Sources
Fugitive emissions from process components at the r efinery location will be regulated and
controlled as specified in the Refinery's existing leak detection and repair (LDAR) program which
is incorporated in the Consolidated LDAR Program in FHR's existing Title V permit. The LDAR
program is designed to ensu re that leaks are detected and repaired in a timely manner.
Fugitive emissions from paved road truck traffic associated with the load -out facility are
anticipated to be lower than historical fugitive emission levels at that site, which most recently
has been used by Yocum Oil as a terminal site for diesel fuel and other related products. The
operation consisted of storage tanks, a truck loading rack, and suppo rting paved and unpaved
roads. The Yocum Oil facility operated year -round with approximately 3,50 0 trucks per year
accessing the site as reported by Yocum. The Yocum Oil terminal operations, including Yocum
related third party contracts, ceased with FHR’s purchase of the property. Flint Hills Resources
expects up to approximately 2,000 trucks per year will access the site during normal ATS storage
and loading operations. The FHR ATS storage terminal truck traffic will be limited to paved
roads. Roads will be constructed and paved as necessary to support the terminal op eration
design. FHR intends to de velop and implement a fugitive dust control plan to minimize fugitive
emissions from truck traffic at the ATS storage and loading terminal.
Thus, with the conversion of this property from the Yocum terminal operations to an ATS
storage and loading operati on, there will be a reduction in annual truck traf fic related fugitive
emissions. The reduction in annual truck traffic, elimination of truck traffic on unpaved roads,
and implementation of a fugitive dust control plan will result in a reduction in the fug itive
particulate emissions generated on the property.6
Ambient Air Quality Evaluation
The FHR Refinery is subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Administrative Order, which
requires an updated SO 2 modeling demonstration if permitted SO 2 emissions increase by 2.28
pounds per hour or more at a stack vent. The ATS process unit has a potential -to -emit of SO 2
e missions of greater than 2.28 pounds per hour; therefore FHR is applying to amend its SIP
order to incorporate the ATS process unit . D ispersion modeling is required as part of the
amendment process. The results of the dispersion modeling indicate that FHR will meet the SO 2
standards of the SIP order.
In addition to the air dispersion evaluation performed for the SIP order amendment, mo deling
was also conducted pursuant to draft MPCA guidance intended to assess potential air impacts
for environmental review purposes. MPCA’s draft guidance provides that projects subject to
environmental review can demonstrate no significant effects on amb ient air quality by showing
that the sum of the monitored background concentration plus the significant impact level (SIL) is
less than 90% of the Ambient Air Quality Standard for each pollutant being evaluated and that
the modeled impacts are then less th an SILs for each pollutant being evaluated .
6 In addition, FHR understands that Yocum Oil had entered into a commitment with the city of Rosemount to pave
some exist ing unpaved roads at the site. The FHR ATS storage terminal will operate and maintain truck traffic on
paved roads. In the event the ATS storage terminal road layout does not match the current Yocum Oil agreement,
FHR will consult with the city of Rosemount to determine t he appropriate path forward. Paving will further reduce
fugitive emissions from current levels.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 29 Worksheet
Flint Hills Resource’s PB Refinery is likely the most heavily monitored source in the state of
Minnesota, surrounded by four ambient air quality monitors funded by FHR and fully
maintained and operated by the MP CA. The monitors record ambient air quality concentrations
for a number of criteria and hazardous air pollutants as determined relevant by the MPCA and
the Refine ry’s Community Advisory Council over more than a decade of operation. The data
from this monit oring network coupled with project related emission estimates from the
proposed Projects provides the basis for demonstrating that the project will not adverse ly affect
ambient air quality. As shown in the figures below, SO 2 , NO 2 , and CO levels at the monitor
immediately east of the Refinery (Monitor 420) are well below their respective NAAQS. This
monitoring data represents the potential impact of the existing Refinery operations.
NOTE: Concentrations reported in form of the respective Standard:
NO 2 - 98th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations
SO 2 - 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 30 Worksheet
NOTE: Concentrations reported as second high 1 -hour reading fo r respective year. Standard allows for one
exc eedance per averaging period effectively making standard “2nd High” or “High, Second High” for compliance
purposes.
The table below shows that estimated potential emission increases from the Projects represents
a small percentage of the FHR Pine Bend facility’s limited potential to emit.
PM
(tpy)
PM 10
(tpy)
PM 2.5
(tpy)
NO x
(tpy)
SO 2
(tpy)
CO
(tpy)
Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects 11 9 7 34 20 8
FHR PB Refinery Limited Facility
Potential to Emit 1 103 3 641 628 3953 3770 2391
Project Compared to the Existing
Refinery Potential to Emit
1.0% 1.4 % 1.1 % 0.86 % 0.5 3 % 0.3 3 %
1 The FHR PB total Refinery limited potential to emit is taken from Table 6 of the Technical support document
from the most recent permit amendment (03700011 -010) dated 09/11/13 plus the potential to emit from EU’s
permitted in 03700011 -011 .
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 31 Worksheet
Flint Hills also has prepared an analysis to demonstrate adherence to MPCA’s draft guidance for
assessing potential air impacts for environmental review purposes through SIL modeling of the
potential emission changes described above in the Projects Air Emissions section. More detailed
information on modeling is available in the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Protocol (AQDM -01)
developed for this EAW and submitted to the MPCA. The results of the SIL modeling are
provided in the tables below.
The first table demonstrated that the SILs plus ambient background concentrations a re less than
90% of the NAAQS. The second table shows that the Projects’ modeled impacts are less than the
SILs.
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Background
Concentration
(µg/m 3 )
SIL
(µg/m 3 )
Background +
SIL (µg/m 3 )
NAAQS/
MAAQS
(µg/m 3 )
Percent
of
NAAQS/
MAAQS
(%)
Less
than
90% of
NAAQS/
MAAQS
(Y/N)
CO 1 -hour 3795 2000 5795 40000 14% Y
8 -hour 1912 500 2412 1 0 000 24% Y
PM 10 24 -hour 44 .0 5 49 150 33% Y
Annual 2 3.9 1 24.9 50 50% Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 21 .3 1.2 22.5 35 64 % Y
Annual 8.8 0.3 9.1 12 76 % Y
NO 2 1 -hour 63 7.5 2 70.5 188 38% Y
Annual 29 1 30 100 30% Y
SO 2 1 -hour 7.9 7.83 15.8 196 8% Y
3 -hour 56 25 81 1300 6% Y
24 -hour 3.9 5 8.9 365 2% Y
Annual 1 .5 1 2 .5 60 4 % Y
H 2 S 30 -min. 7 .1 2.1 0 9 .2 70 13% Y
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 32 Worksheet
Pollutant Averaging
Period
Modeled Maximum
Concentration 1 (μg/m 3 ) SIL (μg/m 3 ) Less than SIL? (Y/N)
CO 1 -hour 1.74 2000 Y
8 -hour 1.14 500 Y
PM 10 24 -hour 0.40 5 Y
Annual 0.04 1 Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 0.33 1.2 Y
Annual 0.04 0.3 Y
NO 2 1 -hour 5.7 0 7.5 2 Y
Annual 0.1 5 1.0 Y
SO 2 1 -hour 4.63 7.83 Y
3 -hour 4.22 25.0 Y
24 -hour 1.24 5.0 Y
Annual 0.12 1.0 Y
H 2 S 30 -min. 2.0 8 2.1 Y
1 The MPCA draft guidance is intended to apply on a project -specific basis. In the cumulative potential effects analysis under
Question 19, FHR has combined the Tier 3 Fuels Projects with the CHP Cogeneration Project (the subject of a separate EAW)
and demo nstrated that the combined projects also meet the criteria of MPCA’s draft guidance.
Health Risk Evaluation
The Projects will result in air emissions of criteria pollutants, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, mino r
process -related HAPs, and small amounts of HAPs associated with natural gas combustion
du ring ATS process unit startup. As the air emissions discussion above indicates, the potential
emissions increases due to the proposed Projects are less than 1% of the e xisting facility
emissio ns of NO x , SO 2 and total HAPs, and approximately 1% of the existi ng facility emissions of
VOCs.
As shown above, modeling of NO x , SO 2 and PM 2.5 emissions associated with the Projects
indicated concentrations below the SIL of their respective NAAQS . For NO 2 and SO 2 , the SIL
represents less than 2% of the MPCA acute health benchmark indicating that ambient NO 2 and
SO 2 concentrations resulting from project related NO x and SO 2 emissions are below guideline
levels.
Flint Hills Resource’s ambient air monitoring for hydrogen sulfide indicates the facility meets the
state ambient air quality standards. Modeling of the Projects’ H 2 S emissions meets the screening
criteria of MPCA’s draft guidance (below 3% of the MAAQS).
Past analyses of pot ential health risks associated with the Refinery operations have focused on
evaluating monitored ambient air concentrations around the PB Refinery and have concluded
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 33 Worksheet
that potential health risks assoc iated with the Refinery are below guideline values 7 ,8 . In addition,
a source -receptor st udy conducted by Gradient 9 identified that Refinery emissions contribute
little to the ambient air concentrat ions monitored at nearby sites. Since that time, Refinery air
emissions have decreased by greater than 50%10 . The MPC A 11 ,12 also identified that air
concentrations in the PB area were similar to monitored air concentrations elsewhere in the
Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area .
Ammonia emissions associated with the Projects have not been addressed by the studies and
analyses referenced above. Thus, a screening level analysis of the potential inhalation health
risks from ammonia emissions related to the project was conducted using the SCREEN3 model
and converting the modeled resu lts to a Hazard Quotient (HQ)13 . Ammonia has non -cancer
toxicity benchmark values, but it is not a carcinogen, so cancer will not be discussed here. The
estimated HQs were 0.002 for acute exposure and 0.006 for chronic exposure. A hazard
quotient is not a measure of risk probability but an indica tion of whether the potential exposure
exceeds the level at which sensitive populations may experience health effects (threshold
value)[5b]. MPCA evaluates the potential non -cancer impacts by adding the HQ values across all
pollutants sharing a common toxi city endpoint and across all sources including the project, the
total facility, and all other sources. This summation of HQs is called a hazard index (HI). The
MPCA also uses a guideline value of one for noncancer effects. Using this methodology the
inc remental effect of a given project and/or pollutant can be assessed alongside the cumulative
pre -existi ng conditions from all sources.
The Projects’ ammonia emissions result in an HQ three orders of magnitude below one 14 .The
fact that previous monitored amb ient air concentrations o f p otential health risks from the
r efinery have shown risks below guideline levels 15 ,16 and the proposed project emissions are a
small fraction of the existing Refinery emission indicated that potential risk from the Projects is
expe cted to be be low guideline levels as well.
In summary, it is expected that any incremental risks from the Projects would be below one for
inhalation noncancer chronic and acute risks, respectively based on the following:
7 Gradient 1997. Risk Assessment: Koch Refining Company Rosemount, MN. Prepared by Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, MA.
March 5, 1997.
8 MPCA, 2006. Environmental Assessment Worksheet: #3 Crude Unit Expansion Project.
9 Gradient, 1996. Source allocation of emissions from Koch Refinery. Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, MA.
10 Air emission reductions based on a comparison of total criteria pollutants that were reported by FHR in the 1996 and 2013
MPCA annual air emission inventory reports.
11 MPCA 2003. Air toxics monitoring in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Preliminary report. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, MN. January 2003.
12 MPCA 2009. Air quality in Minnesota: emerging trends. 2009 Report to the Legislature. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
St. Paul, M N. January 2009.
13 Where HQ = (exposure concentration / reference concentration) as per USEPA, 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol. Chapter 7. Characterizing Risk as Hazard. September 2005. Reference concentrations used are the Minnesota
Departmen t of Health HRVs (Heath Risk Values) for ammonia.
14 MPCA, 2007. Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) Guidance Version 1.1. September 2007.
15 Gradient 1997. Risk Assessment: Koch Refining Company Rosemount, MN. Prepared by Gradient Corporation, Cambridge,
MA. March 5, 1997.
16 MPCA, 2006. Environmental Assessment Worksheet: #3 Crude Unit Expansion Project.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 34 Worksheet
• Relatively low levels of air toxi cs emissions are associated with natural gas
combustion.
• The demonstration of modeled NOx, SO2, PM10 and PM2.5 concentrations below
the respective SILs.
• The demonstration of modeled H2S concentrations below the screening criteria of
MPCA’s draft guidance .
• Past assessments indicate that the Pine Bend Refinery is not the major contributor
to the monitored ambient air concentrations of air toxics at nearby monitoring sites.
• The ammonia screening model demonstrates an HQ three orders of magnitude
below an HQ of 1.
Therefore, no significant increase in potential adverse health effects are expected to result from
these Projects.
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle -related e missions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle -related emissions.
Traffic associated with the operation of the plant is expected to contr ibute primarily to traffic on
State Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 adjacent to the Refinery. Average annual daily traffic
volume information available for 2012 from the Minnesota Department of Transportation
(M n DOT) indicates that the relevant sec tions of State Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 have
average daily traffic volumes of 13,300 and 32,500, respectively.
On average throughout the year, the proposed Projects will increase traffic on these roads by
less than 0.1% based on the anticipated trip generation rates (see Question 18a). Given the
relatively small increase in total daily traffic volume that the Projects are expected to generate,
impacts on air quality are expected to be negligible.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, d uration, quantities, and intensity of dust
and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive recept ors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
ATS is a low odor substance. The proposed Projects are expected to have little or no impact with
respect to odors off FHR property.
Dust impacts as a result of project operations are expected to be minimal, particularly since
project -related traffic will use paved roadways. The proposed ATS tanks and load -out facility is
likely to reduce dust impacts compared to historical operations a t the Yocum site based on the
reduction in annual truck traffic and the elimination of t ruck traffic on unpaved roads. Site
preparation and construction activities may produce fugitive dust emissions. If necessary,
fugitive dust emissions from construction activities will be minimized through control measures,
such as watering, applying dust suppressants to exposed soil surfaces, selective grading, staged
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 35 Worksheet
development, and timely job site cleanup. Construction may halt during periods of high winds to
minimiz e fugitive dust emissions.
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operation. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3)
conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to minimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
Existing noise from the Refinery is typica l for a refinery site, with noise generated primarily by
petrochemical furnaces and their air cooled heat exchangers and centrifugal compressor systems.
Other notable noise sources in the area include other industrial activities in the Industrial District
and traffic noise from U.S. Highway 52 and State Highway 55. Noise levels monitored at a nearby
site (UMore Park site) with noise characteristics that are generally representative of t he area range
from 45 to 76 dBA 17 . No existing issues with noise at near by residential areas have been identified.
The proposed Projects will add low -noise process units to the existing Refinery facility located
adjacent to a major highway. Impacts on the existing sound profile in the area are expected to be
negligible. Any c onstruction related effects on noise will be short term, temporary effects and are
expected to be minor.
No impacts to quality of life are anticipated.
18. Transportation
a. Describe traffic -related aspects of project construction and operation. Include: 1 ) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of
trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availa bility of transit and/or other
alternative transportation modes.
The proposed Projects will result in an increase in construction -related traffic to and from the
Refinery and ATS terminal site for a period of approximately 18 months. This additional traffic is
expected to be small compared to the amount of traffic already on roads in the project area.
FHR expects to hire approximately five new employees to operate the equipment associated
with the Projects. FHR anticipates that no additional parking a reas will be needed as part of
these Projects .
During normal operations truck traffic will be associated with ATS transport offsite. Based on
expected production rates and capacity of truck loading rack operations to accommodate offsite
transport of ATS product, the proposed Projects will generate an estimated average of 40 trucks
per day during the high volume fertilizer loading season (with the possibility to reach upwards of
60 trucks per day), and an expected average of approximately 2,000 vehicle tri ps per year. The
17 University of Minnesota, 2010. Noise Impact Study for UMore Park Sand and Gravel Resources. UOFMN 103496.
http://www.umorepark.umn.edu/prod/groups/ssrd/@pu b/@ssrd/@umorepark/documents/content/ssrd_conten
t_256820.pdf
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 36 Worksheet
maximum peak hourly traffic may be up to 8 trucks per hour based upon the physical design of
the loading rack. Typical truck traffic associated with the historical year -round terminal
operation on the Yocum Oil site was approximately 30 tr ucks per day or approximately 3,500
trucks per year as reported by Yocum.
Rail transport will also be used to transport a portion of the ATS product. A new rail spur and
loading facility will be constructed at the proposed ATS storage and loading area on the Yocum
Oil site, east of the main Refinery. ATS product may also be transported from the terminal using
an existing rail siding on the n orth side of the ATS tank farm. FHR expects that rail traffic
resulting from the Projects (estimated 1,200 railcars p er year) will be minor in comparison to
existing rail traffic in the area.
Traffic associated with the operation of the Projects is expected to contribute primarily to traffic
on State Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 adjacent to the plant. Average annual d aily traffic
volume information available for 2012 from M n DOT indicates that the relevant sections of State
Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 have average daily traffic volumes of 13,300 and 32,500,
respectively.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on a ffected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the r egional
transportation system.
The traffic that will be generated by new employees and additional truck traffic for ATS
transport offsite will be small in comparison to the amount of traffic already on roads in the
project area. No measurable impact to traffic congestion on nearby roads is anticipated as the
result of the Projects.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
As no project -related transportation effects are anticipated, no measures are proposed to
minimize or mitigate impacts.
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects
are addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects
that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effe cts.
Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7(B ) requires that the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU ) consider
the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining
the need for an environmental impact statement. Cumulative potential effects result when
impacts associated with the proposed Projects are superimposed on, or added to, impacts
associated with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the area affected
by the proposed Projects. Analysis of cumulative potential effects accounts for the possibility
that, added together, the minor impac ts of many separate projects may be significant. This
cumulative potential effect analysis considers resources that are expected to be impacted by the
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 37 Worksheet
proposed Projects and assesses past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects to identify
any geograp hic and temporal overlap in impac ts. For past projects, Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp.
11a states that “it is sufficient to consider the current aggregate effects of past actions.” In most
cases, the existing conditions in the environmentally relevant area pro vide an equivalent
representation of the past actions.
The Projects' main potential environmental effect evaluated is a minor increase in permitted air
emissions. Other potential environmental effects from the Projects include minor impacts to
noise, stor mwater, wastewater, water appropriation, hazardous material storage, and
transportation.
The environmentally relevant area for evaluating cumulative potential effects varies in size
depending on the types of resources and potential impacts being considered . Air quality impact
analysis and noise impact analysis associated with the Projects, for example, extend somewhat
beyond the immediate area of the Projects. Where potential impacts from the proposed
Projects have been identified, they are more geographica lly concentrated in the immediate
vicinity of the Projects.
The timeframe of potential impacts from the proposed Projects ranges from short -term
temporary construction related impacts on noise levels, stormwater, and air quality, to longer
term potential impacts to air quality, wastewater, water appropriation, risks associated with
hazardous material storage, and transportation.
The table below summarizes the relevant geographic and temporal scale of potential impacts
from the Projects as well as the expec ted magnitude and nature of these impacts.
Resource/Impact Timescale Geographic Area of Impact Nature/Extent of Projects Impacts
Noise (construction
related impacts)
Short term,
temporary
Immediate Projects’ vicinity
(nearest receptors at a distance
of approximately ½ mile)
Minor
Stormwater
(construction related
impacts)
Short term,
temporary
Immediate Projects’ vicinity Minor; managed via
implementation of BMPs
Stormwater
(operational related
impacts)
Long
term/Projects’
life
Immediate Projects’ vicinity Minor; managed via
implementation of BMPs
Air Quality
(construction related
impacts)
Short term,
temporary
Immediate Projects’ vicinity Minor fugitive dust; managed via
implementation of BMPs
Air Quality (Projects
operation -related
impacts)
Long
term/Projects’
life
Within 10 kilometers of
property boundary
Minor; project below PSD significant
emission rate thresholds; modeled
concentrations below screening
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 38 Worksheet
Resource/Impact Timescale Geographic Area of Impact Nature/Extent of Projects Impacts
thresholds est ablished in MPCA
draft guidance 18
Wastewater Long
term/Projects’
life
Imm ediate Projects’ vicinity Minor; additional stormwater
treatment accounts for small
percentage of WWTP load
Water appropriation Long
term/Projects’
life
Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer Minor; managed under existing
water appropriation permit
Traffic Long
term/Projects’
life
Immediate Projects’ vicinity
(nearby stretches of Highway
55 and 52)
Minor
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the propo sed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
In addition to the proposed Projects, FHR is seeking agency approval for several additional but
separate projects at the Refinery. Each of these projects meets the criteria for est ablishing a
basis of expectation. Those projects are described below along with an analysis of whether they
warrant further consideration for cumulative potential effects. Also, in 2013, the MPCA issued
permits for other projects bein g implemented at the R efinery: the #3 Crude/#3 Coker
I mprovement Projects and the Propylene Storage and Distribution Project. The Propylene
Storage and Distribution Project required an EAW and the impacts of the #3 Crude and #3 Coker
projects were considered as part of that eva luation.
In order to address the “cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects”
this review also includes other potential future projects identified by contacting the Community
Development Directors for Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights. FHR contacted the Community
Development Directors from Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights to determine whether there
are other entities that are planning activities that could result in potential cumulative effects.
The identified projects are loc ated approximately 0.5 to 1.5 miles away from the Projects. These
projects were evaluated based upon information from the community development directors
and upon information in publicly available permit documents.
2013 – SKB Landfill expansion
SKB Landfill located at 140th Street E, Rosemount, Minnesota east of the Projects has been
granted approval to expand the landfill capacity. Based on the SKB’s EAW filed with the city of
Rosemount, this project increase d disposal capacity, but did not add any additional traffic or
other operations at the landfill beyond what currently occurs. The landfill is separated from the
Projects by approximately 1.5 miles. Due to the distance and the fact t hat the landfill expansion
18 As described in Question 6, there are overall benefits to air quality as a result of producing gasoline with lower
sulfur content.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 39 Worksheet
only increase d total storage capac ity, but not daily traffic, there will be no potential for
cumulative environmental effects with the Projects.
2013 Schlomka Services Shop Building
Schlomka Services constructed a shop service building in late 2013 at 11496 Courthouse
Bo ulevard, Inver G rove Heights, Minnesota . The shop will be used for maintaining equipment
and trucks. Based on information from the city of Inver Grove Heights, the facility will not have
air emissions other than from comfort heating and water heating. As a mainly commerci al
building , there will be no potential for cumulative environmental effects with the Projects.
Consequently, these two projects do not contribute to cumulative potential environmental
effects with the Projects.
FHR is also otherwise aware of the followin g project through discussions with the owners of the
project as well as publically available documents.
2014 – Northern Natural Gas; Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter Station Project
Northern Natural Gas is in the process of permitting a new natu ral gas branch line beginning at a
new takeoff facility in the city of Coates, Minnesota and ending at the FHR Refinery. This
proposed project, the “Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter Station Project”, is located
in Sections 5 and 6, Township 114 Nort h, Range 18 West (Sections 5 and 6, T114N, R18W);
Sections 30, 31 and 32, T115N, R18W; and Sections 24, 25 and 36, T115N, R19W, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
According to p ermit documents filed with the city of Rosemount, the Northern Natural Gas
Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter Station project will provide service at a new
delivery point. The proposed alternate feed will consist of a new regulated measurement station
and approximately 4.14 miles of 12 -inch -diameter pipeline with feeds from the existing 24 -inch -
diameter B -Line and 30 -inch -diameter C -Line. The new 12 -inch -diameter lateral will tap into the
existing B -Line and C -Line south of County Road 46. A new 100 - by 100 -foot lot will be required
eas t of Donnelly Avenue for a takeoff valve and B -line over -pressure p rotection. The route was
mostl y agricultural lands and was completed with a combination of open -cut excavation and
ho rizontal directional drilling.
Impacts associated with the Northern Nat ural Gas Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter
Station project are likely primarily minor wildlife habitat impacts associated with construction
and clearing of vegetation in the pipeline right -of -way. Given the timing of the project, the
distance between the majority of the pipeline route and the proposed Projects location, and the
different nature of the anticipated impacts from the projects, there is minimal potential for
overlapping impacts between the Northern Natural Gas Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop
Meter Station project and the Projects.
The following are other projects undertaken by FHR for which a basis of expectation exists.
FHR Projects
2014 – CHP Cogeneration Project
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 40 Worksheet
FHR is proposing to construct a natural gas based combined heat and pow er cogeneration
facility, generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from
the grid and improve the efficiency of ste am production at the Refinery. An EAW and a draft
major air permit amendment for the project are c urrently on public notice. Also a draft major air
permit amendment is expected to be posted for public comment soon.
The CHP Cogeneration project’s main potential environmental effect will be an increa se in
permitted air emissions. Other potential environ mental effec ts from the project include minor
impacts to stormwater, water appropriation, transportation , and potential noise.
2014 – Spring Lake Collection System Emergency Backup Generators
The Spring Lake Collection System is an environmental remedia tion system that intercepts and
extracts recovered groundwater on and around the Pine Bend Refinery for subsequent
treatment, recycling, and/or disposal. FHR proposes to provide A/C power redundancy to the
Spring Lake Collection System by installing three propane emergency generators at Sump 3,
Sump 7, and the Lift Station. The emergency generators will be connected to an automatic
transfer switch and will supply back -up power to the pumps at Sump 3, Sump 7, and the Lift
Station in the event primary power i s lost. The generators will be fueled with commercial -grade
propane. The proposed generators at Sump 3 and Sump 7 are each 50 kW (82 BHP) engines; the
proposed generator at the Lift Station is a 150 kW (230 BHP) engine, with a catalytic muffler to
control CO and VOC emissions. This project provides redundancy to existing groundwater
collection systems by adding an additional layer of protection in the event of power loss.
While an air quality permit has been submitted for the Spring Lake Collection System emergency
backup generator project, air impacts are expected to be negligible due to the limited
operational periods of the new equipment. Other potential environmental effects from this
project include minor construction -related impacts to stormwater and noise. Given the distance
between this project and the location of the Projects, cumulative impa cts to stormwater and
noise are unlikely to occur .
2014 – New North Administration/Office Building
FHR is in the process of constructing a new office building to be located on the north end of the
Refinery near the current North Administration Building (NAB). The three story building will be
approximately 140,000 square feet and house approximately 500 employees. It is anticipated to
be complete by April 1, 2015 , and will also have new parking associated with the building. The
building site is approximately one mile northwest of the nearest Projects’ components. As an
office building with only natural gas fired comfort heating and water heaters, there will be no
significant air emissions associated with the building once completed. Construction of the new
office building will be completed before construction of the CHP begins, therefore any air
emissions associated with construction of the office building will not have any cumulative
envi ronmental effects with the Projects’ construction. Stormwater will be managed in an
infiltration basin located near the existing NAB and will not interact with the Projects’
stormwater. Sanitary wastewater will be treated by the ci ty of Rosemount’s POTW, which has
adequate capacity for the future occupants of the building and will not affect the Refinery’s
wastewater treatment plant. Consequently, this new office building will have no potential
cumulative environmental effects with the Projects.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 41 Worksheet
2014 – West Contractor Parking Lot
FHR rehabilitated and expanded a parking lot on the west side of the Refinery for use by
contractors during high -volume work periods such as the Spring 2014 maintenance turnaround
and for overflow to the o ther contractor parking at the Refinery. The lo t is located on Rich Valley
Boulevard /Blaine Ave nue approximately 3 ,500 feet north of Bonaire Path/132nd Street. The
parking lot encompasses approximately 10 acres and will utilize two existing entry/e xit poin ts
onto Rich Valley Boulevard , therefore no new ditch crossings or road entrances were required.
Consequent ly, due to the approximately 0.5 mile distance between the parking lot and the
nearest components of the Projects and the fact that construction of t he parking lot has been
completed before construction of the Projects commences, there will be no cumulative
environmental effects with the Projects.
2014 – Temporary, Portable Thermal Oxidizers in Support of the 2014 Tank 2 Maintenance
Turnaround
FHR Pin e Bend used temporary, portable thermal oxidizers as a measure to reduce emissions
while taking the Crude Tank #2 (Tank 2) offline in 2014 for a scheduled internal maintenance
inspection. Tank 2 is a 6.3 million gallon crude oil storage tank located at the refinery. The
associated minor permit application sought to authorize operation of one or more portable,
temporary thermal oxidizers with a maximum total heat input of up to but not exceeding 40
MMB TU /h ou r to control residual gases from the tank. These thermal oxidizers were temporary
units and are no longer onsite, therefore no potential for cumulative impacts is expected with
these units and the proposed P rojects.
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other a vailable
information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects .
The cumulative potential effects analysis assesses the degree to which past, present and
reasonably foreseeable future projects may have an impact on the same resources potentially
affected by the proposed Projects. The analysis that follows identifies where overlap in the same
geographic area and over the same timescales may result in some degree of cumulative impa cts
on these resources. The analysis below indicates that there is some minor cumulative potential
effect for noise, stormwater, air quality, water appropriations, and traffic.
Noise
The time period of construction for the proposed Projects will over lap w ith construction of the
CHP Cogeneration project, creating the potential for cumulative noise impacts. However, given
the distance of 0.5 to 1.0 miles between the various Tier 3 construction sites and the CHP site as
well as the low likelihood of exact ove rlap in timing of the most noise intensive stages of
construction, cumulative noise impacts are not expected to be significant.
Noise impacts due to operation of the Projects are expected to be minimal. Therefore,
cumulative effects during operation are not anticipated to be significant.
Stormwater
Construction of the proposed Projects will overlap with construction of the CHP Cogeneration
project. Each project has a minor impact on stormwater runoff associated with construction.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 42 Worksheet
T he ATS unit will be constructed in existing process units that already have impervious pads and
containment systems, limiting the Projects’ contribution to cumulative construction stormwater
impacts. Given the distance between the location of the CHP Cogeneration project and the
proposed Projects’ components, no overlap in construction -related stormwater impacts
between these projects is expected. Significant cumulative impacts are not expected.
Air quality
Operation of the Projects will overlap with operation of the CHP Co generation project.
Estimated emissions from the proposed Projects are less than 2% of existing facility emissions .
Estimated emissions from the CHP Co generation project are also small, ranging from less than
1% of existing facility emissions for SO 2 , NO x , and HAPs to 4.4% of existing facility emissions for
CO 2 . Modeling of air emissions from both projects demonstrates that the combined impacts are
less than the SILs, as described below.
As described in Question 16, in response to MPCA draft guidance, air dispersion modeling has
been performed specifically for this EAW. While the response to Question 16 demonstrated that
the SILs plus ambient background concentrations are less than 90% of the NAAQS and that the
maximum modeled concentrations resulting from the Projects’ emissions alone are less than the
SILs, in this cumulative potential effects analysis FHR has evaluated the impact of the Projects ’
emissions along with the emissions from the CHP Cogeneration project for comparison against
the SILs. The tab le below shows that the impacts from the combined projects are less than the
SILs.
Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled
Concentration (μg/m 3 )
SIL (μ g/m 3 ) Less than SIL?
(Y/N)
CO 1 -hour 6.97 2000 Y
8 -hour 4.33 500 Y
PM 10 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y
Annual 0.07 1.0 Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 0.44 1.2 Y
Annual 0.07 0.3 Y
NO 2 1 -hour 6.4 3 7.5 2 Y
Annual 0.1 8 1.0 Y
SO 2 1 -hour 4.63 7.83 Y
3 -hour 4.22 25 Y
24 -hour 1.24 5 Y
Annual 0.12 1 Y
H 2 S 1 -hour 2.0 8 2.1 Y
Water appropriations
As discus sed in Section 11.b.3.iii, the Projects will minimize water consumption by utilizing air
cooled condensers. The proposed Projects and CHP Cogeneration project (which relies solely on
air cooling) require very small volumes of input water. Together, through water conserva tion
measures, the projects will require less than 100 gpm of clean water. Water needs for both
projects can be accommodated under FHR’s existing water appropriations permit and are not
likely to impact water resources available for appropriation.
Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment
Rosemount , Minnesota 43 Worksheet
§¨¦9 4
§¨¦4 9 4
§¨¦3 5 E
§¨¦3 5 W
§¨¦6 9 4
§¨¦4 9 4
£¤6 1
£¤5 2 £¤1 0
£¤5 2
M
i s
s i s s i p p i R i v e r
M i n n e s o t a R i v e r
R O S E M O U N T
I N V E R G R O V E H E I G H T S
D A K O T A C O U N T Y
W A S H I N G T O N C O U N T Y
H E N N E P I N C O U N T Y
R A M S E Y C O U N T Y
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 5 -3 0 1 2 :3 8 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \S o u r _W a t e r _R i s k _R e d u c t i o n _E A W \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 - S i t e L o c a t i o n M a p .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
I
3 0 3 1 .5
M i l e s
I m a g e r y S o u r c e : F S A , 2 0 1 0 .
F i g u r e 1
S I T E L O C A T I O N M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
P r o j e c t A r e a
F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d R e f i n e r y
C i t y B o u n d a r y
C o u n t y B o u n d a r y
M a j o r R i v e r
^_
S I T E L O C A T I O N
P r o j e c t A r e a
D D
D D D
E X I S T I N G T A N K S T O B E C O N V E R T E D T O A T S S E R V I C E
S O U R W A T E R T A N K L O C A T I O N
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R
A T S U N I T L O C A T I O N A T S D A Y T A N K U /G P I P E L I N E S - A C I D
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R F E E D L I N E S O U R W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N H D R
S E C O N D A R Y C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G R A C K
T R U C K L O A D I N G
A T S T A N K L O C A T I O N
S H O P
P L A N N E D A T S R R L O A D I N /O U T C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
U /G P I P E L I N E S - G A S
E X I S T I N G R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
C
l
a
r
k
R d
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
1 1 1 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 2 0 t h S t E
1 3 8 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
1 4 0 t h S t E
B l a i n e
A v e
E
C o n l e y A v e
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 2
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L I M A G E R Y F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 6 -1 9 1 3 :3 7 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \S o u r _W a t e r _R i s k _R e d u c t i o n _E A W \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 2 - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l I m a g e r y .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
S o u r W a t e r C o l l e c t i o n H D R
S o u r W a t e r S t r i p p e r F e e d L i n e
E x i s t i n g U /G P i p e l i n e s - A c i d
E x i s t i n g U /G P i p e l i n e s - G a s
P r o p o s e d E x t e n s i o n o f U /G P i p e l i n e s
P r o p o s e d E x t e n s i o n o f U /G P i p e l i n e s - A c i d
A T S D a y t a n k
A T S T a n k L o c a t i o n
A T S U n i t L o c a t i o n
S o u r W a t e r T a n k L o c a t i o n
S o u r W a t e r S t r i p p e r
R a i l L o a d i n g R a c k
S e r v i c e R o a d
A T S T r u c k R o u t e
T r u c k L o a d i n g
S e c o n d a r y C o n t a i n m e n t
S p i l l C o n t a i n m e n t P o n d
S h o p
E x i s t i n g R a i l L i n e s
A n t i c i p a t e d R a i l L i n e
D T a n k t o b e D e m o l i s h e d
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t I
E X I S T I N G T A N K S T O B E C O N V E R T E D T O A T S S E R V I C E
S O U R W A T E R T A N K L O C A T I O N
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R
A T S U N I T L O C A T I O N A T S D A Y T A N K U /G P I P E L I N E S - A C I D
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R F E E D L I N E S O U R W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N H D R
S E C O N D A R Y C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G R A C K
T R U C K L O A D I N G
A T S T A N K L O C A T I O N
S H O P
P L A N N E D A T S R R L O A D I N /O U T C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
U /G P I P E L I N E S - G A S
E X I S T I N G R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
C
l
a
r
k
R d
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
1 1 1 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 2 0 t h S t E
1 3 8 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
1 4 0 t h S t E
B l a i n e
A v e
E
C o n l e y A v e
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 3
S I T E P L A N U S G S T O P O G R A P H I C M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 6 -1 9 1 3 :3 7 F i l e : I :\C
l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \S o u r _W a t e r _R i s k _R e d u c t i o n _E A W \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 3 - S i t e P l a n U S G S T o p o .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
E x i s t i n g R a i l L i n e s
A n t i c i p a t e d R a i l L i n e
B a c k g r o u n d : U S G S T o p o g r a p h i c M a p (D a k o t a C o u n t y )
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
D D
D
D D
A T S T A N K L O C A T I O N A T S T A N K L O C A T I O N
S E C O N D A R Y C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G R A C K
E X I S T I N G T A N K S T O B E C O N V E R T E D T O A T S S E R V I C E
P L A N N E D A T S R R L O A D I N /O U T C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
E X I S T I N G R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
U /G P I P E L I N E S - G A S
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R
S O U R W A T E R T A N K L O C A T I O N
E X I S T I N G T A N K S T O B E C O N V E R T E D T O A T S S E R V I C E
A T S D A Y T A N K
A T S U N I T L O C A T I O N
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R
S O U R W A T E R T A N K L O C A T I O N
S H O P
T R U C K L O A D I N G S O U R W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N H D R
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R F E E D L I N E
U /G P I P E L I N E S - A C I D
C
l
a
r
k
R
d
P i n e B e n d T r
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 4
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L - P R O J E C T D E T A I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 6 -1 9 1 3 :2 8 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \S o u r _W a t e r _R i s k _R e d u c t i o n _E A W \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 4 - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l I m a g e r y - P r o j e c t D e t a i l s .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
S o u r W a t e r C o l l e c t i o n H D R
S o u r W a t e r S t r i p p e r F e e d L i n e
E x i s t i n g U /G P i p e l i n e s - A c i d
E x i s t i n g U /G P i p e l i n e s - G a s
P r o p o s e d E x t e n s i o n o f U /G P i p e l i n e s
P r o p o s e d E x t e n s i o n o f U /G P i p e l i n e s - A c i d
E x i s t i n g R a i l L i n e s
A n t i c i p a t e d R a i l L i n e
A T S D a y t a n k
A T S T a n k L o c a t i o n
A T S U n i t L o c a t i o n
S o u r W a t e r T a n k L o c a t i o n
S o u r W a t e r S t r i p p e r
R a i l L o a d i n g R a c k
S e r v i c e R o a d
A T S T r u c k R o u t e
T r u c k L o a d i n g
S e c o n d a r y C o n t a i n m e n t
S p i l l C o n t a i n m e n t P o n d
S h o p
D T a n k t o b e D e m o l i s h e d
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 5 0 0 1 ,0 0 0
F e e t
!;N
Figure 5
PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC
TIER 3 CLEAN FUELS PROJECTS
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
Rosemount, Minnesota
EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE
SOUR WATER TANK LOCATION
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
ATS UNIT LOCATION ATS DAYTANK U/G PIPELINES - ACID
SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING RACK
TRUCK LOADING
ATS TANK LOCATION
SHOP
PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN/OUT CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING AREA
U/G PIPELINES - GAS
EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA
£¤52
£¤52
55
4 5 6 7 71
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
117th St E
140th St E
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Pin
e
B
e
n
d
T
r
135th St E
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
111th St E
138th St E
E 125th St
Co
n
l
e
y
A
v
e
140th St E
117th St E
Cour
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Figure 6
SITE MAP LAND USE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
6
-
1
9
1
3
:
3
6
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
S
o
u
r
_
W
a
t
e
r
_
R
i
s
k
_
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
_
E
A
W
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
6
-
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
-
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
Existing Rail Lines
Anticipated Rail Line
Land Use (2010 - Metropolitan Council)
Farmstead
Seasonal/Vacation
Single Family Detached
Manufactured Housing Park
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Retail and Other Commercial
Office
Mixed Use Residential
Mixed Use Industrial
Mixed Use Commercial and Other
Industrial and Utility
Extractive
Institutional
Park, Recreational or Preserve
Golf Course
Major Highway
Railway
Airport
Agricultural
Undeveloped
Water
Data Source: MPCA, Metropolitan Council (MetroGIS)
1,200 0 1,200
Feet
!;N
EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE
SOUR WATER TANK LOCATION
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
ATS UNIT LOCATION ATS DAYTANK U/G PIPELINES - ACID
SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING RACK
TRUCK LOADING
ATS TANK LOCATION
SHOP
PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN/OUT CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING AREA
U/G PIPELINES - GAS
EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA
£¤52
£¤52
55
4 5 6 7 71
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
117th St E
140th St E
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Pin
e
B
e
n
d
T
r
135th St E
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
111th St E
138th St E
E 125th St
Co
n
l
e
y
A
v
e
140th St E
117th St E
Cour
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Figure 7
SITE MAP LAND COVER Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
MNRRA Corridor
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
Existing Rail Lines
Anticipated Rail Line
Land Cover (MLCCS)
5-10% Impervious
11-25% Impervious
26-50% Impervious
51-75% Impervious
76-100% Impervious
Short Grasses
Agricultural Land
Maintained Tall Grass
Tree Plantation
Forest
Wetland Forest
Wetland Shrubs
Tall Grasses
Wetland Emergent Veg.
Dry Tall Grasses
Open Water
Wetland Open Water
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
6
-
1
9
1
3
:
3
6
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
S
o
u
r
_
W
a
t
e
r
_
R
i
s
k
_
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
_
E
A
W
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
-
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
-
L
a
n
d
C
o
v
e
r
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
Data Source: MN DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
1,200 0 1,200
Feet
I
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
ROSEMOUNT
!RESIDENCE
!
RESIDENCE
!BUSINESS
EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE
SOUR WATER TANK LOCATION
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
ATS UNIT LOCATION ATS DAYTANK U/G PIPELINES - ACID
SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING RACK
TRUCK LOADING
ATS TANK LOCATION
SHOP
PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN/OUT CONTAINMENT
NEW RAIL LOADING AREA
U/G PIPELINES - GAS
EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA
£¤52
£¤52
55
4 5 6 7 71
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
117th St E
140th St E
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Pin
e
B
e
n
d
T
r
135th St E
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
111th St E
138th St E
E 125th St
Co
n
l
e
y
A
v
e
140th St E
117th St E
Cour
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Figure 8
SITE MAP ZONING Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
6
-
1
9
1
3
:
3
6
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
S
o
u
r
_
W
a
t
e
r
_
R
i
s
k
_
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
_
E
A
W
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
8
-
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
-
Z
o
n
i
n
g
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
Parcels Owned by Flint Hills Resources
Municipal Boundary
Existing Rail Lines
Anticipated Rail Line
Zoning (2007)
Agricultural
Agricultural Preserve
Flood Plain
General Industrial
General Business
Heavy Industrial
Public/Institutional
Water
Waste Management
Data Source: City of Rosemount and City of Innver Grove Heights
1,200 0 1,200
Feet
I
U/G PIPELINES - ACID EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE
AT
S
T
A
N
K
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT TRUCK LOADING SHOP
NE
W
R
A
I
L
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
R
A
C
K
PL
A
N
N
E
D
A
T
S
R
R
L
O
A
D
IN
/
O
U
T
C
O
N
T
A
I
N
M
E
N
T
NEW RAIL LOADING AREA U/G PIPELINES - GAS EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA ATS DAYTANK
AT
S
U
N
I
T
LO
C
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
R
W
A
T
E
R
ST
R
I
P
P
E
R
SO
U
R
W
A
T
E
R
TA
N
K
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
SO
U
R
W
A
T
E
R
CO
L
L
E
C
T
I
O
N
H
D
R
SO
U
R
W
A
T
E
R
ST
R
I
P
P
E
R
F
E
E
D
L
I
N
E
Fi
g
u
r
e
9
CI
T
Y
O
F
R
O
S
E
M
O
U
N
T
Z
O
N
I
N
G
M
A
P
Fl
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
,
L
L
C
Ro
s
e
m
o
u
n
t
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
FH
R
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
y
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
i
t
e
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
R
a
i
l
L
i
n
e
s
An
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
R
a
i
l
L
i
n
e
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
D
a
t
a
:
C
i
t
y
o
f
R
o
s
e
m
o
u
n
t
Z
o
n
i
n
g
M
a
p
Barr Footer: ArcGIS 10.2.1, 2014-06-19 13:38 File: I:\Client\FlintHills\PineBend\Sour_Water_Risk_Reduction _EAW\Maps\Reports\EAW\Figure 9 - City of Rosemount Z oning Map.mxd User: kac2
E X I S T I N G T A N K S T O B E C O N V E R T E D T O A T S S E R V I C E
S O U R W A T E R T A N K L O C A T I O N
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R
A T S U N I T L O C A T I O N A T S D A Y T A N K U /G P I P E L I N E S - A C I D
S O U R W A T E R S T R I P P E R F E E D L I N E S O U R W A T E R C O L L E C T I O N H D R
S E C O N D A R Y C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G R A C K
T R U C K L O A D I N G
A T S T A N K L O C A T I O N
S H O P
P L A N N E D A T S R R L O A D I N /O U T C O N T A I N M E N T
N E W R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
U /G P I P E L I N E S - G A S
E X I S T I N G R A I L L O A D I N G A R E A
4 1 1 A
8 5 7 B
6 1 1 F
4 1 1 A
3 9 B
1 0 3 9
W
3 9 A
3 9 B
4 5 4 E
3 9 A
W
6 1 1 D
1 0 3 9
3 9 B
3 9 B
1 0 2 9
1 0 7 2
6 1 1 C
4 1 B
8 5 7 A
3 9 B
3 4 2 C
7 B
6 1 1 C
1 8 2 1
3 9 B
8 5 7 A 3 2 9
4 1 1 B
7 B
4 1 1 A
1 0 3 9
1 5 5 C
4 1 B
4 1 B
3 4 2 B
6 1 1 E
3 9 B 2
3 9 B
4 1 B
4 6 5
3 9 B
1 0 5 5
4 1 A
1 8 2 1
4 1 B
2 5 0
4 1 A
3 9 B
6 1 1 D
9 8
4 5 4 B
3 9 C
3 9 B
4 1 B
4 1 A
1 2 9
6 1 1 D
3 9 B 2
8 5 7 B
2 7 B
4 1 B
7 B
6 1 1 C
8 5 7 B
3 9 B
6 1 1 D
2 8 3 A
4 5 4 B
8 9 6 E
4 1 1 B
6 1 1 E
4 5 4 E
5 4 0
9 8
4 9 B
3 9 B
3 9 B
1 5 5 E
3 9 B
4 1 B
1 8 1 5
3 9 B
4 5 4 E
3 9 B
8 6 1 C
3 9 A
W
4 1 B
3 9 C
1 2 9
1 5 5 C
8 9 5 B
3 1 3
1 5 5 B
6 1 1 C
1 5 5 B
7 C
3 9 B
2 5 0
4 5 4 B
6 1 1 C
3 4 2 E
3 9 B
1 8 1 5
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
4 1 B
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
8 5 7 A
W
6 1 1 C
6 1 1 C
7 B
3 1 3
3 9 B 2
6 1 1 C
4 5 4 C
2 7 B
W
4 1 B
9 4 C
2 7 B
3 9 A
W
3 1 3
3 9 A
1 8 9
3 9 B
4 5 4 C
3 0 1 B
1 0 2 9
6 1 1 C
2 0 8
4 9 B
4 1 B
4 1 1 B
4 1 5 A 3 0 1 B
3 9 A
6 1 1 E
1 0 2 9
W
4 1 1 B
W
W
6 1 1 C
4 1 5 B
4 1 B
2 7 9 B
2 8 3 A
4 9 B
2 5 2
1 5 5 C
7 B
3 9 B
4 1 5 A
6 1 1 C
6 1 1 D
6 1 1 C
8 9 5 C
1 0 2 9 4 9 B
6 1 1 D
3 9 B
3 9 A
1 2 9
4 5 4 C
4 1 5 B
3 0 1 B
1 5 5 C
6 1 1 C
1 8 1 5
4 1 B
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
1 5 5 B
1 5 5 B
6 1 1 C
1 9 0 2 B
6 1 1 C
2 5 0
3 9 B 2
6 1 1 C
3 4 2 B
3 0 1 B
2 7 B
4 1 5 B
6 1 1 E
6 1 1 C
8 9 6 E
2 5 2
4 1 B
3 9 B 2
2 5 0
2 5 0
1 9 0 2 B
2 8 3 B
1 8 2 1
3 9 D
3 9 B 2
2 7 9 B
2 5 0
3 1 3
3 9 B
2 8 3 A
1 2 9
3 0 1 B
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
3 0 1 B
1 0 5 5
2 5 0
2 5 2
6 1 1 C
4 1 B
2 8 3 B
3 9 B
3 4 4
W
2 8 3 A
4 1 B
3 4 2 B
4 1 5 A
2 5 0 6 1 1 C 2 5 0
1 8 1 6
8 9 5 C 2 7 A
4 5 4 C
3 4 2 B
1 5 5 B
2 5 0
4 1 5 B
2 8 3 A
6 1 1 D
1 8 1 6
3 9 B 2
W
2 7 9 B
3 0 1 B
1 8 1 6
2 8 3 A
1 5 0 B 1 8 1 6
W
1 8 1 6
1 5 0 B
4 1 B
2 8 3 A 2 5 0
3 4 2 C
2 5 0 6 1 1 C
1 5 5 B
1 8 1 6
6 1 1 C
4 5 4 B
3 0 1 B
2 5 2
2 5 0
2 5 0
4 1 5 B
4 5 4 B
4 1 B
4 5 4 C 4 9 B
2 8 3 A
2 5 0
2 7 B
2 5 0
3 9 B
6 1 1 C 3 9 C
1 5 0 B
6 1 1 D
6 1 1 C
3 9 D
3 4 2 B
3 9 B
1 5 0 B
3 9 B 2
6 1 1 D
3 0 1 B
1 5 0 B 4 1 5 B
3 9 B
6 1 1 C
F i g u r e 1 0 S I T E M A P S O I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 6 -1 9 1 3 :3 5 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \S o u r _W a t e r _R i s k _R e d u c t i o n _E A W \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 0 - S i t e M a p - S o i l s .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
A l l a r e a s a r e p r i m e f a r m l a n d
E x i s t i n g R a i l L i n e s
A n t i c i p a t e d R a i l L i n e
S o i l M a p U n i t N a m e
A l g a n s e e l o a m y s a n d
A n t i g o s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
A q u o l l s a n d H i s t o s o l s , p o n d e d
A u b u r n d a l e s i l t l o a m
C h a s k a s i l t l o a m
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C o l o s i l t l o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d
C y l i n d e r l o a m
D i c k i n s o n s a n d y l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
D i c k i n s o n s a n d y l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
E s t h e r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
E s t h e r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k c o a r s e s a n d y l o a m , 1 2 t o 1 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k c o a r s e s a n d y l o a m , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k l o a m y s a n d , 1 8 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k l o a m y s a n d , 2 5 t o 5 0 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H u b b a r d l o a m y s a n d , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H u b b a r d l o a m y s a n d , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
J e w e t t s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a l m a r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , f r e q u e n t l y f l o o d e d
K a n a r a n z i l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a n a r a n z i l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a t o s i l t y c l a y l o a m
K e n n e b e c s i l t l o a m
K e n n e b e c v a r i a n t s i l t l o a m
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i c o m p l e x , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i -S p e n c e r c o m p l e x , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i -S p e n c e r c o m p l e x , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
L i n d s t r o m s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 4 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a r s h a n s i l t y c l a y l o a m
O t t e r h o l t s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
P i t s , g r a v e l
P l a i n f i e l d l o a m y s a n d , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
P l a i n f i e l d l o a m y s a n d , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
Q u a m s i l t l o a m
S e e l y e v i l l e m u c k
S p e n c e r s i l t l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
S p i l l v i l l e l o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d
T e r r i l l o a m , 4 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
U d o r t h e n t s , m o d e r a t e l y s h a l l o w
U r b a n l a n d
U r b a n l a n d -K i n g s l e y c o m p l e x , 3 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
U r b a n l a n d -W a u k e g a n c o m p l e x , 0 t o 1 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
U r b a n l a n d -W a u k e g a n c o m p l e x , 1 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 1 2 t o 1 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s ,e r o d e d
W a d e n a l o a m , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a t e r
W a u k e g a n s i l t l o a m , 0 t o 1 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a u k e g a n s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
Z u m b r o l o a m y f i n e s a n d
D a t a S o u r c e : U S D A N R C S S S U R G O D a t a b a s e (g S S U R G O )
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
1 8 2 1
4 9 B
1 0 5 5
1 8 9
1 5 5 E
1 5 5 B
1 5 5 C
9 8
1 2 9
2 7 A
2 7 B
4 1 B
6 1 1 D
6 1 1 C
6 1 1 E
6 1 1 F
7 B
7 C
1 9 0 2 B
4 6 5
4 1 5 A
4 1 5 B
2 0 8
2 5 0
1 8 1 6
3 4 2 E
3 4 2 B
3 4 2 C
8 9 6 E
8 9 5 B
3 4 2 C
3 0 1 B
4 5 4 E
4 5 4 B
4 5 4 C
2 5 2
2 7 9 B
2 8 3 A
2 8 3 B
3 4 4
5 4 0
1 5 0 B
3 1 3
1 0 7 2
1 0 3 9
8 6 1 C
8 5 7 A
8 5 7 B
3 9 A
3 9 D
3 9 B
3 9 B 2
3 9 C
W
4 1 1 A
4 1 1 B
1 8 1 5
3 2 9
4 1 A
1 0 2 9
9 4 C
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
FHR-PB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OUTFALL NO. 010
FHR-PB WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR
SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE
ATS DAYTANK
ATS UNIT LOCATION
SOUR WATER STRIPPER
SOUR WATER TANK LOCATION
U/G PIPELINES - ACID
EXISTING TANKS CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE ATS TANK LOCATION ATS TANK LOCATION
EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED TO ATS SERVICE
SECONDARY CONTAINMENT
TRUCK LOADING
SHOP
NEW RAIL LOADING RACK
PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN/OUT CONTAINMENT
NEW RAILROAD LOADING AREA
U/G PIPELINES - GAS
EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
Pine
B
e
n
d
T
r
Courtho
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
Bl
v
d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Courth
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
4 5 6 7 71
55
55
£¤52
£¤52
00752110
00594998
00509068 00612663
00208391
00208393
00612014
00509070
00509066
00509063
00612003
00666490
00208394
00554202
00509065
00612015
00208392
00612004
00617783
00509071
00612010
00213584
00208390
00643923
00612729
00161421
00612008
00272261
00198326 00207292 00129266
00208410
00489231
00255723
00489230
00489229
Figure 11
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT WITHIN REFINERY FENCELINE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
6
-
1
9
1
3
:
3
2
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
S
o
u
r
_
W
a
t
e
r
_
R
i
s
k
_
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
_
E
A
W
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
1
-
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
R
e
f
i
n
e
r
y
F
e
n
c
e
l
i
n
e
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
!>
Wells (County Well Index Wells within FHR Facility Boundary)
Wetlands (National Wetlands Inventory)*
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Existing Rail Lines
Anticipated Rail Line
Imagery: Digital Globe - 2012
800 0 800
Feet
!;N
*Modified based on aerial imagery to reflect current refinery site operations.
Figure 12
Figure 13
Dakota County, Minnesota
[Minor map unit components are excluded from this report]
7B - Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Hubbard (90%)Component:
The Hubbard component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 4s. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
7C - Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Hubbard (90%)Component:
The Hubbard component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 6s. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
27A - Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Dickinson (90%)Component:
The Dickinson component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
27B - Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Dickinson (90%)Component:
The Dickinson component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
39A - Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 1 of 16
APPENDIX A
Dakota County, Minnesota
39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39B2 - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Map unit:
Wadena, eroded (90%)Component:
The Wadena, eroded component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39C - Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39D - Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 12 to 18 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
41A - Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Estherville (90%)Component:
The Estherville component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 2 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
41B - Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Estherville (90%)Component:
The Estherville component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
49B - Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Antigo (90%)Component:
The Antigo component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Loess over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. Irrigated land capability
classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
94C - Terril loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Terril (100%)Component:
The Terril component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 4 to 12 percent. This component is on toes on moraines. The
parent material consists of Colluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
98 - Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Colo, occasionally flooded (85%)Component:
The Colo, occasionally flooded component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood
plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches
during April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2w. This soil
meets hydric criteria.
129 - Cylinder loam Map unit:
Cylinder (85%)Component:
The Cylinder component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during April,
May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 3 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
150B - Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Spencer (90%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
155B - Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
155C - Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
155E - Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
189 - Auburndale silt loam Map unit:
Auburndale (90%)Component:
The Auburndale component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of
60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation
is at 0 inches during March, April, May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 7 percent. Nonirrigated land capability
classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 4 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
250 - Kennebec silt loam Map unit:
Kennebec (100%)Component:
The Kennebec component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 36 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 1. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
252 - Marshan silty clay loam Map unit:
Marshan (90%)Component:
The Marshan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flats on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Glaciolacustrine sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of
60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6
inches during April, May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is
2w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
279B - Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Otterholt (85%)Component:
The Otterholt component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
279C - Otterholt silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Otterholt (85%)Component:
The Otterholt component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
283A - Plainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 5 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
301B - Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Map unit:
Lindstrom (100%)Component:
The Lindstrom component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 4 percent. This component is on hills. The parent
material consists of Loess. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
313 - Spillville loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Spillville, occasionally flooded (100%)Component:
The Spillville, occasionally flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation
is at 36 inches during April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is
2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
342B - Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
342C - Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 6 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
344 - Quam silt loam Map unit:
Quam (90%)Component:
The Quam component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on moraines.
The parent material consists of Glaciolacustine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during March, April, May, June. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 11 percent. Nonirrigated land
capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
411A - Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map unit:
Waukegan (90%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
411B - Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Waukegan (90%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
415A - Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 7 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
415C - Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
454B - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines, outwash
plains. The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
454C - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
454E - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Map unit:
Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100%)Component:
The Kalmarville, frequently flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 8 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Map unit:
Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100%)Component:
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
540 - Seelyeville muck Map unit:
Seelyeville (100%)Component:
The Seelyeville component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Organic material. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water
saturation is at 0 inches during March, April, May, June. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 62 percent. Nonirrigated
land capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
611C - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (90%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611D - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (90%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 12 to 18 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611E - Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 18 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 25 to 50 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 9 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
611F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
857A - Urban land-Waukegan complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (90%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Waukegan (10%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 10 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
857B - Urban land-Waukegan complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (90%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Waukegan (10%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 10 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
861C - Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (65%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Kingsley (35%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 35 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
895B - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 45 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 10 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
895B - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (23%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 23 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Spencer (22%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 22 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
895C - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 45 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (23%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 23 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Spencer (22%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 22 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 12 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
896E - Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (60%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 60 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 11 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
896E - Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (60%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (30%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 30 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
1029 - Pits, gravel Map unit:
Pits, gravel (100%)Component:
Gravel pits are areas that have been mined for gravel or sand. This map unit is actively being mined or is an abandoned pit. Because of
the variability of this component in this map unit, interpretation for specific uses are not available. Onsite investigation is needed.
1039 - Urban land Map unit:
Urban land (100%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
1055 - Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Map unit:
Aquolls, ponded (50%)Component:
The Aquolls, ponded component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Mineral sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 7 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 2 percent.
Histosols, ponded (50%)Component:
The Histosols, ponded component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions
on moraines. The parent material consists of Organic material. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 62 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
1072 - Udorthents, moderately shallow Map unit:
Udorthents, moderately shallow (100%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Udorthents is a miscellaneous area.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 12 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
1815 - Zumbro loamy fine sand Map unit:
Zumbro, non-flooded (100%)Component:
The Zumbro, non-flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood
plains. The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
1816 - Kennebec variant silt loam Map unit:
Kennebec (90%)Component:
The Kennebec component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Colluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-
swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 36 inches during April.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
1821 - Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Algansee, occasionally flooded (95%)Component:
The Algansee, occasionally flooded component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil does
not meet hydric criteria.
1824 - Quam silt loam, ponded Map unit:
Quam, ponded (90%)Component:
The Quam, ponded component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Glaciolacustine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a
depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water
saturation is at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 11 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
1902B - Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Jewett (85%)Component:
The Jewett component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 13 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
W - Water Map unit:
Water (100%)Component:
Map Unit Description
This mapunit consists of natural occuring bodies of water or water that has been impounded by structures in natural waterways. They
range in size from 1.5 acres to tens of thousands of acres. This map unit is not soil, no interpretations assigned.
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 14 of 16
Washington County, Minnesota
329 - Chaska silt loam Map unit:
Chaska (90%)Component:
The Chaska component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains. The parent
material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 0 inches during March, April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 7 percent.
W - Water Map unit:
Water (100%)Component:
This mapunit consists of natural occuring bodies of water or water that has been impounded by structures in natural waterways. They
range in size from 1.5 acres to tens of thousands of acres. This map unit is not soil, no interpretations assigned.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 15 of 16
Map Unit Description
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit
descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified
and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties
of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus,
the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if
ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non-soil
(miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included. This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data.
Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the
limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties
included in the map unit descriptions.
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 7
Page 16 of 16
Stevens Well Drilling Co. Inc.86654 JOHNSON, R
License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No.Name of Driller
Well Address
HWY 52 & HWY 55
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
Geological Material ColorHardnessFromTo
SAND 0106
DECOMPOSED LIMEROCK 106118
LIMEROCK 118296
SANDROCK 296409
SHALE 409411
Drilling Fluid
-- Well Hydrofractured? Yes No
From Ft. to Ft.
Use Monitor well
Casing Type Steel (black or low carbon) Joint No Information Drive Shoe?
Yes No Above/Below 1 ft.
Casing Diameter WeightHole Diameter
12 in. to 111 ft. lbs./ft. 12 in. to 293 ft.
8 in. to 315 ft. lbs./ft. 8 in. to 411 ft.
Open Hole from 315 ft. to 460 ft.
Screen NO MakeType
Diameter Slot/GauzeLengthSet Between
Static Water Level
141 ft. from Land surface Date Measured 10/31/2003
PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface)
184 ft. after hrs. pumping 155 g.p.m.
Well Head Completion
Pitless adapter manufacturer Model
Casing Protection 12 in. above grade
At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY)
R E M A R K S
THIS WELL HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A MONITOR WELL. REMOVED PUMP,
DUG DOWN 8' AND
UNHOOKED LINE FROM PITLESS, PLUGGED HOLE IN PITLESS. WELDED ON
LOCKING CAP, PUT
ON J-PLUG INSTALLED 3 GUARD POSTS. WELLS MEASURED AND STATIC
TAKEN.
Located by: Minnesota Geological
Survey
Method: Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger
(Digitizing Table)
Unique Number
Verification: Information from owner Input Date: 01/01/1990
System:UTM - Nad83, Zone15, Meters X: 498117 Y: 4956269
Grouting Information Well Grouted? Yes No
Grout Material: Neat Cement from 0 to 304 ft.
Nearest Known Source of Contamination
feet direction type
Well disinfected upon completion? Yes No
Pump Not Installed Date Installed 07/00/1959
Manufacturer's name FAIRBANKS-MORSE Model
number HP 20 Volts 440
Length of drop Pipe ft. Capacity 150 g.p.m Type Submersible Material
First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group
Last Strat St.Lawrence Formation
Aquifer Jordan
Depth to Bedrock 106 ft.
Abandoned Wells Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)?
Yes No
Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? Yes No
Well Contractor Certification
County Well Index Online Report 208410 Printed 11/19/2013
HE-01205-07
Minnesota Unique Well No .
208410 County Dakota
Quad Inver Grove Heights
Quad ID 103D
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
WELL AND
BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103I
Entry Date 09/15/1988
Update Date 12/16/2011
Received Date 07/22/2005
Well Name FLINT HILLS RESOURCES KSAU#1
TownshipRangeDirSectionSubsectionsElevation 915 ft.
11518W19ABBDDD Elevation Method
7.5 minute
topographic
map (+/- 5 feet)
Well DepthDepth CompletedDate Well Completed
460 ft.460 ft.10/31/2003
Drilling Method Cable Tool
Page 1of 1 Well Log Report -00208410
11 /19 /201 3 htt p ://md h -a g ua.health.state.mn.us/cwi/well _lo g .as p ?wellid=0000208410
APPENDIX B
Stevens Well Drilling Co. Inc.86654 JOHNSON, R
License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No.Name of Driller
Well Address
HWAY 52 & HWAY 55
ROSEMOUNT MN
Geological Material ColorHardnessFromTo
DRIFT 0118
SHAKOPEE LIMEROCK 118305
JORDAN SANDROCK 305402
Drilling Fluid
-- Well Hydrofractured? Yes No
From Ft. to Ft.
Use Monitor well
Casing Type Steel (black or low carbon) Joint No Information Drive Shoe?
Yes No Above/Below ft.
Casing Diameter WeightHole Diameter
8 in. to 319.6 ft. lbs./ft. 8 in. to 460 ft.
12 in. to ft. lbs./ft.
Open Hole from 319.6 ft. to 460 ft.
Screen NO MakeType
Diameter Slot/GauzeLengthSet Between
Static Water Level
146.6 ft. from Land surface Date Measured 10/31/2003
PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface)
ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m.
Well Head Completion
Pitless adapter manufacturer Model
Casing Protection 12 in. above grade
At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY)
R E M A R K S
CONVERTED EXISITING WELL INTO MONITORING WELL. REMOVED PUMP
FROM WELL, ADDED 3'
OF PIPE TO BRING WELL 2' ABOVE GRADE. INSTALLED 3 GUARD POSTS,
WELDED ON LOCKING
CAP AND J-PLUG, FILLED IN PIT. WELLS MEASURED AND STATIC TAKEN.
Located by: Minnesota Geological
Survey
Method: Digitization (Screen) - Map
(1:24,000)
Unique Number Verification: Site
Plan Input Date: 12/03/2007
System:UTM - Nad83, Zone15,
Meters X: 498124 Y: 4956200
Grouting Information Well Grouted? Yes No
Nearest Known Source of Contamination
feet direction type
Well disinfected upon completion? Yes No
Pump Not Installed Date Installed
Manufacturer's name Model number HP Volts
Length of drop Pipe ft. Capacity g.p.m Type Material
First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group
Last Strat
Aquifer
Depth to Bedrock 118 ft.
Abandoned Wells Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)?
Yes No
Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? Yes No
Well Contractor Certification
County Well Index Online Report 255723 Printed 11/19/2013
HE-01205-07
Minnesota Unique Well No .
255723 County Dakota
Quad Inver Grove Heights
Quad ID 103D
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
WELL AND
BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103I
Entry Date 10/26/2001
Update Date 12/16/2011
Received Date 07/22/2005
Well Name FLINT HILLS RESOURCES KSAU#2
TownshipRangeDirSectionSubsectionsElevation 921 ft.
11518W19ABBCDB Elevation Method
7.5 minute
topographic
map (+/- 5 feet)
Well DepthDepth CompletedDate Well Completed
460 ft.460 ft.10/31/2003
Drilling Method Cable Tool
Page 1of 1 Well Log Report -0025572 3
11 /19 /201 3 htt p ://md h -a g ua.health.state.mn.us/cwi/well _lo g .as p ?wellid=000025572 3
Stevens Drilling and Envi ronmental Services, Inc.2255 JOHNSON, R.
License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No.Name of Driller
Well Address
12555 52 HY
ROSEMOUNT MN 55068
Geological Material ColorHardnessFromTo
Drilling Fluid
-- Well Hydrofractured? Yes No
From Ft. to Ft.
Use
Casing TypeJoint No Information Drive Shoe? Yes
No Above/Below ft.
Casing Diameter WeightHole Diameter
Open Hole from ft. to ft.
ScreenMakeType
Diameter Slot/GauzeLengthSet Between
Static Water Level
ft. from Date Measured
PUMPING LEVEL (below land surface)
ft. after hrs. pumping g.p.m.
Well Head Completion
Pitless adapter manufacturer Model
Casing Protection 12 in. above grade
At-grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY)
R E M A R K S
ORIGINALLY W-SEARIS NO. W05885. WELL HAD SOME RECONSTRUCTION.
INFORMATION FROM DAKOTA CO.
LOCATED BY COORDINATES FROM BILL OLSEN DAKOTA CO.
RECONSTRUCTION DONE BY STEVENS DRILLING & ENVIRONMENTA
SERVICES, INC.
NO RECORD.
Located by: Dakota Cty.Method: Digitization (Screen) - Map
(1:24,000)
Unique Number Verification: Info/GPS
from data source Input Date: 10/23/2012
System:UTM - Nad83, Zone15, Meters X: 496346 Y: 4956277
Grouting Information Well Grouted? Yes No
Nearest Known Source of Contamination
feet direction type
Well disinfected upon completion? Yes No
Pump Not Installed Date Installed
Manufacturer's name Model number HP Volts
Length of drop Pipe ft. Capacity g.p.m Type Material
First Bedrock
Last Strat
Aquifer
Depth to Bedrockft.
Abandoned Wells Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)?
Yes No
Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? Yes No
Well Contractor Certification
County Well Index Online Report 272261 Printed 11/19/2013
HE-01205-07
Minnesota Unique Well No .
272261 County Dakota
Quad Inver Grove Heights
Quad ID 103D
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH
WELL AND
BORING RECORD
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103I
Entry Date 10/18/2012
Update Date 05/01/2013
Received Date
Well Name W-6
TownshipRangeDirSectionSubsectionsElevation 849 ft.
11519W24BAABDC Elevation Method
7.5 minute
topographic
map (+/- 5 feet)
Well DepthDepth CompletedDate Well Completed
ft.ft.09/06/2012
Drilling Method --
Page 1of 1 Well Log Report -00272261
11 /19 /201 3 htt p ://md h -a g ua.health.state.mn.us/cwi/well _lo g .as p ?wellid=0000272261
!
"#$%
& "$#$" ’()
!*"$+" !+!,-,,../).0
"%
!*"$+" + &"*"0
!"&#&"+&&&"*"0...1-)
(1,2(.3.4.56’7)/(
8 ,-,,../).0
77/!$*!
71,0
**!$" *!
9
9
9
9
/-1)(1:)1.33--;0)’-;1-3-6,1((1/-7<-)/-1)(1:)1.’1(6,66).-/’=1./6
’>/3:7
/-1)(1:)1.=1-1-3.?33--;1-3-6,1((1/-/6’)/-@-)?1766).(1:>)/((/
./.A’=13/=/,/-;3)/-1)7
#B
9%C
B
%%7
%DD
"9
E%09%E%
E
9
FG%F
DB
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
8
H/11H/==,)1>,
APPENDIX C
8%
1:,1.’:3/;-.,63;1.A’)’.’;’,:/)71’-;/6’(..0?1=/./6(.(1:1’
-/.0’/11-3,-;.7?=/./’.(11,(1:)1..:.()31(1;-),3-;1;/;1-66).
,.3-3F/)/,/;)1,-6/(1/-F)/-7
A1,,/A-;’.(11,(1:>’1(6,71:)1.1/-/6’(/’0’/11-3;1./-.-1,1)7
:(=/(.(1:-),3.1,?1/-0=1-0-1.10?/(-;1-331’17
-;3-1((>/-)-1/-I =/.(.81,’1J13.
/11 " K ++#"&"*9
/,(.,,1.2
* ==(&"/9
" 7*K & #" *"
%1./,-2
==(&"/9%
* ==(*"-%
" 7*K !$+$"*$"$0D
E
/11 " 7*K !&$+!"$ "$"$
* ==(&"/9
#*==(&"/9%
*==(*"-%
L+*==(+!!$"$"+
# ==(%
==(&"/9%
*==(*"-%
L ==(++&" !"$%
==(&"/9
*==(*"-
7*==(&"/9%
#7*==(*"-%
%<-.;-1/-II
L#*==(+"$"#B
ID1,.3/-/6,)1>./,(-((.1-3(1((.M’.?1,.1:=)1,A’)’(1:?1:6/((/(7
II(1,=/./’.)’()1,(1:133/’/?1,,=/.01..13,:1>./>3’/;’’.<-7
’.11,16:11’.--33/)/((-)1=/-1,’1,’’1J13.1-3=/-1,=’:.)1,
’1J13.1../)13A’’=/3).)/?3>:’..’01-3.-/--33/)/((-)1=/3)
.=)6)1/--6/(1/-7/=/3).=)6)1/--6/(1/-0)/-1):/,-,,../).0
=.-1?7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
#8
H/11H/==,)1>,
2-’1,1/-=/.)1-=/3)/)66).71-/)1/-.1.’:3/;-.,63=/..7
/-/6/.=1/:3...76)/;’/366),:->1’-;3?,/=.0?1,16/==.=1/:1)
-6,1((1/-0>/-)’.01-3=-(/-.7
$
((31,:A1.’.<-A’=,-:/6./1=1-3A116(/?-;)/-1(-13),/’-;1-3.’/.7%
(3)1,1-/-61/-3?,/=./=...7
,1))/-1(-13),/’-;-),/.3)/-1-6/./1;-,,1-33/3.)13376),/’-;./>
,1-330-6/(=./-=6/(-;/=1/-/6)/-1(-1-N.’1J13/.=/=.7.)13)/-1(-13
,1’;//3.7
-’?-/61>--@:(/?,//.),/’-;6/(’166)3117,.’A’)//,A1/-,:6.<-
1==1.-1)7%7
,.’((31,:A’,1;1(/-./6A16/1,1.*(-.7:,3..’/,3>’,31A1:6/(’
:>1,,/-.’//;’-.-;7-’?-/61’(1,>--@:3/-/6,.’’:.A’A1/1==,:
/-(-.7%7
(/?/6.’176-/>1’-;0-..)>1’-;76>1’-;.366),0-.1A1:.),1
1-3;?/:;-76’1’1../==30((31,:>;-)13/=,(/-1:..)1/-7
E=166)3=./-A1(1-31.7%7
6.=/-1-/.?/(-;/)).0<=’13>,/A’=./=?-1.=1/-1-3(/-/6/>1’-;366),:7
?;?1-:’-;>:(/’/1--)/-.)/.=./-7
E=166)3=./-A1(1-31.7%7
*%%
/(>./-(1:=/3)1-3/’3)/(=/./-=/3).-’)1./6-)/(=,)/(>./-7
.A1.=1:03:)’()1,0)1>/-3/3/6"6;’-;6/1(6/,1..6./-;.’67
?1)1111-36;’66/(1.163.1-)7
6,1</.=,,’1.-/;-30?-,1111-3.A1.=1:/3.=.;1./?1=/1-3/=/)
=./--,1(=-;/./=1,1<711,.,6>-.A’366),:7
.A1.=1:/)//,13@1)-.).1-3/=/)=./--,7’/66./)/66,/A6=/..>,71:
1A1:6/(./1;1-<-3.79’31A((31,:-)1./6.-;./-36/(?--;.16:3?)/1-:
3.)/,/1/-/6./1;1-<3/67
6;’.(.A11==/?3=/.?=..>1’-;1==11.A’6,,61)(1.<1-3
6,,=/)?4=(-7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
8
H/11H/==,)1>,
D1=/.(1:6/(=,/.?(A’17D1=/.)1-1?,/1./)/6;-/-1-36,1.’>1)<7
=,/./-’1J136=/.3/(’17
,1.’/-/==,)1>,
/;-/-(=1 /==,)1>,
,1((1>,:(.-0/A0K>:D/,(/==,)1>,
,1((1>,:(.-0==0K>:D/,(/==,)1>,
!
E=--)..1:=/=,1A1:M./,1’1J13111-33-:-:71:=A-37=/.
/-/,.8./-1,/)/--)/-&7
,(-11,,./)./6;-/-7./,1’1J13111-33-:-:7
6(11,.,1.3/’-?/-(-01<((31.=././=1-3)/-1-,1.71/-.’/,3>
).3;13-;=./--,.16:1-3=/./’,1.3(11,7/6:,/)1,1’/.1-31/-1,
.=/-.-06437
E=--)..1:=/=,1A1:7./,1116/1,1.* (.* 6-1,,3)/-./=.?=>,)
.16:7/,1;.=,,.0)/-.3-1,?1)1/-6/1,1. (. 67
E=;-/-./).//6111-3.’/661,,;-/-./).7>./>.=,,A’-(11,7;73:.1-3
/1’’-=,1)-1)’()1,A1.)/-1-71;=,,.2<611’13/6,43.=,,6/,13.=/.1,7
.1?1=/.==..-;6/1(/3)?1=/.7/=,1<A’-.16/3/./7
=/./-/,.8./-1,/)/-)/-&7
+%%
/-31-3;/-3,-.1-34=(-1-<01-.6,-.0=(=06,/1.0)7.33-;1-.6/3)’
=/..>,:/6.1).=1<"-136/=,/./-7.-/-".=1<-;//,.7/-/)0;-303,,0A,3/.
)/-1-.-,..1341=)1/-.11<-1;1-.’.’1J13.7
/-/103-</.(/<-11./6././1;7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
$8
H/11H/==,)1>,
/-;’,:),/.3)/-1-.-1)//,03:0./,130A,,"?-,13111A1:6/(’10./)./6;-/-
1-3-)/(=1>,.7?/3)/-1)A’./-;/3J.7
(=:)/-1-.(1:)/-1-(11,.37/-/.A’/1341=)1/-.7
:3/;-.,63)1->,3=-’’13.=1)/6./1;?..,.)/-1--;’.(11,7.1==/=1
.=1/:=/)/-/=?-=/.7=/./-/,.8./-1,/)/-)/-&7
9’---;1./1;?..,’1’1.=?/.,:)/-1-3’.(11,0.)/((-33’1’
1(/.=’>(/-/36/’=.-)/6’:3/;-.,637/(=/./--6/(1/-)/-#6/
=/.,(.7
/-/103-</.(/<-11./6././1;7
&G8
D-,1/-1-3/’6/(./6-;--;)/-/,.1’=63(1-.6/)/-/,,-;=/..7
%-1,,:0’.(11,.)/-1-3A’-?..,.1-3==-;3.;-3/A’.1-3=)3/=1-;
)/-3/-.71-/=1/-.0.)’1.,/13-;0-,/13-;1-3/-",-.1(=,-;0;-1,,:-?/,?’;’.</6
=/.01-3.=)1,4=(-./6-3.;-36/’.1)?.7
E=1A1:6/(:.7:)/-1))1->1?/33>:.-;)’()1,.16:;,1...0;/;;,.01-38/61)
.’,371?:A1.’-;61),.13,:1?1,1>,A’:)/-1))1-/))7
?/3.<-)/-1)A’’.(11,7.1==/=1)’()1,=/)?;,/?.A’-’1-3,-;733/-1,
=/)?),/’-;(1:>-)..1:7
%//3=./-1,’:;-=1))..)’1.=/=,:’1-3,-;)/-1(-13),/’-;0.-;A1.’61),.>6/
--;=>,)11.1-3.)-;1-;03-<-;1-3.(/<-;/3.;-1311.1..-1,6/
=?--;=./-1,)’()1,)/-1(-1/-7
’./61=6:-;.=1/..-/)/((-33A’’:3/;-.,63,?,.(1:)3=/.
,(.7.1=/.?=..1.==,3.=1/6’.1-:=/-1,6/1--)/-/,,3,1.0
=/.,?,.1-/<-/A-0/1-:/’))(.1-).A’1=6:-;.=1/.(1:-/=/?3
1341=/)/-7
/,-;/-##O 7 O==/(1,:
=)6)%1?:==/(1,:1! 8! O*7!8*7!O
,-;/-/11
)-D/,1,/11
D1=/../11
?1=/1/-1 /11
,1.’/-/==,)1>,
90D0D%
8#
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
*8
H/11H/==,)1>,
D1=/-.:==/(1,:
D.)/.:/11
/,>,:-91 K==/(1,:
)1-/,8911-/11
D/,1,;1-)/11
//-#O 7 O==/(1,:
=D1,!"
,<-.:/11
J-;/-#O 7 O==/(1,:
61)-./-/11
/11
/11
/11
/,),1/(,1
/,),19;’
’()1,1(,:
3/’.’/,3
D
-)/(=1>,A’/3J-;1;-.7=)1/-.-31-3,-;/1;)/-+7
/(>./-(1:=/3)1-3/’3)/(=/./-=/3).-’)1./6-)/(=,)/(>./-7
G%
-’1,1/-0-;./-0.<-1-3:)/-1)7
B23./69/<.?=/.3/-J-23./6A/<.=/.3/>-J-.’/A),1?3-)
’1/?=/.)1-)1.)1-)/6’>,//36/(-;/;1-.1)(:,/;-/.,<(11-31=,1.)1-(101-
/6-611,3.1.7/(.3..;;./?=/./>-J-(1:1,./>1../)13A’/’>,//3
3./3.-),3-;(:,/3:.=,1.).:-3/(7/(.3./6A/<.=/.3/>-J-’1?.’/A-1-1../)1/-
A’-)1.31./6)’/(/./(1>1/-.-)),1-;,:(=’/):.7-.3:/6A/(-A/<.=/.3/
>-J-.;;.31A1<1../)1/-A’;,1(-.1/-7/A?0/’.3./6A/<.=/.3/
>-J-’1?-/3(/-.13),1?3-)/61-66)/-6,:/=/3)?/)/(-’(1-.7-J-
)1-)/..’=,1)-11-3166)’3?,/=-;6.71../61=,1.)1-(1’1?>-=/3-’
/66.=-;/6=./-..?,:/?=/.3/>-J-73.-1>/1/:-(1,.23.-,1>/1/:
1-(1,.-3)1’1=/,/-;30=13=/./’;’,?,./6>-J-?1=/)1-)1.>/-(1/A
.==../-1-3)1-)-(,=,/;1-.:.(.73.-,1>/1/:1-(1,..’/A?3-)/613?.66).
/-(1,=/3)?/;1-.6/,,/A-;’;’,?,./6=/.>-/.;-6)1-66)./-=/3)/-’1?>-
/>.?37(>://):’1.>-=/3-.3./6,1>/1/:1-(1,.>66).A,(3/3)3
61,A;’1-3.<,1,?11/-.7-J-’1.>-),1..631.1=/?-’(1-)1)-/;->:1-31
%/=1)-/;-)/(1-.(11,>:7
%2:3/;-.,63;1.’1.1--=,1.1-/3/’13(-.’.A’-)1.3=/.7:
1/-(1:/))1,?,.1>/?$==(7,61)/:61;/)).1=3,:1,?,./6* ==(/’;’73/
.-/1,1>,A1--;=/=:7.=1/:66).-),31/-A’=/..>,=,(/-1:3(11,?,.
1>/?* ==(7* ==(((31,/../6)/-.)/.-..1-331’)1-/))7’1.3(-3’1 ==(
’:3/;-.,63.((31,:31-;/./,61-3’1,’7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
!8
H/11H/==,)1>,
26(3(1,.3.-/3-.’1?.’/A--1--)1.-.<-(/.A’./()3/,.7
’--1/-1,;-):6/.1)’/-1-)’1.)/-),33’1’.,(3?3-)/6
)1)-/;-):-1-(1,.1-3-1341?3-)/6)1)-/;-):-’(1-.7’?1,,?1,1/-
6/)3/,.2F-/),1..61>,1./.)1)-/;-):/’(1-.%/=7F
=/./’.(11,(1:)1.13?.66)./31(1;/’6/,,/A-;/;1-.//;1-.:.(.2>,//3
1-3>/-(1/A7
#%
G2
/(=/--./6’.=/3)1’1J13/./141),67
8%2
/),1..63-(./6>/3;131>,:7
2
’.(11,.-/=)3/>/1))(,1-141)/;1-.(.7
D2
1:=1/--/10./,1-3A17
’.(11,01..==,30A’-3.)133/3.=/.3/60.1’1J13/.A1.1))/3-;/31,
;,1/-.3/’(11,’>-;1’1J13/.)’11).)-3>=1/6$ #!7-3
0.’.=/-.>,:/6’./6’(11,/3(-01’(/63.=/.1,0A’’’(11,
(.)16/’1J13/.A1.7
’1-.=/1/-0./1;01(-1-33.=/.1,/6A1.(11,(.>)/-3)3-)/(=,1-)
A’$ #!#0#!0#!$0#!&1-3#+ 7.=/.1,)1-/))/-,:-=/=,:=(361),.7’)<.1
1-3,/)1,;,1/-.6/1-:133/-1,4(-.1.’.(1:>(/.)?’1-631,,1A.1-3
;,1/-.7’()1,133/-.0=/)..-;//’A.1,-;’.(11,(1:(1<’A1.
(1-1;(--6/(1/-=.-3-’.-)/(=,0-1))1//’A.-1==/=17.=/.1,/6
’.(11,(.>)/-3)3-)/(=,1-)A’1,,631,0.11-3,/)1,;,1/-.7
$
!""
/(-3
!!""
/(-3
’.’==-;),1..6)1/-(.>?1,131’(/6.’=(-7,1.)/-.,$+"& 6/
.=)6).’==-;-6/(1/-7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
+8
H/11H/==,)1>,
*%
,,-;3-.1/-’-?-/:0/1-/43/>,.3/-’-?-/:7
/-.,N.-J-.1-313# 7 #&6/=/?./-./-1(/-/-;0(=,/:1--;0
(3)1,(/-/-;0)7
’.(11,01..==,30)/-1-.1((/-10’:3/;-.,631-3>-J-0A’)’11J13/.
>.1-).1.=$ 1 #7$01-3.’6/.>@)/’,1.=/-;4(-./6
7’=/1>,41-.6/1((/-10’:3/;-.,631-3>-J-1 0 1-3 =/-3.0
.=)?,:7
’.(11,01..==,30)/-1-.1((/-11-3’:3/;-.,63A’)’1(,:1J13/.>.1-).
1.=$ 1**01-3.’6/0.>@)/,1.=/-;4(-.7’=/1>,41-:6/
1((/-11-3’:3/;-.,63. 1-3 =/-3.0.=)?,:7
’.(11,3/.-/)/-1-/))’()1,.-)../6’1==,)1>,3(-(.)/-)-1/-’11
.>@)/’1--1,/))’()1,,1.=/-;4(-./6’=6-3(-3(-.1-3
1’/J1/-))/-$ +#7
’.(11,)/-1-..>.1-)..>@)/1))3-=?-/-;,1/-.A’-=.-1>/?’1==,)1>,
’.’/,341-.)/-#/6’,1-)7
’.(11,)/-1-./-/(/.>.1-).,.31.’1J13/.1=/,,1-.-3)/-#/6’,1-
)7
’)<,/)1,0;/-1,/.18=/?-)1,;,1/-.6/1-:133/-1,4(-.1.’.(1:>(/
.)?’1-631,,1A.1-3;,1/-.71,/=/(1:.,-.>.1-1,)?,1-3)(-1,
=-1,.7
9%2’.=/3))/-1-.1)’()1,<-/A-/’1/61,6/-1/)1.)1-)1-3>’36).
//’=/3)?’1(7
#$$ #$%
1)?:1J132
((311J132 G ,1:31J132 G 1J132 ..1J132
1,’#,1((1>,: -.1>,: =)1,1J13.
1,’#I ,1((1>,: ’:.)1,1J13
!
2’-6/(1/-=.-3’-.>1.3/-311)/-.33/>1))11./6’31/6
==11/-/6’.11,16:11’73411--;1-3-.)/-.’/,3>;?->:://:/
(=,/:.1-3166)3=./--,7==/=1A1--;.1-3.16’1-3,-;=/)3..’/,3>=/?33>:
://’1-3,.1-3..733/-1,,:0’..’/,3?A’.-6/(1/-0.1.6:.,61./..1>,:
1-3)/(=,-..01-3=1../-’-6/(1/-/.(=,/:./)./(.-1))/31-)A’’1==,)1>,
631,0.10=/?-)1,/,/)1,’1J13)/((-)1/-4(-.7’.(1:-/>.31.1
)/(()1,.=)6)1/-.’/6(1-61)/.,,01-3-/A11-:/=.-1/-0=..3/
(=,30.(131./’1))1):/)/(=’-.?-../6’6/;/-;3111-3.16:-6/(1/-0-/.
1-:1’/J1/-;?-/(=,3/=1))1-:=1-3-?-/-A’/1,)-.7-133/-0?-3/
-’1..(.-/1-.1-:.=/-.>,:6/1-:31(1;/-@:.,-;6/(1>-/(1,.06/(1-:
61,/13’/1==/=1=1)).0/6/(1-:’1J13.-’--’-1/6’(11,7
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
&8
H/11H/==,)1>,
/(=,3:,-,,../).0"=1/-.
2E
2/3)/(=1-:3-6)1/-
8%2
8%2./6-;3-.
29
%2G%
G822
P %%2;’-;1..2=,/./-/=.
%%2B
%%2GB
2
2%
2
2
2E
%%2%
B2%DD9
B20
B20%
B20
B20E
2
2’:.)1,’()1,/=.
%2%
%2-31.
D2B8
D28
G%2%
G%2*
G%2*
G%2"G%%%DG
G%2%
G%2%0%0D
G%2G%
2%"E77
2%""E77
2
9
11,2 !
?./-12 #")" =,1).’132 ")" -3-2 #")"
8
H/11H/==,)1>,
!
"#$
%!!"##" !!&’(
)*"# +"!)+),-,,../(.0
"$
)*"# +"!+!!%"*"0
)"%%"+%%%"*"0...1-(
’1,2’.3.4.56&7(/’
8 ,-,,../(.0
77/)#*)
71,0
**)#"!*)
/-1(’19(1.33--:0(&-:1-3-6,1’’1/-7;-(/-1(’19(1.&1’6,66(.-/&<1./6
&=/397/-1-.1(/’</--.&1’19(1.1,,:(.;-1(/-.-./’-3>31,.7
1...>91/-?&1-:03-../1.-:-:=--:6,-:719(1.(/-1,31’1:7
1--@9..766(.’19=(/’’/./.?&</,/-:3</.7A1</.’19(1.9
1/-1-3.-.>9/,:&7
B
$C
B
$$7
$AA
D
A
EF$E
B
$$
G
AB
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
8$
19,1.&93/:-.,63:1.?&(&.&:&,9/(719=&1’6,/611,6-&1,3793/:-.,63(1-
(1..<1/9<11,9..1-331&03<-3-:/-&(/-(-1/-1-331/-/6</.7/-/,9/-
1=,9/.’,,>1</.0.-(/3/61:1<3,9/((.766(./6/></.-(,31/-/6&-/.
1-3&/10-1.10>/’-:031&101=3/’-1,<1-1-3.:-./6->/..9.’3<../-7:7&131(&0
3/?.-..03II-..0,/../6(//3-1/-1-361:0:,1&1=1.0<,’/-193’10?1;-..1-3
(/->,./-.71&-:/6&’..0>1</./6’.’191&-/.0&/11-3,-:.79’</’.’19
-(,3./&/10(/:&-:0,1=/3=1&-:0.-I-:1-3=--:.-.1/-03<-3-:/-&
(/-(-1/-1-331/-/6</.7
></./&.’11,’19(1..9.’(31’1:-(,3-:1:/:1-66(.,.3-3
E/(/,/:(1,-6/’1/-E(/-7
?1,,/?-:&.’11,’19=&1’6,719(1.1/-/6&’/&0&/11-3:1./-.-1,1(7
9’</’.’19-(,3.1,>1/-0<1-0-1.10>/’-:1-331&17
-:3-1’’=/-(-1/-J </.’.81,&1I13.
/11 KL ++ "%"*G
!<<’$
!<<’%"/G$
*<<’*"-$
!7 " 7*L ++% "!)"#$
*<<’%"/G$
*<<’*"-$
!<<’%"/G
!7#"7)L +#"%"*
/11 !7"7*L !*"*"
.’’/-12
*!<<’%"/G
*<<’%"/G$
*<<’*"-$
!7"L )"")M
JA1,.3/-/6,(1=./,’-’’.1-3’1’’.N&.>1,.19<(1,?&(&’19>196/’’/’7
&.11,16911&.--33/(/’’-(1</-1,&1,&&1I13.1-3</-1,<&9.(1,
&1I13.1../(13?&&</3(.(/>3=9&..&01-3.-/--33/(/’’-(1</3(
.<(6(1/--6/’1/-7/</3(.<(6(1/--6/’1/-0(/-1(9/,-,,../(.0
<.-1>7
#
’’31,9?1.&.;-?&<,-9/6./1<1-3?116’/>-:(/-1’-13(,/&-:1-3.&/.7$
’3(1,1-/-61/-3>,/<./<...7
,1((/-1’-13(,/&-:-(,/.3(/-1-6/./1:-,,1-33/3.(13376(,/&-:./=
,1-330-6/’<./-<6/’-:/<1/-/6(/-1’-1-O.&1I13/.</<.7.(13(/-1’-13
,1&://3.7
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
2-&1,1/-</.(1-</3(/(66(.71-/(1/-.1.&93/:-.,63</..7
/-/6/.<1/93...76(/:&/366(,9-=1&-:3>,/<.0>1,16/<<.<1/91(
-6,1’’1/-0=/-(&.01-3<-’/-.7
,.&’’31,9?&,1:1’/-./6?16/1,1.*’-.79,3..&/,3=&,31?196/’&
9=1,,/-.&//:&-.-:7$7
’/>/6.&176-/=1&-:0-.(13/<,’/-19..(1/-76=1&-:.366(,0
-.1?19.(,11-3:>/9:-7D<166(3<./-?1’1-31.7$
7
6.</-1-/.>/’-:/((.0;<&13=,/?&<./<>-1.<1/-1-3’/-/6/=1&-:366(,97
>:>1-9&-:=9’/&/1--(/-.(/.<./-7
D<166(3<./-?1’1-31.7$7
*$$
11,?,,-/=-/.<</(/’=./-7
11,.,6?,,-/=-7
.-:.&-:1:-.1=,6/9</6./-3-:67
.?1.<19/(//,13@1(-.(.1-3/</(<./--,7
6:&.’.?11<</>3</.><..=1&-:1<<11.?&6,,61(’1.;1-3
6,,</(>4<’-7
,1.&/-/<<,(1=,
/:-/-’<1 /<<,(1=,
,1’’1=,9’.-0/?0L=9A/,’/<<,(1=,
,1’’1=,9’.-0<<0L=9A/,’/<<,(1=,
)
D<--(..19</<,1?19N./,1&1I13111-33-9-9719<?-37</.
/-/,.8./-1,/(/--(/-%7
6’11,.,1.3/&->/-’-01;’’31.<././<1-3(/-1-,1.71/-.&/,3=
(.3:13-:<./--,.1691-3</./&,1.3’11,7/69,/(1,1&/.1-3&
1/-1,.</-.-06437
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
D<--(..19</<,1?197./,1&1I13111-33-9-97
=./=.<,,?&-’11,7:739.1-3/1&&-<,1(-1(&’(1,?1.(/-1-71:<,,.2
;611&13/6,43.<,,6/,13.</.1,7/<,1;?&-.16/3/./7
</./-/,.8./-1,/(/-(/-%7
+$$
/-/103-;/.’/;-11./6././1:7
/-:&,9(,/.3(/-1-.-1(//,0390./,130?,,">-,13111?196/’&10./(./6:-/-
1-3-(/’<1=,.7>/3(/-1(?&./-:/3I.7
’<9(/-1-.’19(/-1-’11,.37/-/.?&/1341<(1/-.7
/-/103-;/.’/;-11./6././1:7
%F8
A-,1/-1-3/&6/’./6-:--:(/-/,.1&<63’1-.6/(/-/,,-:</..7
$-1,,90&.’11,.(/-1-3?&->..,.1-3<<-:3.:-3/?&.1-3<(3/<1-:
(/-3/-.71-/<1/-.0.(&1.,/13-:0-,/13-:1-3/-",-.1’<,-:0:-1,,9->/,>&:&.;/6
</.01-3.<(1,4<’-./6-3.:-36/&.1(>.7
D<1?196/’9.79(/-1((1-=1>/33=9.-:(&’(1,.169:,1...0:/::,.01-38/61(
.&,371>9?1.&-:61(,.13,91>1,1=,?&9(/-1((1-/((7
>/3.;-(/-1(?&&.’11,7.1<</<1(&’(1,</(>:,/>.?&-&1-3,-:733/-1,
</(>(,/&-:’19=-(..197
$//3<./-1,&9:-<1((..(&1.</<,9&1-3,-:(/-1’-13(,/&-:0.-:?1.&61(,.=6/
--:<=,(11.1-3.(-:1-:03-;-:1-3.’/;-:/3.:-1311.1..-1,6/
<>--:<./-1,(&’(1,(/-1’-1/-7
1<</>31<69-:.<1/?&1-1<</<1(13:/(1-.0.(&1.1-/:1-(>1</
(13:0’19=.3-((’.1-(.?&1=/-(/-(-1/-.’19(3</.,’.7/(/-
</>33=91<69-:.<1/..,’37.1</.><..1.<<,3.<1/6&.1-9
</-1,6/1--(/-/,,3,1.0</.,>,.1-/;-/?-0/1-9/&((’.1-(.?&1
<69-:.<1/.’19-/</>31341</(/-7!7 #6/’/-6/’1/-
:13-:.<1/9</(/-1-3..:-3/(/-1(/..7
,1.&/-/<<,(1=,
MG"D
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
#8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
/,-:/-<</’1,9P
<(6($1>9 <</’1,91)!8)!P*7)8*7)P
,-:/-/11
(-A/,1,/11
A1</../11
>1</1/-1 /11
A1</-.9 /11
A.(/.9 /11
/,=,9-G1 !!L
(1-/,8G11-/11
A/,1,:1-(/11
//-/11
<A1,Q+
I-:/-<</’1,9 P!P
61(-./-/11
/11
/11
/11
/11
/,(,1/’,1
/,(,1G:&
&’(1,1’,9
3/&.&/,3
!A
<(1/-.-31-3,-:/1:(/-+7
/-7
F$
-&1,1/-0-:./-0.;-1-39(/-1(7
$293/:-.,63:1.&1.1--<,1.1-/3/&13’-.&.?&-(1.3</.79
1/-’19/((1,>,.1=/>#<<’7,61(/961:/((.1<3,91,>,./6*!<<’/&:&73/
.-/1,1=,?1--:</<97.<1/966(.-(,31/-?&</..=,<,’/-193’11,>,.
1=/>*!<<’7*!!<<’’’31,/../6(/-.(/.-..1-331&(1-/((7&1.3’-3&1!!<<’
&93/:-.,63.’’31,931-:/./,61-3&1,&7
2.,./6,1=/1/91-’1,.3.-3(11</-1,/-3(1,,:(
3’1..-.I1/-7/.:-6(1-3>,/<’-1,66(.?</36/’1.39/6<:-1-1.
</.33’1,,93-::.1/-7-3-:.6/’:-//(9.3.&1>=-,1:,9-:1>7
</./&.’11,’19(1.13>.66(./31’1:/&6/,,/?-:/:1-.//:1-.9.’.29.0
.;-0,-:.0(-1,->/..9.’0.<1/91(01-3’’-.9.’7
".-:’3(1,(/-3/-.?&(&’19=1::1>13=9</.-(,33./3./6&,-:.1-3
.<1/91(7
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
*8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
$
F2
/(,1..63-’./6(//(97
8$2
/13,9=/3:131=,7
2
/,;,9/=/1((’,1-141(/:1-.’.7
A2
19<1/--/10./,1-3?17
&.’11,01..<<,30?&-3.(133/3.</.3/60.-/1&1I13/.?1.1((/3-:/31,
:,1/-.#!)7-3&./(/-.>1/-1-3(/>9(0.&.</-.=,9
/6&./6&’11,/(&11(I1-33’-01&’/63.</.1,0?&&&’11,.1
&1I13/.?1..=@(/7
&1-.</1/-0./1:01’-1-33.</.1,/6?1.’11,’.=(/-3(3-(/’<,1-(
?&#!)0) 0)#0)%1-3+!7.</.1,(1-/((/-,9-</<,9<’361(,.7&(;.1
1-3,/(1,:,1/-.6/1-9133/-1,4’-.1.&.’19=’/.(>&1-631,,1?.1-3
:,1/-.7&’(1,133/-.0</(..-://&?.1,-:&.’11,’19’1;&?1.
’1-1:’--6/’1/-<.-3-&.-(/’<,0-1((1//&?.-1<</<17.</.1,/6
&.’11,’.=(/-3(3-(/’<,1-(?&1,,631,0.11-3,/(1,:,1/-.7
#
!!
/’-3
!!
/’-3
&.&<<-:(,1..6(1/-’.=>1,131&’/6.&<’-7,1.(/-.,#+"%!6/
.<(6(.&<<-:-6/’1/-7
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
)8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
*$
,,-:3-.1/-&->-/90/1-/43/=,.3/-&->-/97
&.’11,01..<<,30(/-1-.’&9,1’-1-31411’’/-10?&(&11I13/.
=.1-(.1.<#!1 !7#01-3.&6/.=@(/&,1.</-:4’-./6
7&</1=,41-.6/’&9,1’-1-31411’’/-11!!1-3!!!</-3.0
.<(>,97
&.’11,(/-1-./((&’(1,.-(../6&1<<,(1=,3’-’.(/-(-1/-&11.=@(/
&1--1,/((&’(1,,1.</-:4’-./6&<6-3’-3’-.1-31&/I1/-(
(/- #! +7&.-6/’1/-’.=-(,33-1,,.&11(/<31-3
3.=36/&.’11,7
&.’11,(/-1-..=.1-(..=@(/1((3-<>-/-:,1/-.?&-<.-1=/>&1<<,(1=,
&.&/,341-.(/-/6&,1-(7
&.’11,(/-1-./-/’/.=.1-(.,.31.&1I13/.1</,,1-.-3(/-/6&,1-
(7
&(;,/(1,0:/-1,/.18</>-(1,:,1/-.6/1-9133/-1,4’-.1.&.’19=’/
.(>&1-631,,1?.1-3:,1/-.71,/</’19.,-.=.1-1,(>,1-3(’-1,
<-1,.7
1.3/-1>1,1=,-6/’1/-&.</3(3/.-/(/-1-1-9(/’</--./(&’(1,.(-,9;-/?-/
&1/61,6/-1/(1.(1-(0=&36(./</3(>&1’1,>,.?&(&?/,3=.=@(/
/</./-)*76/’,1/-0./</(..-:/6&.’11,’19166(.(/’</./-1-34
">1,1/-7
"##"$%&’%&’()*%)&+,"-+.%,/0+)(%0#0()#%,+)*%&12103"4)+.)*)/%&%/%,5"&5)&+(0+%"&
.3-:3-1’’=1’’L
M )"")7!
122126
1(>91I132
’’311I132 F ,1931I132 F 1I132 ..1I132
1,& ,1’’1=,9 -.1=,9 !<(1,1I13.
1,& J ,1’’1=,9 &9.(1,1I13 !
)
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
+8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
2&-6/’1/-<.-3&-.=1.3/-311(/-.33/=1((11./6&31/6
<<11/-/6&.11,16911&73411--:1-3-.(/-.&/,3=:>-=99//9/
’<,/9.1-3166(3<./--,7<</<1?1--:.1-3.16&1-3,-:</(3..&/,3=</>33=9
9//&1-3,.1-3..733/-1,,90&..&/,3>?&.-6/’1/-0.1.69.,61./..1=,9
1-3(/’<,-..01-3<1../-&-6/’1/-/.’<,/9./(./’.-1((/31-(?&&1<<,(1=,
631,0.10</>-(1,/,/(1,&1I13(/’’-(1/-4’-.7&.’19-/=.31.1
(/’’(1,.<(6(1/-.&/6’1-61(/.,,01-3-/?11-9/<.-1/-0<..3/
’<,30.’131./&1((1(9/(/’<&-.>-../6&6/:/-:3111-3.169-6/’1/-0-/.
1-91&/I1/-:>-/’<,3/<1((1-9<1-3->-/-?&/1,(-.7-133/-0>-3/
-&1..’.-/1-.1-9.</-.=,96/1-931’1:/-@9.,-:6/’1=-/’1,.06/’1-9
61,/13&/1<</<1<1((.0/6/’1-9&1I13.-&--&-1/6&’11,7
/’<,39,-,,../(.0"<1/-.
2D
2/3(/’<1-93-6(1/-
8$2./6-:3-.
$2F$
F822
M F82D2
M $$2:&-:1..2<,/./-/<.
$$2B
2
2$
2
2
2D
$$2$
B2$AAG
B20
B20$
B20
B20D
2
2&9.(1,&’(1,/<.
$2$
$2.3-:3-.
$2$
A2B8
F$2*!
F$2*!
F$2"F$$$AF
F$2$
F$2F$
2$"D77
2$""D77
2
$G
11,2 !
>./-12!"("!<,1(.&132%":"! -3-2!"("!
%8%
H/11H/<<,(1=,
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET
1 .Product and Company Identification
Material name SOUR WATER
MSDS number 5687
Version #15
Revision date 08-04-2011
CAS #Mixture
Synonym(s)COKER SOUR WATER * COMBINED SOUR WATER * CRUDE SOUR WATER *
HYDROTREATER SOUR WATER
Manufacturer Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
P.O. Box 64596
St. Paul, MN
55164-0596
United States
Telephone numbers - 24 hour emergency assistance
Chemtrec 800-424-9300
Flint Hills Resources, LP 651-437-0676
Telephone numbers - general assistance
8-5 (M-F, CST)651-437-0700
8-5 (M-F, CST) MSDS Assistance 316-828-7988
Email: msdsrequest@fhr.com
2.Hazards Identification
Emergency overview DANGER!
HAZY LIQUID WITH A PUNGENT ODOR
HEALTH HAZARDS
CONTAINS HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS. MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED
GAS MAY EVOLVE FROM THIS MATERIAL AND ACCUMULATE IN CONFINED SPACES
MAY BE HARMFUL OR FATAL IF INHALED
DIRECT CONTACT MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO EYES AND SKIN
VAPORS MAY CAUSE EYE AND RESPIRATORY TRACT IRRITATION
SEE "TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION" (SECTION 11) FOR MORE INFORMATION
FLAMMABILITY HAZARDS
FLAMMABLE GAS (HYDROGEN SULFIDE) MAY BE RELEASED IF THIS MATERIAL IS
HEATED OR COMES IN CONTACT WITH ACIDS
REACTIVITY HAZARDS
STABLE
Potential health effects
Routes of exposure Inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact.
Eyes Causes severe eye irritation with tearing, redness or a stinging burning feeling. May cause
corneal damage. Can injure eye tissue. Effects may become more serious with prolonged
exposure.
Vapors may cause eye irritation and sensitivity to light.
Skin Contact may cause reddening, itching and inflammation. Skin contact may cause harmful effects
in other parts of the body.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
1 / 8
Inhalation May release hydrogen sulfide gas which is highly toxic.
May be harmful or fatal if inhaled. Hydrogen sulfide can cause respiratory paralysis and death,
depending on the concentration and duration of exposure. Do not rely on ability to smell vapors,
since odor fatigue rapidly occurs. Effects of overexposure include irritation of the nose and throat,
nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and signs of nervous system depression (e.g.
headache, drowsiness, dizziness, loss of coordination and fatigue), irregular heartbeats,
pulmonary edema, weakness and convulsions.
Breathing of the mists, vapors or fumes may irritate the nose, throat and lungs.
Overexposure to this material may cause systemic damage including target organ effects listed
under "Toxicological Information" (Section 11).
Ingestion Swallowing this material may be harmful. May cause irritation of the mouth, throat and
gastrointestinal tract. Symptoms may include salivation, pain, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
Components CAS #Concentration*
3.Composition / Information on Ingredients
7732-18-5 90 - 100 %WATER
7783-06-4 0.3 - 3.5 %HYDROGEN SULFIDE
7664-41-7 0.1 - 1.3 %AMMONIA
75-08-1 0 - 1 %ETHYL MERCAPTAN
74-93-1 0 - 1 %METHYL MERCAPTAN
71-43-2 < 100 ppm BENZENE
*Values do not reflect absolute minimums and maximums; these values are typical which may vary from time to time.
Composition comments This Material Safety Data Sheet is intended to communicate potential health hazards and
potential physical hazards associated with the product(s) covered by this sheet, and is not
intended to communicate product specification information. For product specification information,
contact your Flint Hills Resources, LP representative.
4 .First Aid Measures
First aid procedures
Eye contact Flush immediately with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Eyelids should be held
away from the eyeball to ensure thorough rinsing. GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION.
Skin contact Immediately wash skin with plenty of soap and water after removing contaminated clothing and
shoes. Get medical attention if irritation develops or persists.
Place contaminated clothing in closed container for storage until laundered or discarded. If
clothing is to be laundered, inform person performing operation of contaminant's hazardous
properties. Discard contaminated leather goods.
Inhalation Remove to fresh air. If not breathing, institute cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). If breathing
is difficult, ensure airway is clear and give oxygen.
Keep affected person warm and at rest. GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION.
Ingestion If spontaneous vomiting occurs, keep head below hips to prevent aspiration and monitor for
breathing difficulty. Never give anything by mouth to an unconscious person.
Keep affected person warm and at rest. GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION.
Notes to physician INHALATION: Inhalation exposure can produce toxic effects. Treat intoxications as hydrogen
sulfide exposures. Monitor for respiratory distress. If cough or difficulty in breathing develops,
evaluate for upper respiratory tract inflammation, bronchitis, and pneumonitis.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
2 / 8
5.Fire Fighting Measures
Flammable properties Material will burn in a fire.
Vapors may form explosive mixture with air. Vapors can travel to a source of ignition and flash
back.
Explosion hazard if exposed to extreme heat.
E xtinguishing media
Suitable extinguishing
media
Use water spray, dry chemical, carbon dioxide or fire-fighting foam for Class B fires to extinguish
fire.
Protection of firefighters
Specific hazards arising
from the chemical
Combustion may produce hazardous combustion products such as COx, NOx, SOx, reactive
hydrocarbons, and phenolics which may be hazardous.
Fire fighting
equipment/instructions
Evacuate area and fight fire from a safe distance.
If leak or spill has not ignited, ventilate area and use water spray to disperse gas or vapor, cool
adjacent structures, and to protect personnel attempting to stop a leak.
Shut off source of flow, if possible. Stay away from storage tank ends. Withdraw immediately in
case of rising sound from venting safety device or any discoloration of storage tank due to fire.
Firefighters must wear NIOSH approved positive pressure breathing apparatus (SCBA) with full
face mask and full protective equipment.
6.Accidental Release Measures
Environmental precautions Eliminate all sources of ignition. Isolate hazard area and deny entry.
If material is released to the environment, take immediate steps to stop and contain release.
Caution should be exercised regarding personnel safety and exposure to the released material.
Notify local authorities and National Response Center, if required.
Other information Keep unnecessary people away. Isolate area for at least 50 meters (164 feet) in all directions to
preserve public safety. For large spills, if downwind consider initial evacuation for at least 300
meters (1000 feet).
Keep ignition sources out of area and shut off all ignition sources. Absorb spill with inert material
(e. g. dry sand or earth) then place in a chemical waste container. Large Spills: Dike far ahead of
liquid spill for later disposal.
Use a vapor suppressing foam to reduce vapors. Stop leak when safe to do so.
See Exposure Controls/Personal Protection (Section 8).
Emergency action Keep unnecessary people away; isolate hazard area and deny entry. Stay upwind. (See
Exposure Controls/Personal Protection in Section 8.)
7.Handling and Storage
Handling Bond and ground lines and equipment (tank, transfer lines, pump, floats, etc.) used during
transfer to reduce the possibility of static spark-initiated fire or explosion. Use non-sparking tools.
Do not cut, grind, drill, weld or reuse containers unless adequate precautions are taken against
these hazards.
Do not eat, drink or smoke in areas of use or storage.
Storage Store in tightly closed containers in a cool, dry, isolated, well-ventilated area away from heat,
sources of ignition and incompatibles. Avoid contact with strong oxidizers.
Empty containers may contain material residue. Do not reuse without adequate precautions.
Hydrogen sulfide can build up in the head space of storage vessels containing this material. Use
appropriate respiratory protection to prevent exposure. See Exposure Controls/Personal
Protection (Section 8).
When entering a storage vessel that has previously contained this material, it is recommended
that the atmosphere be monitored for the presence of hydrogen sulfide. See Composition
Information (Section 2) for exposure limits.
Do not eat, drink or smoke in areas of use or storage.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
3 / 8
ACGIH
8 .Exposure Controls / Personal Protection
Occupational exposure limits
Components Type Value Form
AMMONIA (7664-41-7)35.0 ppm STEL
25.0 ppm TWA
BENZENE (71-43-2)2.5 ppm Skin STEL
0.5 ppm Skin TWA
ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75-08-1)0.5 ppm TWA
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783-06-4)5.0 ppm STEL
1.0 ppm TWA
METHYL MERCAPTAN (74-93-1)0.5 ppm TWA
U.S. - OSHA
Components Type Value Form
AMMONIA (7664-41-7)35.0 mg/m3 PEL
50.0 ppm
BENZENE (71-43-2)25.0 ppmSkin Ceiling
5.0 ppm Skin STEL
1.0 ppm Skin TWA
ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75-08-1)25.0 mg/m3 Ceiling
10.0 ppm
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783-06-4)20.0 ppm Ceiling
METHYL MERCAPTAN (74-93-1)10.0 ppm Ceiling
20.0 mg/m3
U.S. - Alaska (AKOSH)
Components Type Value
BENZENE (71-43-2)5.0 ppm STEL
1.0 ppm TWA
U.S. - Minnesota (MNOSHA)
Components Type Value
BENZENE (71-43-2)5.0 ppm STEL
1.0 ppm TWA
ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75-08-1)0.5 ppm TWA
1.0 mg/m3
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783-06-4)21.0 mg/m3 STEL
15.0 ppm
10.0 ppm TWA
14.0 mg/m3
METHYL MERCAPTAN (74-93-1)0.5 ppm TWA
1.0 mg/m3
Exposure guidelines NOTE: Only ingredients with validated exposure limits are shown in section 8.
US ACGIH Threshold Limit Values: Skin designation
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)Can be absorbed through the skin.
Engineering controls Ventilation and other forms of engineering controls are the preferred means for controlling
exposures.
Generally, this material is contained within vessels and piping designed to withstand expected
operating conditions. Certain operations, such as loading, unloading and on-line sampling,
generally involve higher risk of exposure, and special equipment is often designed for these
activities.
Personal protective equipment
Eye / face protection Keep away from eyes. Eye contact can be avoided by using chemical safety glasses, goggles
and/or face shield. Have eye washing facilities readily available where eye contact can occur.
Skin protection Avoid skin contact with this material. Use appropriate chemical protective gloves when handling.
Additional protective clothing may be necessary.
Good personal hygiene practices such as properly handling contaminated clothing, using wash
facilities before entering public areas and restricting eating, drinking and smoking to designated
areas are essential for preventing personal chemical contamination.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
4 / 8
Respiratory protection The use of air purifying respirators is not recommended where hydrogen sulfide levels may
exceed exposure limits. Use a positive pressure air supplied respirator if there is any potential for
an uncontrolled release, exposure levels are not known, or any other circumstances where air
purifying respirators may not provide adequate protection.
9 .Physical & Chemical Properties
Color Hazy
Odor Pungent
Odor threshold Not available
Form Not applicable
pH 6.5 - 9
Melting point 32 °F (0 °C)
Freezing point Not available
Boiling point 212 °F (100 °C)
Flash point Not available
Evaporation rate Not available
Flammability limits in air, upper,
% by volume
Not available
Flammability limits in air, lower,
% by volume
Not available
Vapor pressure 16 mmHg at 68 °F (20 °C)
Vapor density Not available
Specific gravity 1 at 60/60 °F (15.6/15.6 °C)
Relative density Not available
Solubility (water)Soluble
Partition coefficient
(n-octanol/water)
Not available
Auto-ignition temperature Not available
Decomposition temperature Not available
VOC Not available
Pour point Not available
Viscosity 0.7 SUS at 104 °F (40 °C)
Bulk density Not available
Density Not available
Surface tension Not available
Percent volatile 100 %
Molecular weight Not available
Molecular formula Not available
Chemical family Mixture
10.Chemical Stability & Reactivity Information
Chemical stability Stable
Conditions to avoid Avoid unventilated areas, heat, open flames, sparks and ungrounded electrical equipment.
Incompatible materials Avoid contact with strong oxidizing agents, strong reducing agents, metal, halogen containing
compounds and strong acids. See precautions under Handling & Storage (Section 7).
Hazardous decomposition
products
Not anticipated under normal conditions.
Possibility of hazardous
reactions
Will not occur.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
5 / 8
11.Toxicological Information
Carcinogenicity
ACGIH Carcinogens
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)A1 Confirmed human carcinogen.
IARC Monographs. Overall Evaluation of Carcinogenicity
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)1 Carcinogenic to humans.
US NTP Report on Carcinogens: Known carcinogen
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)Known carcinogen.
US OSHA Specifically Regulated Substances: Cancer hazard
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)Cancer hazard.
Pre-existing conditions
aggravated by exposure
Pre-existing medical conditions which may be aggravated by exposure include disorders of the
lungs and respiratory tract.
Toxicological data
BENZENE: Studies of Workers Overexposed to Benzene: Studies of workers exposed to
benzene show clear evidence that overexposure can cause cancer of the blood forming organs
(acute myelogenous leukemia) and aplastic anemia, an often fatal disease. Some studies
suggest overexposure to benzene may also be associated with other blood disorders including
myelodysplastic syndrome. Some studies of workers exposed to benzene have shown an
association with increased rates of chromosome aberrations in circulating lymphocytes. One
study of women workers exposed to benzene suggested a weak association with irregular
menstruation. However, other studies of workers exposed to benzene have not demonstrated
clear evidence of an effect on fertility or reproductive outcome in humans. Benzene can cross the
placenta and affect the developing fetus. Cases of aplastic anemia have been reported in the
offspring of persons severely overexposed to benzene. Studies in Laboratory Animals: Studies in
laboratory animals indicate that prolonged, repeated exposure to high levels of benzene vapor
can cause bone marrow suppression and cancer in multiple organ systems. Studies in laboratory
animals show evidence of adverse effects on male reproductive organs following high levels of
exposure but no significant effects on reproduction have been observed. Embryotoxicity has been
reported in studies of laboratory animals but effects were limited to reduced fetal weight and
skeletal variations. Benzene has been classified as a proven human carcinogen by OSHA and a
Group 1 (Carcinogenic to Humans) material by IARC.
HYDROGEN SULFIDE: Hydrogen sulfide gas has an unpleasant odor that diminishes with
increased exposure. Eye irritation may occur at levels above 4 ppm. Olfactory fatigue occurs
rapidly at levels of 50 ppm or higher. Odor is not a reliable warning property. Respiratory effects
include irritation with possible pulmonary edema at levels above 50 ppm. At 500 ppm immediate
loss of consciousness and death can occur.
NIOSH has determined that 100 ppm hydrogen sulfide is immediately dangerous to life and health
(IDLH).
Exposure to this material may cause adverse effects or damage to the following organs or organ
systems: eyes, skin, blood, bone marrow, central nervous system, lungs, and respiratory tract.
12.Ecological Information
Ecotoxicity Components of this material may be hazardous to aquatic life.
Persistence and degradability Not readily biodegradable.
Bioaccumulation /
Accumulation
Not likely to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.
Mobility in environmental
media
May partition into air, soil and water.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
6 / 8
13.Disposal Considerations
Disposal instructions This material, as supplied, when discarded or disposed of, is a hazardous waste according to
Federal Regulations due to the material exhibiting a hazardous characteristic under Subpart C of
40 CFR 261.
The transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of RCRA waste material must be conducted
in compliance with federal regulations. Check state and local regulations for any additional
requirements as these may be more restrictive than federal laws and regulations. Chemical
additions, processing or otherwise altering this material may make the waste management
information presented in this MSDS incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Disposal
of this material must be conducted in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations.
For additional handling information and protection of employees, see Section 7 (Handling and
Storage) and Section 8 (Exposure Controls/Personal Protection).
1 4.Transport Information
General The shipping classification must be evaluated at the time of shipment. Please consult 49 CFR
171 - 180 for specific shipping information.
15.Regulatory Information
US federal regulations All ingredients are on the TSCA inventory, or are not required to be listed on the TSCA inventory.
Consult OSHA's Benzene standard 29 CFR 1910.1028 for provisions on air monitoring, employee
training, medical monitoring, etc.
This material contains toxic chemical(s) in excess of the applicable de minimis concentration that
are subject to the annual toxic chemical release reporting requirements of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Section 313 (40 CFR 372). This information must
be included in all MSDSs that are copied and distributed for this material.
This material contains substances subject to accident prevention regulations when present above
the applicable threshold quantities (Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act).
This material contains up to 100% volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per 40 CFR Part 51.100.
This material contains up to 1% hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) per Section 112 Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990.
Check local, regional or state/provincial regulations for any additional requirements as these may
be more restrictive than federal laws and regulations. Failure to report may result in substantial
civil and criminal penalties.
US EPCRA (SARA Title III) Section 302 - Extremely Hazardous Substance: Threshold Planning Quantity
AMMONIA (CAS 7664-41-7)500 LBS
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (CAS 7783-06-4)500 LBS
METHYL MERCAPTAN (CAS 74-93-1)500 LBS
US EPCRA (SARA Title III) Section 304 - Extremely Hazardous Spill: Reportable quantity
AMMONIA (CAS 7664-41-7)100 LBS
HYDROGEN SULFIDE (CAS 7783-06-4)100 LBS
METHYL MERCAPTAN (CAS 74-93-1)100 LBS
US EPCRA (SARA Title III) Section 313 - Toxic Chemical: De minimis concentration
AMMONIA (CAS 7664-41-7)1.0 %
BENZENE (CAS 71-43-2)0.1 %
CERCLA (Superfund) reportable quantity
BENZENE: 10.0 pounds
HYDROGEN SULFIDE: 100.0 pounds
AMMONIA: 100.0 pounds
METHYL MERCAPTAN: 100.0 pounds
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
Hazard categories Immediate Hazard - Yes
Delayed Hazard - Yes
Fire Hazard - No
Pressure Hazard - No
Reactivity Hazard - No
State regulations WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer
and birth defects or other reproductive harm.
Material name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
7 / 8
16.Other Information
NFPA ratings Health: 3
Flammability: 1
Instability: 0
HMIS® ratings Health: 3*
Flammability: 1
Physical hazard: 0
*Indicates chronic health hazard
Disclaimer NOTICE: The information presented herein is based on data considered to be accurate as of the
date of preparation of this Material Safety Data Sheet. Adequate training and instruction should
be given by you to your employees and affected personnel. Appropriate warnings and safe
handling procedures should be provided by you to handlers and users. Additionally, the user
should review this information, satisfy itself as to its suitability and completeness, and pass on the
information to its employees or customers in accordance with the applicable federal, state,
provincial or local hazard communication requirements. This MSDS may not be used as a
commercial specification sheet of manufacturer or seller, and no warranty or representation,
expressed or implied, is made as to the accuracy or comprehensiveness of the foregoing data
and safety information, nor is any authorization given or implied to practice any patented invention
without a license. In addition, vendor neither assumes nor retains any responsibility for any
damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to appropriate practices,
or from any hazards inherent in the nature of the material. Moreover, unless an employee or a
customer accesses or receives a MSDS directly from the company, there is no assurance that a
document obtained from alternate sources is the most currently available MSDS.
Issue date 08-04-2011
This data sheet contains
changes from the previous
version in section(s):
This document has undergone significant changes and should be reviewed in its entirety.
Completed by Flint Hills Resources, LP - Operations EH&S
M aterial name: SOUR WATER
5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08-04-2011 Print date: 08-04-2011
MSDS US
8 / 8
Material Safety Data Sheet
Ammonium thiosulfate solution
MSDS Number 5500 (Revised: 6/3/04) 6 Pages
Section 1: CHEMICAL PRODUCT and COMPANY IDENTIFICATION
1.1 Product Name ....................................... THIO-SUL
Chemical Family .......................…........... Inorganic salt solution
Synonyms ...................…......................... Ammonium thiosulfate, ATS, 12-0-0-26S,
Thiosulfuric acid (H 2 S 2 O 3 ), diammonium salt
Formula ......................................….......... (NH 4 )2 S 2 O 3
1.2 Manufacturer ..............................….........Tessenderlo Kerley Inc.
2255 N. 44 th Street, Suite 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85008-3279
Information .......................................….... (602) 889-8300
1.3 Emergency Contact ..............………….. (800) 877-1737 (Tessenderlo Kerley)
(800) 424-9300 (CHEMTREC)
Section 2: COMPOSITION, INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
2.1 Chemical Ingredients (% by wt.)
Ammonium thiosulfate CAS #:7783-18-8 50 - 60%
Ammonium sulfate CAS #:7783-20-2 0 - 6%
Ammonium sulfite (s) CAS #: 10196-04-0 0.5 - 5%
Water CAS #:7732-18-5 29 - 49.5%
(See Section 8 for exposure guidelines)
Section 3: HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION
NFPA: Health - 1 Flammability - 0 Reactivity - 0
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Contact may cause eye irritation.
Repeated/prolonged skin contact may cause irritation.
Ingestion may irritate gastrointestinal tract.
Heating may cause ammonia gas to evolve.
Page 2.
Section 3: H AZARDS IDENTIFICATION Cont.
3.1 POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS
EYE: Contact with the eyes by product mist or solution may cause irritation or a burning sensation.
SKIN CONTACT: Prolonged or repeated contact with product mist or solution may cause sk in irritation.
SKIN ABSORPTION: Absorption is unlikely to occur.
INGESTION: Ingestion of product solution may cause irritation of the gastrointestinal tract to include nausea,
vomiting and diarrhea. Ammonium thiosulfate is considered to have a low to xicity to humans.
INHALATION: Inhalation of product mist may cause irritation of the nose, throat and respiratory tract.
CHRONIC EFFECTS/CARCINOGENICITY: Not listed as a carcinogen by NTP, IARC or OSHA.
Section 4: FIRST AID MEASURES
4.1 EYES: Imm ediately flush with large quantities of water for 15 minutes. Hold eyelids apart during irrigation
to insure thorough flushing of the entire area of the eye and lids. Obtain medical attention if irritation occurs.
4.2 SKIN: Immediately flush with large quantities of water. Remove contaminated clothing under a safety
shower. Obtain medical attention if irritation occurs.
4.3 INGESTION: If victim is conscious, give 2 to 4 glasses of water and induce vomiting by touching finger to
back of throat. Obt ain medical attention.
4.4 INHALATION: Remove victim from contaminated atmosphere. If breathing is labored, administer
oxygen. If breathing has ceased, clear airway and start mouth to mouth resuscitation. If heart has stopped
beating, external heart massage should be applied. Obtain medical attention.
Section 5: FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES
5.1 FLAMMABLE PROPERTIES
FLASH POINT: Not flammable METHOD USED: NA
5.2 FLAMMABLE LIMITS LFL : NA UFL : NA
5.3 EXTINGUISHING MEDIA: As appropriate for co mbustibles involved in fire.
5.4 FIRE & EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS: Heating to dryness may cause the release of ammonia, ammonium
sulfate, sulfur and oxides of sulfur. NH 3 (16 -25%) may form flammable mixtures with air.
Keep containers/storage vessels in fire a rea cooled with water spray. Heating may cause the release of
ammonia vapors.
5.5 FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT: As in any fire, wear self -contained breathing apparatus, pressure
demand, MSHA/NIOSH (approved or equivalent) and full protective gear.
Page 3
Section 6: ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES
6.1 Small releases: Confine and absorb small releases on sand earth or other inert absorbent. Use water
spray to dilute to weak fertilizer solution.
6.2 Large releases: Confine area to qualified personnel. Shut off release if safe to do so. Dike spill area to
prevent runoff into sewers, drains or surface waterways (potential aquatic toxicity). Recover as much of the
solution as possible. Treat remaining material as a small release (above).
Section 7: HANDLING and STORAGE
7.1 Handling: Avoid contact with eyes. Use only in a well ventilated area. Wash thoroughly after handling.
Avoid prolonged or repeated breathing of vapors. Avoid prolonged or repeated contact with the skin.
7.2 Storage: Store in well ventilated areas. Do not store combustibles in the area of storage vessels. Keep
away from any sources of heat or flame. Store tote and smaller containers out of direct sunlight at moderate
temperatures. (See Section 10.4 for materials of construction)
Section 8: EXPOSURE CONTROLS, PERSONAL PROTECTION
8.1 RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: None generally required. If conditions exist where mist may be
generated, a NIOSH/MSHA approved mist respirator should be worn.
8.2 SKIN PROTECTION: Neoprene rubber gloves and apron should be worn to prevent repeated or
prolonged contact with the liquid. Wash contaminated clothing prior to reuse.
8.3 EYE PROTECTION: Chemical goggles and a full face shield.
8.4 EXPOSURE GUIDELINES: OSHA ACGIH
TWA STEL TLV STEL
None NA NA NA NA
8.5 ENGINEERING CONTROLS: Use adequate exhaust ventilation to prevent inhalation of product vapors.
Section 9: PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL PROPERTIES
9.1 APPEARANCE: Colorless to yellow to tan liquid.
9.2 ODOR: May have a slight ammonia and/or organic odor.
9.3 BOILING POINT: 210 F(98.9 C) - 220 F (104.4 C)
9.4 VAPOR PRESSURE: 18 mm Hg @ 70 F (21.1 C)
9.5 VAPOR DENSITY: Not determined
9.6 SOLUBILITY IN WATER: Complete
9.7 SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 1.32 - 1.35 (11.0 - 11.2 lbs/gal)
9.8 FREEZING POINT: 30 F – 60°F (-1.1 C – 15.6°C) typical
9.9 pH: 6.5 - 8.5
9.10 VOLATILE: Not applicable
Page 4.
Section 10: STABILITY and REACTIVITY
10.1 STABILITY: This is a stable material
10.2 HAZARDOUS POLYMERIZATION: Will not occur
10.3 HAZARDOUS DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS: Heating this product will evolve ammonia. Heating to
dryness will cause the production of ammonia, ammonium sulfate, sulfur and oxides of sulfur. Ammonia (16-
25%) may form flammable mixtures with air.
10.4 INCOMPATIBILITY: Strong oxidizers such as nitrates, nitrites or chlorates can cause explosive
mixtures if heated to dryness. Acids will cause the release of sulfur dioxide, a severe respiratory hazard.
Alkalies will accelerate the evolution of ammonia. Ammonium thiosulfate solution is not compatible with
copper, zinc or their alloys (i.e. bronze, brass, galvanized metals, etc.). These materials of construction
should not be used in handling systems or storage containers for this product. (SEE Section 7.2, Storage)
Section 11: TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION
11.1 ORAL: Oral-Rat LD 50 : 1,950 - 2,890 mg/kg
Oral-Mouse LD 50 : 2,100 - - >3,000 mg/kg
11.2 DERMAL: Data not available. Skin Irritation/corrosion test on Rabbit & Rat: Non-Irritating
11.3 INHALATION: Inhalation-Rat LC 50 : > 2,260 mg/m 3 (4 hrs)
Inhalation-Mouse LC 50 : > 1,800 mg/m 3 (4 hrs)
11.4 CHRONIC/CARCINOGENICITY: No evidence available
11.5 TERATOLOGY: Data not available
11.6 REPRODUCTION: Data not available
11.7 MUTAGENICITY: Data not available
Additional product testing data is available from “TFI Product testing Program”, The Fertilizer Institute, April 2003 .
Section 12: ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Static acute 96 hour-LC 50 for bluegills is 1,000 mg/L.
Static acute 96 hour-LC 50 for rainbow trout is 770 mg/L.
Static acute 96 hour-LC 50 for sheepshead minnow is > 1,000 mg/L.
Static acute 96 hour-LC 50 for mysid shrimp is 77 mg/L.
Section 13: DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS
Ammonium thiosulfate is not considered a hazardous waste under Federal Hazardous Waste Regulations, 40
CFR 261. Consult state and local regulations for different or more restrictive disposal regulations.
Page 5
Section 14: TRANSPORT INFORMATION
14.1 DOT Shipping Name: Ammonium thiosulfate solution (See Regulatory Information, 15.7)
14.2 DOT Hazard Class: NA
14.3 UN/NA Number: NA
14.4 Packing Group: NA
14.5 DOT Placard: NA
14.6 DOT Label(s): NA
14.7 IMO Shipping Name: Ammonium thiosulfate solution
14.8 RQ (Reportable Quantity): NA
14.9 RR STCC Number: 28-191-73
Section 15: REGULATORY INFORMATION
15.1 OSHA: This product is listed as a hazardous material under criteria of the Federal
OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200.
15.2 SARA TITLE III: a. EHS (Extremely Hazardous Substance) List: No
b.Section 311/312, (Tier I,II) Categories: Immediate (acute)Yes
Fire No
Sudden release No
Reactivity No
Delayed (chronic) No
c. Section 313 (Toxic Release Reporting-Form R): Yes
Chemical Name CAS Number Concentration
Ammonia 7664-41-7 14.6%
d.TPQ (Threshold Planning Quantity):No
15.3 CERCLA/SUPERFUND: RQ (Reportable Quantity) No
15.4 TSCA (Toxic Substance Control Act) Inventory List: Yes
15.5 RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) Status: NA
15.6 WHMIS (Canada) Hazard Classification: NA
15.7 DOT Hazardous Material: (See Section 14) No
15.8 CAA Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP) No
Page 6
Section 16: OTHER INFORMATION
REVISIONS: The entire MSDS was reformatted to comply to ANSI Standard Z400.1-
1993, by Technical Services-Tessenderlo Kerley, Inc.
Address updated, 4/30/99
Section 8.3, Eye Protection revised and logo revised, 4/29/02
Section 2.1, ingredient adjusted, Section 11 toxicity data added, Section 14.1 clarified, and
Section 9 adjusted 6/15/04
THE INFORMATION PUBLISHED IN THIS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM OUR EXPERIENCE AND
OSHA, ANSI, NFPA, DOT, ERG, AND CHRIS. IT IS THE USER’S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THIS
INFORMATION FOR THE ADOPTION OF NECESSARY SAFETY PRECAUTIONS. WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REVISE
MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETS PERIODICALLY AS NEW INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.
Ap ril 24 , 201 4
Lis a Joyal
Environmental Review Coordinator
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul , MN 55 155
Re: F lint Hills Resources: Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
Dear Ms. Joyal :
Barr Engineering Company (Barr) is assisting Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCC (FHR) with the
environmental review (Environmental Assessment Worksheet ) for a group of proposed projects (Tier 3
Clean Fuels Projects) at the Pine Bend R efinery (r efinery) in Dakota County, Minnesota (Figure 1). Barr
requests your review of the proposed Project s for potential effects on rare natural resources.
FHR is proposing the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects , which involv e refinery investments to meet the
requirements of the proposed EPA Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard which targets improvements in ambient
air quality. In order to produce gasoline meeting the proposed Tier 3 standard, FHR must remove and
recover more sulfur from fuel blends, increasing hydrotreating (a process that removes sulfur). Thus, FHR
also proposes to install a unique process to convert recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a
salable aqueous liquid fertilizer, Ammonium Thiosulfate (ATS). A dditionally, FHR is proposing to improve
the refinery’s sour water skimming and storage and switch to a more efficient amine solution in the existing
amine units (for sulfur recovery).
The refinery is located in the Pine Bend Industrial District, an area of industrial development near the
junction of U.S. Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55 (Figure 1). Specific Project areas are identified on
Figure 2. Site preparation for construction will include some demolition within the existing refinery
complex, including demolition of the existing s kimmers, the existing sour water tanks, and a n existing
structure at the location of the proposed new ATS plant. The proposed Project s will include construction of
t hree new skimmers and sour water tanks southwest of the refinery process area , a new ATS Process Unit
and ATS day -tanks on the east side of the FHR facility , and process piping to interconnect these project
APPENDIX D
Ms. Lisa Joyal
April 24 , 201 4
Page 2
elements with existing infrastructure. Existing underground piping will transfer product to up to four ne w
ATS storage tanks constructed on FHR property east of Highway 52.
Barr has a license agreement (LA -674) with the MDNR for access to the Natural Heritage Information
System (NHIS) database, which was queried to determine if any sensitive ecological resou rces would be
affected by the proposed P roject s. T he following species have been documented within the vicinity of the
proposed Project area s : loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ; state -endangered), peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus ; state -special concern), bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ; state -special concern), and fox
snake (Elaphe vullpina ; formerly state -special concern but as of August 2013 , no longer state -listed).
Loggerhead shrike s have been documented in the farmlands a nd rural areas adjacent to the proposed
Project area s within the past four years. Because loggerhead shrike s generally prefer broad open areas such
as croplands, lawns and pastures, with adjacent perching sites of small trees and shrubs, this species is
un likely to occur within the developed Project area s . The NHIS database indicates a 2011 observation of the
presence of a pair of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus ; state -special concern) and a nest within the FHR
facility boundary. Impacts to peregrine falcon individuals or populations are not anticipated because the
proposed Project areas are not in the immediate vicinity of the documented nest within the FHR facility
boundary. Moreover, construction activities will not occur in the immediate vicinity of the site where the
nest was observed . Occurrences of the bull snake and fox snake have been reported to the east of the
proposed Project area s . Both reports, however, are more than 70 years old and no recent sightings have
been reported in the area. B ecause b oth snake species generally prefer wooded and open field river bluff
habitat , i t is not likely that either species will be present on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
Project area s due to highly industrialized land use .
According to the NHIS database, several rare species and rare ecological communities have been
documented within the East Rosemount MBS SBS, the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove Heights SBS, the
Mississippi River, and along the Mississippi River bluff area. All of these ecologically sensitive areas are
outside of the proposed Project area s and FHR facility boundary.
Due to the industrial nature of the proposed Project area s and the absence of suitable habitat for state -
listed species, it has been determined that the proposed Project s would not impact state -listed species or
their associated habitats . Your concurrence with this determination is requested.
Ms. Lisa Joyal
April 24 , 201 4
Page 3
If you have any que stions feel free to contact me by phone (952 -832 -2 694 ) or email (jbutler@barr.com ).
Sincerely,
J essica Butler
Ecologist
Barr Engineering Company
E nclosure s : Figure 1 – Site Location Map ; Figure 2 – Project Area Map
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
E
Notice of Availability of an
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) Cogeneration Project
Doc Type: Public Notice
Public Comment Information
EAW Public comment period begins: December 22, 1014
EAW Public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 2015
Notice published in the EQB Monitor: December 22, 2014
P ermit public comment period begins : December 23, 2014
Permit public comment period ends : 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 201 5
Facility Specific Information
Facility name and location : Facility contact :
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery
13775 Clark Road
Rosemount, MN 55068
NW ¼, SW ¼, Section 13, T115N, R19 W
Rosemount Township
Dakota County, MN
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
Greg Myers
Senior Air Permitting Engineer
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
P.O. Box 64596
St Paul, MN 55164 -0596
Phone: 651 -480 -2712
Fax: 651 -437 -0581
Email : Greg.Myers@fhr.com
MPCA Contact Information
MPCA EAW contact person : MPCA Permit contact person :
Kim Grosenheider
Resource Management and Assistance Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 -757 -2170
Fax: 651 -297 -2343
Email: kim.grosenheider@state.mn.us
Admin staff phone: 651 -757 -2100
Tarik Hanafy
Industrial Division
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651 -757 -2404
Fax: 651 -296 -8717
Email: Tarik.hanafy@state.mn.us
General Information
T he Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is distributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) for a 30 -day
review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The MPCA uses the EAW and any
comments received to evaluate the potential for significant environmental effects from the project and decide on the need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691 .
If you would like a copy of the EAW <or Permit> or have any questions on the EAW <or Permit>, contact the appropriate person(s)
listed above .
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651 -296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 •TTY 651 -282 -5332 or 800 -657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats
i-admin12 -08 • 10/2 /14 Page 1 of 2
p-ear2-64a
Description of Proposed Project
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCC proposes to construct a natural gas -based combined heat and power cogeneration facility,
generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from the grid and improve th e efficiency of steam
production at the refinery.
An air emissions permit was prepared and will be posted for public notice on December 22, 2014.
To S ubmit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit
Written c omments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to comment on the (insert type of) Permit , contact the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.
NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS
(1) A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made after the end of the comment period.
(2) If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the MPCA Commissioner (Commissioner) recommends
the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA C itizen s ’ Board (Board) will make the final decision.
(3) If a request for an EIS is not received , the final decision will be made by the Commissioner.
The Board meets once a month, usu ally the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board ag enda items. Information on the Board is available at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406 .
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651 -296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 • TTY 651 -282 -5332 or 800 -657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats
i -admin12 -0 8 • 10/2 /14 Page 2 of 2
Description of Proposed Project
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCC proposes to construct a natural gas -based combined heat and power cogeneration facility,
generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from the grid and improve th e efficiency of steam
production at the refinery.
An air emissions permit was prepared and will be posted for public notice on December 22, 2014.
To S ubmit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit
Written c omments on the EAW must be received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to comment on the (insert type of) Permit , contact the MPCA Permit contact person listed above.
NOTE: All comment letters are public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project.
Need for an EIS
(1) A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made after the end of the comment period.
(2) If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the MPCA Commissioner (Commissioner) recommends
the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA C itizen s ’ Board (Board) will make the final decision.
(3) If a request for an EIS is not received , the final decision will be made by the Commissioner.
The Board meets once a month, usu ally the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board ag enda items. Information on the Board is available at:
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406 .
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651 -296 -6300 • 800 -657 -3864 • TTY 651 -282 -5332 or 800 -657 -3864 • Available in alternative formats
i -admin12 -0 8 • 10/2 /14 Page 2 of 2
E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT W ORKSHEET
Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor . Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1.P roject T itle: Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project
2.P roposer: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend,3.RGU : Minnesota Pollution Control
LLC Agency
Contact person: Mr. Greg Myers Contact person: Kim Grosenheider
Title: Senior Air Permitting Engineer Title: Project Manager
Address: P.O. Box 64596 Address: 520 Lafayette Road North
City, State, ZIP: St Paul, MN 55164 -0596 City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194
Phone: 651 -480 -2712 Phone: 651 -757 -2170
Fax: 651 -437 -0581 Fax: 651 -297 -23 43
Email: Greg.Myers@fhr.com Email: kim.grosenheider@state.mn.us
4.R eason for EAW Preparation: (check one)
Required:Discretionary:
o EIS Scoping o Citizen Petition
x Mandatory EAW o RGU D iscretion
o Proposer I nitiated
T his EAW is being prepared because of the two following mandatory categories:
1.M inn . R. 4410.4300 , s ubp. 3 for construction of an electric power generating plant and
associated facilities designed for or capable of operating at a capacity of betwee n 25 megawatts
and 50 megawatts , the EQB shall be the RGU .
2.Minn . R. 4410.4300 , s ubp. 15(B) for construction of a stationary source facility that generates a
combined 100,000 tons or more per year of greenhouse gas emissions expressed as carbon
dioxide equivalents , the PCA shall be the RGU .
B ased on Minn. R. 4410.0500, subp. 5(B), and with concurrence of Environmental Quality Board (EQB )
staff, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA ) is the Regulated Governmental Unit (RGU ) as the
governmental unit with the greatest responsibility for supervising of approving the project as a whole.
F lint Hills Resources , with coordination from the Minnesota Department of Commerce and the MPCA,
received confirmation from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission that this project does not fall
under the Power Plant Siting Act for purposes of permitting or environmental review.
p-ear1 -04
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651 -282 -5332
Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
5. Project Location:
County: Dakota
City/Township: Rosemount
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range): NW ¼, SW ¼, 13, 115, 19
Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Mississippi River -Lake Pepin Watershed
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07040001
GPS Coordinates: UTM NAD83 Zone 15N: Easting: 497095.14581, Northing: 4955897.07966.
Tax Parcel Number: 34 —01300 -75 -010
A ttach ed to the EAW:
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Figure 2. Site Plan – Aerial Imagery
Figure 3. Site Plan – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 (a). Site Plan Aerial – 13.8 kV Distribution Option Project Details
Figure 4(a)(i). Site Plan Aerial – Close up of new internal distribution substation (13.8 kV option)
Fi gure 4(b). Site Plan Aerial – 115kV Ring Bus Transmission Option
Figure 4(c). Site Plan Aerial – 115kV External/Grid Transmission Option
Figure 5. CHP Cogeneration Project Process Flow Schematic
Figure 6 . Site Map – Land Use
Figure 7 . Site Map – Land Cover
Figure 8 . Site Map – Zoning
Figure 9 . City of Rosemount Zoning Map
Figure 10 . Site Map – Soils
Figure 11. Water Quality Management within Refinery Fenceline
Figure 12. Stormwater Runoff Map
Figure 13. Historic Waste Management Areas
Figure 14 . Site Map – Ecological Resources
Appendix A. Soil Map Unit Description
Appendix B. DNR NHIS Letter
Appendix C . SH PO L et ter
6. Project Description:
a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor , (approximately 50
words)
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCC , a refinery located in the c ity of Rosemount, Minnesota
proposes to construct a natural gas -based combined heat and power cogeneration facility,
generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electri city to reduce electricity purchases from the
grid and improve the efficiency of steam production at the refinery.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 2
b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including
infrastructure needs. If the project is an expans ion include a description of the existing facility.
Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical
manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing
equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing
structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities.
Refinery Overview
The Flint Hills Resources (FHR) Pine Bend refinery is located at the intersection of Minnesota
State Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 in the c ity of Rosemount, Dakota County, Minnesota
(Figure 1). Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the current refinery and the location of the proposed
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project. Figure 3 is a United States G e ological
Survey (USGS) map showing the location of the refinery and proposed project.
The refinery primarily processes heavy, sour crude oil, and has the capability to process a variety
of different crude oil types. Pipelines currently deliver all of the crude oil to the refinery, where
FHR processes it to produce a wide variety of products. These products include gasoline, diesel
fuel, heating oil, jet fuel, petroleum coke, asphalt, and elemental sulfur. FHR distributes these
products to customers in Minn esota and nationwide via pipelines, trucks, barges, and rail cars.
The refinery has a n atmospheric crude oil distillation capacity of 339,000 barrels per stream
day 1 .
Proposed Project
Currently, the refinery’s electrical load is supplied from the grid and purchased from the local
utility. FHR wishes to implement s elf -generation of electricity via a natural gas –based combined -
cycle combustion turbine to produce both heat and power at th e FHR refinery site a s a more
efficient and cost effective means of supplying electricity to meet the refinery’s needs.
Therefore, FHR is proposing a CHP Cogeneration Project generating up to 49.9 megawatts (MW)
of electricity to displace electricity purch ases from the grid and up to 290,000 pounds per hour
(lb/hr) of steam, depending on the operating configuration, to displace a portion of the steam
production at the refinery’s existing boilers.
The efficiency and environmental benefits of CHP and distri buted generation are significant.
Cogenerating electricity and steam is more efficient than producing them separately 2 . Figure 4
shows project features discussed in detail below. A schematic overview of the process flows for
the project is shown on Figure 5.
1 Crude -oil distillation capacity is reported annually to the United States Energy Information Administration. Reported
information can be viewed at http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/.
2 The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that CHP reduces the emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) and other polluta nts by 40% or more (EPA, 2013. “Combined Heat and Power: Frequently Asked
Questions.” Available at: http://www.epa.gov/chp/documents/faq.pdf ). On -site electricity generation avoids losses
associated with transmission and distribution, and EPA specifically recognizes this benefit for compliance purposes,
providing a 5% credit for electricity output from onsite generation facilities in its proposed New Source Performance
Standard for carbon emissions fr om new power plants (EPA, 2013. “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.” See Section III.B.1.b.3.).
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 3
The cogeneration plant will utilize a 42.9 MW capacity General Electric LM6000 -PF gas turbine
that will exhaust to a single -pressure heat -recovery steam generator (HRSG). The HRSG will
produce steam at 900 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) and 750 d egrees Fahrenheit.
Depending on power and refinery steam demands and limits, the produced steam will either be
regulated to 25 0 psig and exported to the refinery, or directed to a steam turbine capable of
c onverting the energy in the steam into up to 12 MW of electricity 3 . The combination of
electricity generation from both a combustion turbine and an integrated HRSG and steam
turbine is known as combined -cycle generation.
The new cogeneration plant will be located within the FHR facility boundary, but south of the
existing refinery process units, as shown on Figure 2. Steam export will occur via a new 16 -inch
steam/condensate pipeline supported aboveground on supports that will run north from the
CHP cogeneration facility to interconnect with the exist ing refinery pipe rack. The gas turbine
and steam turbine will generate electrical power at 13.8 kilovolts (kV). The facility is proposing
three alternatives for distributing the power to the refinery, pendi ng final engineering and
design:
1. Alternative one would route the net power produced into the refinery’s 13.8 kV distribution
system via multiple armored cable conductors in a concrete encased underground duct bank
and/or an above ground cable tray that will run north from the CHP cogeneration facility
a nd connect into the refinery’s existing 13.8 kV electric distribution system or at an internal
distribution substation, not ed as the “25 Unit Super -Sub”. The location of the substation is
shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(a)(i).
2. Alternative two would step up the power from 13.8 k V to 115 k V using two Generator Step -
Up (GSU) transformers, one each for the combustion turbine generator (CTG) and the steam
turbine generator (STG). The GSU’s would be located in a transformer yard lying just to the
north east of the turbine building. The CTG transformer would be a 75 Megavolt -Amperes
(MVA) class transformer and would contain approximately 7,500 gallons of dielectric fluid.
The STG Transformer would be a 20 MVA class transformer and will contain approximately
3,5 00 gallons of dielectric fluid. These volumes are estimates based on preliminary design
considerations and may change slightly once f inal engineering is completed. From this
transformer yard, the power would be routed through eith er an armored below ground duct
bank, above ground cable trays, or overhead power lines to the main substation where it
would be tied into a ring bus and flow through the existing high voltage system. Depending
on final engineering and design, additional t ransformers may be needed in the substati on or
another nearby location. The excavation required for these transformers, if necessary, will
be small and within the refinery footprint. The transformer yard would also contain up to
two station power transform ers u sed to step power down from 115k V to power the CHP
facility when the generators are off. These smaller transformers will be 2.5 MVA and contain
approximately 1 ,000 gallons of dielectric fluid each.
3 The system will be designed with an integrated control system, which will a utomatically adjust power generation on a
short term basis (currently assumed to be one hour or less), to limit net output to 49.9 MW over a 4 -hour block average.
The steam turbine is sized such that during the summer when the combustion turbine cannot rea ch 42.9 MW, the steam
turbine can be used to generate a larger portion of the difference. This ability is part of a CHP’s overall inherent flexibil ity
and efficiency advantage over utility scale generators and on -purpose steam production.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 4
3. Alternative three also would use the same GSU confi guration and design, but instead would
tie the power feed from the GSU transfo rmer yard to Xcel Energy’s 115 k V Johnny Cake
Transmission Line located directly to the east of the facility.
The combustion turbine will be fueled by natural gas. The natural gas fuel supply will be
delivered by the Northern Natural Gas interstate pipeline system to a deliver y point located at
the refinery . The delivery pressure is expected to vary between 700 to 800 psig, depending on
pipeline conditions. Piping will transpor t the natural gas from the delivery point to the CHP
cogeneration facility. The gas turbine w ill be equipped with dry low nitrogen oxides (NO x )
combustors. The natural gas turbine exhaust will be sent directly to the HRSG. No exhaust
bypass stack will be u sed, so the turbine will not be capable of running separate ly from the
HRSG.
The HRSG will have natural gas fired duct burner(s) for supplementary heat input and will also
contain an oxidation catalyst for reduction of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile o rganic
compounds (VOCs), and an aqueous ammonia -based selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system
for nitrogen oxides (NO X ) reduction.
Aqueous ammonia (19 percent) for the SCR system will be delivered to the CHP cogeneration
facility site and stored on -si te in an ammonia storage tank. The ammonia tank will be
approximately 10 feet in diameter by 20 feet long, with a 12,000 gallon capacity. The tank will
have 110 percent containment with a material impervious to the aqueous ammonia solution,
consistent with the facility’s aboveground storage tank (AST) permit and spill prevention,
control, and countermeasures (SPCC) plan.
The project will not have any associated emergency or auxiliary engines as it is not designed
with the ability to start up after a power outage without a feed from the transmission grid, also
known as “black start” capability.
Deminera l ized makeup water for the plant will be supplied by the existing refinery water -
treatment system and stored at the plant in an existing demineralized -water storage tank.
Condensate will be recycled via a new feedwater line and stored in a new 20,000 -gallon
condensate storage tank at the CHP cogeneration facility site. Blowdown will be sent to the
refinery Cooling Tower #7 basin, with a backup holding tank fo r trucking water to the refinery’s
wastewater treatment facility. Blowdown is the removal of water from a boiler to control boiler
water parameters within prescribed limits in order to minimize scale, corrosion, carryover, and
other specific problems. Blow down is also used to remove suspended solids present in the
system. These solids are caused by feedwater contamination, by internal chemical treatment
precipitates, or by exceeding the solubility limits of otherwise soluble salts. In effect, boiler
blowdow n removes some of the boiler water and is replaced with clean feedwater.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 5
The proposed CHP cogeneration facil ity will be constructed on a 1.5 -acre plot (approximately
400 feet by 140 feet) on the southeast side of the refinery. The facility will be located in the
secured boundary of the current refinery footprint and south of the main refinery process area.
The main entrance to the proposed project will be from the east. The existing entrance along
Clark Road will be improved in order to upgrade vehicle acc ess to the proposed project area (the
turbine building as well as laydown areas). The total disturbed area including proposed roads,
grading, drainages, and other improvements to the site could be as large as ten acres when
temporary laydown and stockpile areas are considered. Grading and excavation/import of fill
will be required for turbine site preparation. A generation building that will house the
combus tion turbine, HRSG , and steam turbine will be constructed on the site. The new ammonia
tank, loading area, and condensate tank will be constructed immediately north of the
generation building and the air cooled condenser will be constructed to the east of the
generation building. Grading and excavation or import of fill will also be required for the
const ruction of an access road to enter the site from the east off of the existing main refinery
access road (Clark Road), and for an access road to the west of the turbine site to connect to the
location of the natural gas manifold. Trenching will be required for construction of any new
underground electrical lines and for gas lines. Typical construction equipment (e.g., backhoes,
compactors, compressors, concrete mixers, dozers, front loaders, generato rs, graders
excavators , rollers, scrapers) and equipment ca rrying materials and personnel will be used
during construction.
There are no existing structures within the proposed project footprint, therefore demolition or
removal of existing structures is not anticipated. The existing refinery boilers will continu e to
operate and no physical alterations to the existing boiler system will be necessary.
If the 13.8 kV Alternative 1 is used for the transmission/distribution of the electrical power, a
new substation would be constructed next to the existing “25 Unit Super -Sub” located in t he
main refinery process area. This would result in an excavatio n of approximately 50’ by 50’. The
location is den oted in Figures 2 and 4(a)(i). As shown in Figure 4(a)(i), this location is currently in
the middle of a heavy industri al process unit of the Refinery. The footprint currently contains
multiple under ground conduits and utilities. The new distribution substation would be built on
support columns ov er the top of these utilities. Alternatively, the power may be routed to the
13.8 ring bus distribution system located adjacent to the main substation.
If Alternatives 2 or 3 are selected, the GSU excavation would add approximate ly one acre to the
CHP site immediately to the north east of the CHP bui lding (Figures 4(b) and 4(c )). As with the
CHP building, the GSU transformer yard would be located on ground that has been disturbed by
historical gravel supply operations, but is currently vacant. As discussed above, pending final
engineering and design, the project may require add itional transformers at an as yet to be
identified location, but any disturbed area will be small and within the existing refinery
footprint.
Construction of the project is anticipated to begin as early as March of 2015 , depending on the
alternatives s elected . FHR anticipates an in service date of fourth quarter 2016 , again,
depending on the alternatives selected .
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 6
Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
The MPCA has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW ) for the Tier 3 Clean
Fuels Project, currently on public notice. An air permit for the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Project will be
placed on public notice on Dec. 22 nd . The Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects involve refinery investments
to meet the requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA ) Tier 3 gasoline
sulfur standard, which targets improvements in ambient air quality. In order to produce gasoline
meeting the Tier 3 standard, FHR must remove and recover more sulfur from fuel blends,
increasing hydrotreating (a proc ess that removes sulfur). FHR a lso proposes to install a process
to convert recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a salable aqueous liquid fertilizer,
ammonium thiosulfate. Additionally, FHR is proposing to improve the refinery’s sour -water
skimming and storage and switch to a more efficient amine solution in the existing ami ne units
(for sulfur recovery).
c. Project magnitude:
Project magnitude estimates below are based on the footprint of each of the project elements
identified on Figure 4. This reflects current preliminary project design.
Total Project Acreage Approximately 9 acres plus up to 2 additional acre,
depending on the Transmission/Distribution
Alternative selected
Linear project length 9,007 feet
Number and type of residential units 0
Commercial building area (in square feet) 0
Industrial building area (in square feet) 19,441 square feet
Institutional building area (in square feet) 0
Other uses – specify (in square feet) 0
Structure heights Exhaust stack height = 170 feet
Generation building is two tiers:
Lower tier = 50 feet,
Highest tier = 85 feet
d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain
the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries.
The project seeks to invest in the benefits (efficiency, cost, and emissions profile) of new natural
gas -based, CHP systems and distributed generation.
e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned
or likely to happen? Yes x No
If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for
environmental review.
f. Is this proj ect a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes x No
If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 7
7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before
and afte r development:
Cover type estimates below are based on footprint of each of t he project elements identified i n
Figure 4. This reflects current preliminary project design. Units are in acres.
Before After Before After
Wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 0
Deep
water/streams
0 0 Impervious surface 1 .29 1.91
Wooded/forest 0 0 Stormwater Pond 0 0
Brush/Grassland 0.05 0 Other: Sand/gravel pits with 26 -
50% impervious surface
Up to
2.57 0
Cropland
0 0 Other: Aggregate lined
transformer yard ~50%
impervious surfaces
0 Up to
2 .00
TOTAL: 3 .91 3 .91
8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals,
certifications and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing
permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial
assistanc e including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these
final decisions are prohibited until all appropriate environmental review has been completed.
See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100.
Unit of Government Type of Application Status
MPCA Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) Air Emissions Permit
Major permi t modification
application submitted
MPCA National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial
Stormwater Multi -Sector General
Permit
In e ffect
MPCA Construction Stormwater NPDES Permit Application to be submitted
MPCA NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit In effect (undergoing a
reissuance unrelated to this
project)
Rosemount Fire Marshal Plan Review and Approval Application to be submitted
City of Rosemount Building Permit To be obtained when required
City of Rosemount Excavation and Grading Permit To be obtained when required
Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission (MPUC)*
Route Permit Application to be submitted if the
electrica l power is transmitted
using alternative 2 or 3.
Midcontinent
Independent System
Operator (MISO)*
Transmission Study Two part application, part one to
be submitted in mid -November.
*Only required if transmission alternatives 2 or 3 are selected.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 8
9. Land use:
a. Describe:
i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks,
trails, prime or unique farmlands.
The FHR refinery is located in the Pine Bend I ndustrial D istrict, an area of industrial
development in the c ity of Rosemount near the junction of Minnesota Highway 55 and U .S .
Highway 52 . The I ndustrial D istrict was formed in 1954 when the Chicago and Northwestern
Railroad purchased approximately 6,000 acres in the Pine Bend area. The FHR refinery was
the first industrial facility developed in the district, and industrial development has
continued over the last five decades. At this time , there are more than 30 companies
conducting industrial activities located within a 5 -mile radius of the junction of U.S. Highway
52 and Minnesota Highway 55. Figures 6 and 7 show current land use and land cover in the
refinery area. There are no parks, trails, or prime or unique farmlands immediately adjacent
to the project site. The Mississippi River is located approxi mately one mile east of the east
boundary of the FHR refinery. This stretch of the Mississippi River is part of the Mississippi
National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA). Recently, the Mississippi River Regional Trail
(MRRT), a paved bike trail that will eventually connect Hastings and South St. Paul, has been
extended through the Pine Bend Bluffs Scientific and Natural Area (SNA). This Pine Bend
Bluffs segment of the MRRT is located northeast of the refinery along the west side of the
Mississippi River.
The refinery is located approximately eight miles nor thwest of the c ity of Hastings
(population 22,17 2), six miles northeast of the c ity of Rosemount (population 21,98 0), and
six miles south of the c ity of Inver Grove Heights (population 34,008). Other nea rby cities
includ es Eagan to the northwest (7 miles), Apple Valley to the west (8 miles), and St. Paul to
the north (13 miles).
In addition to the nearby population centers, there are three small residential subdivisions
located near the existing refinery site. One of these subdivisions, owned by FHR for
employee use, is located two miles southwest of the refinery. The other subdivisions in
proximity to the project are located one mile to the northwest and one mile due north of
the refinery. As shown in Fi gure 6, the proposed CHP cogeneration facility and associated
electric line and piping will be located entirely within areas currently in industrial and utility
use with approximately 1/3 of a mile buffer between the proposed project and the nearest
reside nce, located southeast of the CHP cogeneration facility location (Figure 8).
ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and
any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local,
region al, state, or federal agency.
The refinery is locat ed within the c ity of Rosemount, which has adopted a comprehensive
plan. The plan includes the refinery and recognizes it to be part of the 6,000 -acre I ndustrial
D istrict.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 9
A portion of FHR’s property extends east of the refinery complex. This allows for pipeline
transfer of materials from the refinery to the Mississippi River, along with loading and
unloading of material at the river. This stretch of the Mississippi River is part of the MNRRA ,
and FHR’s planned land uses overlap with MNRRA land use plans along the river corridor.
MNRRA’s land use plan includes a requirement that “developments and programs” be
“sensitive to the limitations of natural resources.” Any refinery projects in this area must be
consistent with this MNRRA requirement; however, none of the elements of the proposed
project are located within the MNNRA.
iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic
rivers , critical area, agricultural preserves, etc.
The proposed project will lie within the boundaries of the existing refinery complex in an
area zoned as h eavy i ndustrial. Figures 8 and 9 show the land use zoning of the refinery and
nearby properties.
The areas adjacent to the refinery complex to the south and west are zoned as agricultural
land and have been in agricultural use throughout the development of the Pine Bend
Industrial District.
The project is not located within any water -related land us e management districts, including
shore land zoning districts, delineated 100 -year flood plain, or state or federally designated
wild or scenic river land use districts.
b. Discuss the project’s compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed i n Item 9a
above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects.
The projec t is compatible with the c ity of Rosemount’s current comprehensive plan, which
recognizes the refinery as a part of the 6,000 -acre Industrial District. The proposed project is
consistent with the c ity of Rosemount’s rules and regulations for areas zoned for heavy and
general industrial uses.
As described above, t he project is not located within or immediately adjacent to the MNRRA and
therefore, is not expected to c onflict with the MNRRA’s land use plan.
c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential
incompatibility as discussed in Item 9b above .
Based on a review of existing land use, zoning, and planning information available f or the
project area, the proposed project is not expected to conflict with adjacent and nearby land
uses.
10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms:
a. Geology - Describe the geology underlying the project area and identify and map any
susceptible geologic features such as sinkholes, shallow limestone formations,
unconfined/shallow aquifers, or karst conditions. Discuss any limitations of these features f or
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 10
the project and any effects the project could have on these features. Identify any project
designs or mitigation measures to address effects to geologic features.
Based on the Dakota County Geologic Atlas published by the Minnesota Geological Survey,
s urficial geology in Dakota County includes modern deposits a few feet thick along streams,
rivers, wetlands, and lakes as well as glacial deposits that are tens to hundreds of thousands of
years old and a few tens of feet to several hundred feet thick. Bed rock in Dakota County
includes Paleozoic sedimentary bedrock that is 450 to 520 million years old and 200 to 800 feet
thick as well as Precambrian bedrock, more than one billion years old. The sedimentary bedrock
in the Twin Cities area forms a shallow bas in, and the bedrock in the project area dips gently to
the north toward this basin.
Surficial geology at the project site consists of glacial deposits that are 50 to 100 feet thick and
composed of gravel and sand outwash from the Superior lobe. While the surficial deposits of
gravel and sand in the project area have high permeability, there is no shallow aquifer. The
water table is in the bedrock, likely due to the high permeability of the glacial deposits and the
bedrock, and the proximity of the Mississ ippi River, which is the regional discharge.
The uppermost bedrock underlying the project site is the Prairie du Chien Group, made up of
dolostone, sandstone, and variations of those two. While the uppermost bedrock includes a
carbonate component, this co mponent is dolomitic which tends to be less soluble than
limestone. No sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions are present in the
vicinity of the project based on mapping by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) 4 . There are no mapped faults at or adjacent to the site.
b. Soils and topography - Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications and
descriptions, including limitations of soils. Describe topography , any special site conditions
relating to erosion potential, soil stability or other soils limitations, such as steep slopes,
highly permeable soils. Provide estimated volume and acreage of soil excavation and/or
grading. Discuss impacts from project activ ities (distinguish between construction and
operational activities) related to soils and topography. Identify measures during and after
project construction to address soil limitations including stabilization, soil corrections or other
measures. Erosion/sedimentation control related to stormwater runoff should be addressed
in response to Item 11.b.ii.
The industrialized part of the site is classified as urban land. Soils present on the refinery
property are primarily sands and loams. No peat soils are pr esent, but one small area contains
ponded aquolls and histols. The soil types within the FHR Pine Bend boundary are: Hubbard
loamy sand, Wadena loam, Estherville sandy loam, Plainfield loamy sand, Mahtomedi loamy
sand, Waukegan silt loam, Urban land -Waukeg an complex, Urban land, Gravel pit, Zumbro
loamy fine sand, Chetek sandy loam, Hawick coarse sandy loam, and smaller areas of Antigo silt
loam, Colo silt loam, Lindstrom silt loam, Kennebec silt loam, and Cylinder loam. All of the
4 Minnesota Depar tment of Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Deli at
http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/metadata/lfrm_karstpt3.html . Accessed 6/19/2009.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 11
upland soils are conside red well to excessively drained with moderate to very rapid
permeability. Soil types in the project area are shown on Figure 10. Full descriptions of the soil
units shown on Figure 10 are provided in Appendix A Soil Map Unit Description.
Soil in the vicin ity of the proposed CHP cogeneration facility is classifie d by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS ) as “Pits, Gravel.” This NRCS category applies to areas
that have been mined for gravel or sand and the classification indicates the area is act ively being
mined or was formerly mined. Because of the variability of this component in this map unit,
NRCS does not provide interpretation for specific uses.
Potential impacts to erosion and sedimentation considered in this EAW are associated with
project construction and stormwater management. Operation of the project is not expected to
cause erosion or sedimentation and no control measures are anticipated to be necessary.
The CHP cogeneration facility site slopes at an approximate 4.6 percent grade, with stormwater
currently draining to an existing water detention area formerly used for extraction of fill
material on the south side of the proposed plant site . The stormwater management plan for the
plant is discussed in detail under item 11.b.ii. During site preparation and construction, control
measures will be used to manage erosion and sedimentation. Construction activities at the
project site will require disturbance of approximately nine acres of land. Based on a preliminary
site layout, it is anticipated that an elevation of 878 feet above Mean Sea Level (+/- 5 feet) could
be used as a top of concrete elevation for the turbine site. At 878 feet, the earthwork quantities
will be approximately 11,000 cubic yards of excavation and 11,000 cubic yards of fill. Proposed
plant elevation and earthwork quantities can be determined more accurately after an updated
boundary and topographic survey and an updated geotechnical investigation and report have
been procured.
Since construction of the proposed project will disturb more than one acre of land, FHR will
appl y for a construction stormwater permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS ) permit) from the MPCA. The permit will require FHR
to develop a stormwater pollution -prevention plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPP P will
include best management practices (BMPs) for site erosion and sediment control.
It is anticipated that the existing water detention area may be used as a temporary d etention
area during construction. Localized BMPs such as silt fences, area inlet p rotection, concrete
washout areas, and construction entrances will also be utilized. The SWPPP and design drawings
will also include a requirement for the contractor to stabilize areas quickly after being disturbed.
All excavated materials will be used in project -related or subsequent construction at the
refinery.
11. Water resources:
a. Describe surface water and g roundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii., below.
i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/j udicial
ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, trout stream/lake, wildlife
lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water.
Include water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 12
303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public
Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Figure 11 shows hydrologic features in the vicinity of the refinery. The location of the
proposed project components does not coincide with any National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
wetlands or Public Waters Inventory watercourses. As noted above, a portion of FHR’s
property extends to the east allowing for pipeline transfer of materials to the Mississippi
River. However, none of the components of the proposed project will impact this area.
The existing water detention area on the south side of the proposed pr oject is currently
used as an outlet for the South Warehouse Building stormwater -pond overflow in a 100 -
year event. Based on a historical aerial photograph survey, this site was not historically a
wetland, but rather was formed from the excavation of mater ial such as sand or gravel that
was sold by a previous owner for use as fill.
There are no water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA
303d Impaired Waters List that are within one mile of the project.
ii. Groundwater – aquifers, springs, seeps. Include : 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is
within a MD H wellhead protection area; 3) identification of any onsite and/or nearby
wells , including unique numbers and well logs if available. If there are no wells known on
s ite or nearby, explain the methodology used to determine this.
The depth to groundwater in the vicinity of the project is estimated to be 150 feet on
average, with a measured minimum depth of 70 feet based on soil borings in the project
area.
County Wel l Index (CWI) well locations within the FHR facility boundary are summarized
below and shown i n Figure 11.
Location UTM NAD83 Zone 15N Meters
Unique ID Well Name Easting Northing Source
00752110 FLINT HILLS RESOURCES NO. 10 497043.953 4956248.84 CWI
00594998 TK505 -BW3A 496787.094 4957175.554 CWI
00509068 KOCH REFINING RW -4 497194 4957407 CWI
00612663 W -35 497175.934 4957394.214 CWI
00208391 GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 5 496464 4957233 CWI
00208393 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.2 496670 4956984 CWI
00612014 TK88/EW -2 496130.167 4957560.901 CWI
00509070 KOCH REFINING RW -6 497197 4957430 CWI
00509066 KOCH REFINING RW -3 497194 4957382 CWI
00509063 KOCH REFINING RW -1 497196 4957338 CWI
00612003 BDP/EVW -3 497142.731 4957618.61 CWI
00666490 FLINT HILLS REFINERY 497115.411 4957471.605 CWI
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 13
Location UTM NAD83 Zone 15N Meters
Unique ID Well Name Easting Northing Source
00208394 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.4 496852 4957116 CWI
00554202 PR12 -1 496865.556 4957435.668 CWI
00509065 KOCH REFINING RW -2 497197 4957360 CWI
00612015 MP -1 496850.496 4957302.932 CWI
00208392 GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.1 496835 4956993 CWI
00612004 PW -1 495891.049 4957485.495 CWI
00617783 497179.903 4957120.369 CWI
00509071 KOCH REFINING RW -5 497199 4957450 CWI
00612010 PW -2 496735.402 4957296.979 CWI
00213584 KOCH REFINING NO.7 496813 4956961 CWI
00208390 GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 3 496499 4957344 CWI
00643923 MW -50 497115.411 4957191.807 CWI
00612729 MW -1 496221.448 4957672.027 CWI
00161421 KOCH REFINING NO.8 497042.875 4956230.75 CWI
00612008 MP -1 495953.557 4957459.698 CWI
00272261 W -6 496345.9651 4956276.649 CWI
None of the elements of the proposed project are located within a Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) wellhead protection area.
b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1) If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the abilit y of the facility to handle the added water and
waste loadings, including any effects on, or required expansion of, municipal
wastewater infrastructure.
Sanitary wastewater is generated by F HR’s employees and sent to the c ity of
Rosemount’s publicly owne d treatment works (POTW). The project will result in minimal
additional sanitary wastewater from the approximately 8 to 10 additional employees
that will be needed for operation of the CHP facility. This very small amount of
additional sanitary wastewater will not have a significant effect on the Rosemount
POTW.
2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS),
describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a
system.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 14
Wastewater generated from the CHP Cogeneration Project will not be discharged to a
subsurface sewage treatment system.
3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment
methods and identify discharge points and proposed ef fluent limitations to mitigate
impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges.
Industrial wastewater is generated by a number of industrial processes at the refinery.
The refinery operates a wastewater treatment facility to treat its industrial waste as well
as onsite stormwater and recovered groundwater from an onsite remediation system.
Treated effluent from the facility is either discharged into the Mississippi River or reused
in the refinery’s firewater and boiler fee d water makeup systems.
The refinery’s wastewater facility treats an average of 4 million gallons per day (MGD) of
wastewater and has a calculated design maximum flow rate of 5.2 MGD. The facility is
subject to operating requirements and effluent limits specified in its NPDES/SDS permit,
no. MN0000418.
Under normal operations, the project will not r esult in increased process wastewater flows
to the refinery’s wastewater treatment facility. As discussed in Item 6 , blowdown,
approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm), will be pumped to a refinery cooling tower basin.
T he project will have a blowdown holding tank for use during cooling -tower malfunction
or when the cooling tower is undergoing a maintenance turnaround. The blowdown
would be trucked to the facility’s wastewater treatment plant and then treated. The
tank’s capacity of 20,000 gallons represents 0.5 percent of the daily average flow to the
treatment plant and less than 0.4 percent of the plant’s capacity. It is anticipated that
t he holding tank would be used on very rare occasions (once every few years).
ii. Stormwater - Describe the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff at the site prior to
and post construction. Include the routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the
site (major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters). Discuss
any environmental effects from stormwater discharges. Describe stormwater pollution
pre vention plans including temporary and permanent runoff controls and potential BMP
site locations to manage or treat stormwater runoff. Identify specific erosion control,
sedimentation control or stabilization measures to address soil limitations during and
after project construction.
The proposed CHP cogeneration facility will be located within the refinery’s exi sting
stormwater watershed. Run off from the refinery’s stormwater watershed is managed
according to the requirements of FHR’s SWPPP and FHR’s NPDES/SDS permit, No.
MN0000418. See Figure 12 for a map of stormwater flow at the facility.
Stormwater runoff from the refinery process area s is collected by FHR’s stormwater ponds.
Any water collected in FHR’s existing stormwater ponds is treated in FHR’s wastewater
treatment facility. The treated water is then discharged to the Mississippi River near FHR’s
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 15
barge dock facilities (see Figure 11) or reused. However, stormwater from the proposed
project will be generated in the vicinity of the new turbine site and will not tie into the
existing storm sewer at the refinery site. The project site currently drains from north to
south with stormwa ter collected in an existing water detention area on the south side of the
project site. Stormwater collected in this area infiltrates to the surficial aquifer or evaporates.
The industrial stormwater management plan for the plant will include diversion swales to
direct upstream area runoff around the CHP cogeneration facility. Reinforced concrete pipes
will be designed to pass the 1 in 100 year rainfall event without flooding project roads. Area
inlets may be utilized within the plant island to collect s tormwater. This runoff will travel
generally south through reinforced concrete pipe to the existing water detention area.
Industrial stormwater from the project is not expected to cause a net change in the quantity
or quality of infiltrating runoff to the detention area. Because of this, a separate or new
stormwater -retention pond to control stormwater quantity or quality is not anticipated to
be necessary. However, during detailed design an improved pond may be necessary in order
to meet or exceed permitti ng requirements.
During construction, localized BMPs such as silt fences, area inlet protection, concrete wash
out areas, and construction entrances will be utilized. The SWPPP and design drawings will
include a requirement for the contractor to stabiliz e areas quickly after being disturbed. All
excavated materials will be used in project -related or subsequent construction at the
refinery. During construction it is anticipated that the existing water detention area may be
used as an infiltration basin. T he construction stormwater general permit indicates that
projects that create new impervious area that exceeds one acre must be designed so as to
treat “the water quality volume of one inch [of rainfall]” (Section III.D of MPCA NPDES/SDS
Construction Storm water General Permit). It is anticipated that the existing water detention
area will meet this requirement.
iii. Water appropriation - Describe if the project proposes to appropriate surface or
groundwater (including dewatering). Describe the source, quantity, duration, use and
purpose of the water use and if a DNR water appropriation permit is required. Describe
any well abandonment. If connecting to an existing municipal water supply, identify the
wells to be used as a water source and any effects on, or required expansion of, m unicipal
water infrastructure. Discuss environmental effects from water appropriation, including
an assessment of the water resources available for appropriation. Identify any measures
to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental e ffects from the water appropriation.
In order to minimize fresh water use , FHR will utilize air -cooled condensers (fin fans) rather
than cooling water to meet the cooling requirements of the project. Use of air cooling
reduces overall water consumption th at would occur if cooling water were used because
there will be no evaporative losses of water. Evaporative cooling would consume
approximately 300 gpm, which is avoided by the use of air -cooled condensers (fin fans).
A total volume of ap proximately 5 gpm of clean water will be needed as an input for
operation of the CHP cogeneration facility. Water needs for this project can be
accommodated under FHR’s existing water -appropriations permit, N o. 1954 0071. FHR Pine
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 16
Bend currently uses approximately 94 p ercent of the refinery’s limit each year, leaving
capacity to accommodate the very small water needs of the proposed project within the
existing appropriation limits.
iv. Surface Waters
a) Wetlands - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to wetland features
such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging and vegetative removal.
Discuss direct and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of
wetlands, including the anticipated effects that any proposed wetland altera tions may
have to the host watershed. Identify measures to avoid (e.g., available alternatives
that were considered), minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to wetlands.
Discuss whether any required compensatory wetland mitigation for unavoidable
w etland impacts will occur in the same minor or major watershed, and identify those
probable locations.
As noted above, an existing water detention area formerly used for extraction of fill
material is located on the south side of the project site. Non -con tact stormwater
currently collects in this area and infiltrates to the surficial aquifer. The proposed project
is not expected to cause a net change in the quantity or quality of infiltrating runoff to
this area. The project will not involve draining, fill ing, or dredging of this area and will
not require vegetative removal.
Historical aerial photograph survey indicates that this site was not historically a wetland,
but rather was formed from the excavation of material such as sand or gravel that was
sold by a previous owner for use as fill. Based on an initial desktop review of this area,
no areas mapped within the NWI, no public waters, and no areas mapped with hydric
soils were identified. This initial review indicates that the water detention area is an
incidental wetland not regulated under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act.
b) Other surface waters - Describe any anticipated physical effects or alterations to
surface water features (lakes, streams, ponds, intermittent channels, county/judicial
dit ches) such as draining, filling, permanent inundation, dredging, diking, stream
diversion, impoundment, aquatic plant removal and riparian alteration. Discuss direct
and indirect environmental effects from physical modification of water features.
Identify measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental effects to surfac e
water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to
avoid or minimize turbidity/sedimentation while physically altering the water
features. Discuss ho w the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any
water bod y , including current and projected watercraft usage.
The project will not involve any physical modifications to surface waters.
12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes:
a. Pre -project site conditions - Describe existing contamination or potential environmental
hazards on or in close proximity to the project site such as soil or ground water
contamination, abandoned dumps, closed landfills, existing or abandoned storage tanks , and
hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. Discuss any potential environmental effects from pre -
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 17
project site conditions that would be caused or exacerbated by project construction and
operation. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effect s from existing
contamination or potential environmental hazards. Include development of a Contingency
Plan or Response Action Plan.
The MPCA’s “What’s in My Neighborhood” database and leaking underground storage tanks
records of environmental hazards in dicate no potential conflicts involving environmental
hazards in the project vicinity due to past uses at the proposed turbine site.
P etroleum contaminated soils exists along FHR’s 12th Street, which runs in an east -west
direction approximately 500 feet n orth -northwest of the turbine island and along the Tank 6 and
7 dike wall, approximately 500 feet immediately north of the turbine island (see Figure 13).
Another area of petroleum contaminated soils to north of FHR’s 12 th Street and west of the
project a rea is actively being treated. Given the distance between this area and the project site,
it is anticipated that disturbance of contaminated areas can be avoided during construction. The
MPCA will be contacted if any minor disturbance is required —for examp le, for the placement of
footings or supports for piping or transmission between the project site and the refinery.
Operation of the proposed project will not affect conditions at this site.
b. Project related generation/storage of solid wastes - Describe so lid wastes generated/stored
during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of disposal. Discuss
potential environmental effects from solid waste handling, storage and disposal. Identify
measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation/storage of solid
waste including source reduction and recycling.
Typical construction waste, including scrap metal, welding rods, etc., is anticipated to be
generated during the construction phase of this project. If any excav ation of the material
located in the historic waste -management area discussed above is disturbed for footings or
foundations, it will be managed according to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
requirements.
c. Project related use/storage of hazardous materials - Describe chemicals/hazardous materials
used/stored during construction and/or operation of the project including method of storage.
Indicate the number, location and size of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum
or other materials. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release of
hazardous materials. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from
the use/storage of chemicals/hazardous materials including source reduction an d recycling.
Include development of a spill prevention plan.
T he FHR P ine Bend Refinery processes and refines crude oil. The Refinery produces large
volumes of various petroleum products including: gasoline, diesel fuels, asphalts, kerosene,
aviation fuel , liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), butane, and coke. In addition to end products, the
refining process generates numerous flammable or co mb ustible intermediate products. The
proposed project will include the storage of aqueous ammonia and dielectric fluid , d iscussed in
the paragraphs below.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 18
A new 12,000 gallon AST will store aqueous ammonia (19 percent ) for use in the SCR system
used for NO x reductions. The SCR control equipment is designed to convert NO x into
atmospheric nitrogen (N 2 ) and water vapor; however it does have the potential for some
ammonia air emissions (r eferred to as “ammonia slip”). Health risk concerns from ammonia slip
are addressed in the EAW’s question 16.a. stationary source air emissions section. The tank will
be approximately 10 f ee t in diameter by 20 feet long. The tank will be located outside next to
the condensate tank, just north of the HRSG. Aqueous ammonia is a “regulated substan ce”
under the MPCA tank rules. The tank will be registered with the state and subject to the facil ity’s
AST permit requirements for design and operation, including 110 percent containment with a
material impervious to the aqueous ammonia solution.
If t ransmission alternatives 2 or 3 are chosen, the project would require the construction of a
transf ormer yard with four transformers, two GSU transformers and up to t wo station power
transformers. The largest GSU will hold approximately 7 ,500 gallons of dielectric fluid with the
smaller GSU holding approximately 3 ,500 gallons. The station power transfor mers would hold
approximately 1 ,000 gallons each. These numbers are preliminary engineering estimates as the
final transformer design is not completed nor has any equipment supplier been selected. Thus
the final dielectric fluid volumes and MVA ratings are subject to change pending detailed
engineer ing and final specifications. These transformers are subject to the federal SPCC rules
b ut are exempted from the Minnesota Above Ground Storage Tank program under the
provisions of the facil ity’s AST permit and M inn. R. 7151.1300, subp. 2.B. because they are
“electrical equipment” that contain “substanc es for operational purposes”. The transformer
yard will be fenced, gated, and lock ed. Consistent with the existing electrical yard located on site
and owned by Xcel Energy, the transformers will be located on engineered concrete
foundations, but the y ard surface will be aggregate. It is a general practice that aggregate i s
used as a base in transformer yards as a safety precaution. If there were a loss of primary
con tainment of the dielectric fluid, an impervious surface would cause the oil to pool and could
lead to or exacerbate a fire creating risk to the electrical distribution system. In the rare event
that there are any leaks or drips that occur during service, t he impacted aggregate would be
removed and properly disposed of and replaced with clean material. Additionally, pending final
engineering and design, the project may require the installation of transmission transformers at
the main substation or other loca tion within the refinery footprint. These transformers would be
similar in size and design as the larger GSU transformers mentioned above and would be
installed in the same manner. Transmission alternative 1 would not require the construction of
the transf ormer yard.
The refinery has emergency -response planning systems in place that will be updated as
necessary to address any safety -related issues associated with this project. The plan will be
updated and is periodically shared wit h the MPCA, Dakota Cou nty, and c ity of Rosemount
emergency response officials.
d. Project related generation/storage of hazardous wastes - Describe hazardous wastes
generated/stored during construction and/or operation of the project. Indicate method of
disposal. Discuss potentia l environmental effects from hazardous waste handling, storage, and
disposal. Identify measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the
generation/storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 19
No hazardous waste is anticipated to be generated during the construction and/or operation of
this project. The refinery has emergency -response planning systems in place that will be
updated as necessary to address any safety -related issues associated with this project. The pla n
will be periodically shared wit h the MPCA, Dakota County, and c ity of Rosemount emergency
response officials.
13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features):
a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habi tats and vegetation on or in near the site.
Because the FHR facility is heavily developed, fish and wildlife resources and habitats are not
abundant within the project area or within the immediate vicinity of the project. However,
agricultural land adja cent to the north, west, and south portions of the FHR facility , is utilized by
wildlife species typically associated with old field communities. Commonly occurring species include
pheasants and white -tailed deer. In addition, there are a variety of rodents, songbirds, and
predators such as red fox, raccoon, and skunks .
High -quality fish and wildlife resources and habitats are present east of the FHR facility within the
East Rosemount Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) Site of Biological Significance (SBS; high
biodiversity significance); the Pine Bend SNA and Inver Gro ve Heights SBS (outstanding biodiversity
significance); within the Mississippi River; and along the Mississ ippi River bluff area (Figure 14 ).
b. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species,
native plant communities, Minnesota County Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance,
and other sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the
l icense agreement number and/or correspondence number from which the data we re obtained
and attach the Natural Heritage letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species
survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results.
Barr Engineering Company, the project proposer’s consultant, has a li cense agreement (LA -674)
with the MDNR t o access the Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) database. Barr
queried the NHIS database in October of 2013 (Natural Heritage letter from M DNR is included as
Appendix B). According to the NHIS database, no en dangered, threatened, or special concern
species have been documented in the immediate project area. Rare and sensitive ecological
resources in the vicinity of the pro ject area are shown on Figure 14 .
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) technical assi stance website 5 lists two federally listed
species, the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel (Lampsilis higginsii; federally and state -endangered) and
the prairie bush clover (Lespedeza leptostachya; federally and state -threatened), and one
species proposed for listing, the northern long -eared bat (Myotis septentrionalisas; proposed
federally endangered and state -special concern), as occurring in Dakota County. According to
the NHIS database, none of these species have been documented within one mile of the FHR
f acility. Suitable habitats, which consist of large rivers for the Higgins’ eye pearly mussel, native
prairie for the prairie bush clover, and caves, mines, and upland forests for the northern long -
eared bat are not present within the refinery or adjacent t o the FHR facility boundary. The
5 Wildlife Service. 2013. E ndangered Species Program. Available at URS:
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/lists/minnesot -cty.html. Accessed October, 2013
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 20
USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) includes another federally listed
species for Dakota County, the Minnesota dwarf trout lily (Erythronium propullans; federally
and state -endangered). The Minnesota dwarf trout lily was added to the IPaC list in 2013
following a joint M DNR/USFWS soil type study indicating that although the Minnesota Dwarf
Trout lily is not known or believed to occur within Dakota County, the soils in the very southern
portion of the c ounty might support its growth. According to the NHIS database, the dwarf trout
lily has not been documented within one mile of the FHR facility. Suitable habitat, which
includes northern -facing slopes of rich hardwood forests dominated by maple and basswo od
and floodplains dominated by elm and cottonwood, is not present within the FHR facility or
adjacent to the FHR facility. The M DNR Rare Species Guide
(www.dnr.state.mn.us/rsg/index.html ) also includes three federally listed mussel species for
Dakota County: the sheepnose mussel (Plethobasus cyphyus; federa lly and state -endangered),
the spectaclecase mussel (Cumberlandia monodonta; federally and state -endangered), and the
winged mapleleaf mussel (Quadrula fragosa; federally and state -endangered). According to the
NHIS database, none of these species have bee n documented within one mile of the FHR facility.
Suitable habitat, which consists of large rivers, is not present within the FHR facility or adjacent
to the FHR facility.
The NHIS database indicates a 2011 observation of the presence of a pair of peregri ne falcons
(Falco peregrinus; state -special concern) and a nest within the FHR facility boundary. According
to the NHIS database, the state -endangered loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) has been
documented in the farmlands and rural areas adjacent to the FHR facility within the past four
years. Loggerhead shrike generally prefer broad open areas such as croplands, lawns and
pastures, with adjacent perching sites in small trees and shrubs. Therefore, the species is
unlikely to occur within the developed FHR facility. Undeveloped and agricultural lands on the
south side of the FHR facility include cropland, dry grassland, short grass, and maintained tall
grass cover types which may support loggerhead shrike. However, because of the limited
footprint of th e project within the refinery, and the abundance of suitable habitat outside of the
project area, it is unlikely that loggerhead shrike would utilize the specific project area within
the developed refinery. According to the NHIS database, occurrences of th e fox snake (Elaphe
vullpina; formerly of state special concern but as of August 2013 no longer state -listed) and the
bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus; state special concern) have been reported about 0.5 miles
to the east of the refinery. Both reports, h owever, are more than 70 years old and no recent
sightings have been reported in the area. It is not likely that either species will be present on or
in the immediate vicinity of the refinery due to highly industrialized land use. Both snake species
genera lly prefer wooded and open -field river -bluff habitat. Habitat of this type is located east
and northeast of the FHR facility in the Mississippi River Valley. The closest potential habitats
are located in the Pine Bend Bluff SNA northeast of the FHR facilit y and further south and east
along the Mississippi River bluffs. According to the NHIS database, several rare species and rare
ecological communities have been document ed within the East Rosemount Minnesota
Biological Survey Site of Biological Significance , the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove Heights SBS,
the Mississippi River, and along the Mississippi River bluff area. All of these ecologically sensitive
areas are outside of the project area and FHR facility boundary.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 21
c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be
affected by the project. Include a discussion on introduction and spread of invasive species from
the project construction and operation. Separately discuss effects to known threatened and
endangered species.
The proposed project will have a limited footprint within the FHR facility boundary. Given this
limited project footprint and the general lack of suitable habitat within the facility boundary, no
direct impacts to endangered, threatened or special concern species, or rare communities are
anticipated. The proposed project will also not involve conversion of habitats preferred by rare
species. Because of the industrial land use within the project area, and the routine maintenance
activities at the facility, there will be limited opportunity for the introduction of invasive species
during construction and operation. Additional impacts during construction and operation are not
expected as operational controls and safeguards, such as stormwater management and dust
control, will be in place to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on fish, wildlife, or other
ecologically sensitive resources. The construction and operation of the proposed project is covered
by t he existing emergency response planning systems in the refinery.
There is no suitable habitat within the FHR facility or areas adjacent to the FHR facility boundary for
the federally listed species occurring in Dakota County (see response to question 13b). The four
federally listed mussels are aquatic species , and habitat for these species is not present in the FHR
facility. The prairie bush clover requires high -quality prairie with specific associated species not
present within the FHR facility or project area. In addition, the rich hardwood forest habitat and soil
types necessary to support the growth of Dwarf trout lily do not occur in the part of Dakota County
where the project is located. No caves, mines, or upland forests are present within the FHR fac ility
or adjacent areas to provide habitat for the northern long -eared bats.
The limited footprint of the project combined with the general lack of suitable habitat within the
facility boundary make it highly unlikely that there would be project -related im pacts to the state
listed species with documented occurrences within one mile of the facility boundary. Impacts to
peregrine falcon individuals or populations are not anticipated because the specific project area is
not in the immediate vicinity of the pre viously documented nest within the FHR facility boundary.
Moreover, construction activities will not occur in the immediate vicinity of the site where the nest
was observed. Finally, there has been no documentation of peregrine falcon activity on the site
since the 2011 observation.
There will be no impacts to loggerhead shrike. This is because the proposed project activities will be
located within the FHR facility boundary and not in high -quality habitat areas typically utilized by
loggerhead shrike.
While several rare species and rare ecological communities have been documented within the East
Rosemount SBS, the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove H eights SBS, the Mississippi River, and the
Mississippi River bluff area, these documented NHIS records are outside the project area and FHR
facility boundary. The project is not expected to impact rare species or communities within these
areas.
Elevated noise levels from the proposed project activities may normally have the potential to disrupt
wildlife behavior and utilization of the higher -quality habitats in the vicinity of the FHR facility.
However, the existing FHR facility has generated periodic elevated noise level events since operation
of the facility commenced. Wildlife species in the area are therefore like ly to be habituated to
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 22
periodic elevated noise levels. Moreover, the FHR facility is separated from the highest -quality
wildlife habitats to the east and northeast by U.S. Highway 52, which also contributes to elevated
noise levels in the area. Considerin g the existing combined noise levels generated by the current
FHR facility and the U.S. Highway 52 traffic, it is not expected that the proposed project will
significantly increase noise to levels that disrupt wildlife behavior. More information regarding noise
is provided in response to Section 17.
d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to fish,
wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources.
As discussed above, operational controls and safeguards, such as stormwater management and
dust control will be in place to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on fish, wildlife, or other
ecologically sensitive resources. Because no adverse impacts are expected as a result of the
proposed project, no additional measures need be taken to minimize impacts, and no additional
survey work has been conducted.
14. Historic properties:
Describe any historic structures, archeological sites, and/or traditional cultural properties on or in
close proximity to the site. Include: 1) historic designations, 2) known artifact areas, and 3)
architectural features. Attach letter received from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Discuss any anticipated effects to historic properties during project construc tion and operation.
Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to historic
properties.
The Minnesota Historical Society was contacted with respect to the existence of known historic
properti es in the vicinity of the FHR Pine Bend refinery. There are no reported historic propertie s in
the potential project area (see Appendix C ).
15. Visual:
Describe any scenic views or vistas on or near the project site. Describe any project related visual
effects such as vapor plumes or glare from intense lights. Discuss the potential visual effects from
the project. Identify any measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate visual effects.
The onsite equipment for the proposed project will have an industrial appearance consistent w ith
existing facilities at the refinery. While the project components will introduce new visual elements
to the south of the existing facility, these project components are visually consistent with the
adjacent refinery. Additionally, FHR is taking the add itional step of enclosing the combustion
turbine, steam turbine , and HRSG in a building, an approach which is more aesthetically pleasing
than the alternative. As such, the project will not create significant visual impacts, either from new
structures or l ights on structures.
There are no scenic vistas on or near the refinery which require special attention with regard to
adverse visual impacts. The project is not expected to alter scenic vistas in the MNRRA as these
vistas face eastward, away from the pro ject area. The project will not significantly alter views from
the MRRT as the project components are consistent with the existing industrial elements in the
viewshed in this area.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 23
16. Air:
a. Stationary source emissions - Describe the type, sources, quanti ties and compositions of any
emissions from stationary sources such as boilers or exhaust stacks. Include any hazardous air
pollutants, criteria pollutants, and any greenhouse gases. Discuss effects to air quality
including any sensitive receptors, human h ealth or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a
discussion of any methods used to assess the project’s effect on air quality and the results of
that assessment. Identify pollution control equipment and other measures that will be taken
to avoid, minimiz e, or mitigate adverse effects from stationary source emissions.
Air Emission Sources
The proposed project will result in air emissions of criteria pollutants and hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) primarily as a result of natural gas combustion. The table below summarizes
the new air emission units associated with the proposed project. Potential emission rates are
discussed in the following section.
Emission U nit Add -On Control Equipment
Combustion Turbine Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), NO x Control CO and
VOC Catalyst, CO and VOC Control
Duct Burners SCR, NOx Control
CO and VOC Catalyst, CO and VOC Control
The proposed project will also result in fugi tive emissions from equipment in natural gas service.
No existing emission units at the refinery will be modified as a result of the proposed project.
Nor will the proposed project result in any air emission increases at existing emission units.
Project Air Emissions
The potential air emissions from the project have been calculated based on performance
specifications and estimates from manufacturers of the combustion turbine, duct burners, and
control equipment, as well as EPA factors for emissions from combustion of natural gas.
Following MPCA guidance on calculating air emission increases for EAW applicability 6 and the
method described by Minn. R. 7007.1200, subp.3, the calculations for this EAW conservatively
assume year -round operation at maximum, wo rst -case operating conditions. The proposed
project will result in changes to the refinery’s limited potential to emit (PTE) as indicated in the
table below.
6 MPCA, 2007. Calculating Air Emission Increases for EAW Applicability. p -ear -03.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 24
Pollutant Total Refinery Pre -
Project (TPY) 1
CHP Cogeneration
Facility (TPY) 2
Total Refinery
(Post -Project TPY) 3
Percentage Change
Due to Project (%)
Nitrogen Oxides
(NO X )
3,952.6 27.7 3,980.3 0.7%
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) 4 3,770.0 4.1 3,770.0 0.0%
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
2,391.0 66.9 2,457.9 2.8%
Particulate Matter
(PM)
1,032.7 16.8 1,049.5 1.6%
Particulate Matter
<10 microns (PM 10 )
641.1 16.8 657.9 2.6%
Particulate Matter
<2.5 microns (PM 2.5 )
627.6 16.8 644.4 2.7%
Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs)
2,610.4 28.0 2,638.4 1.1%
Greenhouse Gases
(GHG) 5
7,837,536 345,263 8,182,799 4.4%
Hazardous Air
Pollutants (HAPs)
854.6 6.8 861.4 0.8%
1 Current total refinery PTE is based on the values in the FHR’s Title V Permit Technical Support Document (TSD) dated 9/9/13
and 4/15/14. GHG values from a June 26, 2013 letter from FHR to Mr. Ta rik Hanafy of the MPCA, updated to reflect current
global -warming potentials for CH 4 and N 2 O plus those GHG values from new EU’s permitted in 03700011 -011.
2 Limited PTE of CHP Cogeneration Project, including combustion turbine, duct burner, and fugitive emissions.
3 Limited PTE of total refinery (current facility plus proposed CHP cogeneration project)
4 The CHP project will result in a small amount of SO 2 emissions, however these emissions will not require the refinery to
increase its SO 2 air permit emissi on cap.
5 GHG contains the following pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These values are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2 e).
Air Emission Permitting
Title V
The refinery is currently a permitted major air emissions source under Title V of the fed eral
Clean Air Act Amendments. The proposed project will result in increased criteria pollutant
emissions, most significant of whi ch are particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter
(PM 10 ), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM 2.5 ), and greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG). FHR has applied for a major amendment to its permit (Air Emissions Permit
No. 03700011 -011) in order to implement its proposed CHP cogeneration facility project.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The c urrent refinery is a major source under federal PSD regulations in 40 CFR 52.21 because its
facility –wide PTE is greater than 100 tons per year (TPY) fo r several criteria pollutants. The
potential emissions of PM 10 , PM 2.5 and greenhouse gas (GHG ) from the proposed project exceed
significant emission rate thr esholds under PSD regulations. Therefore, the proposed project is
subject to PSD review for these pollutants .
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 25
A major modification subject to PSD review is required to ensure that best available control
technology (BACT) is used for each pollutant for which there is a significant net emissions
increase (PM 10 , PM 2.5 and GHG for this proposed project). BACT is the maximum degree of
emission reduction that can be achieved when determined on a case -by -case b asis, taking into
account energy and envir onmental and economic impacts. The controls resulting from the
project’s BACT analysis are included in the mitigation dis cussion later in this section. An air
quality analysis is also required under PSD regulations , and it is summarized in the air modeling
section.
Other Emissions Standards
The proposed CHP cogeneration facility will be subject to the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for stationary combustion turbines (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart KKKK), and will
meet the applicable standards for nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) by use of SCR,
low NOx burners, and low sulfur fuel (natural gas).
The proposed project would generate electricity and steam using a gas -fired, well controlled ,
and hi ghly efficient system. Natural gas is considered a clean fuel with intrinsically low emission
rates for criteria and hazardous air pollutants. Furthermore, the combustion turbine’s design
specifications are highly efficient, minimizing fuel use and associa ted emissions. As such, there
are a number of regulations that do not apply to the proposed project:
• EPA has proposed a NSPS for GHG f rom electric generating units. The project is
anticipated to m eet this performance standard. However, under the rule as it is currently
proposed, the project would not be subject to this NSPS because it would not sell its
electricity to the grid.
• The proposed project will be subject to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combust ion turbines (40 CFR Part 63, Subpart YYYY).
The proposed project is only subject to the notification requirements of subpart YYYY,
however as the emissions standards for gas -fired turbines under this NESHAP have been
stayed.
The project includes the use of gaseous fuels (natural gas) and the installation and operation of
oxidation cataly st to minimize HAP emissions. Emission monitoring will include a stack carbon
monoxide Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) to monitor stack CO emissions as
well as health of the oxidation catalyst.
Air Emissions Mitigation
As indicated below, FHR’s air emissions permit will include requirements designed to minimize
the amount of air emissions from the proposed project, both from the emission units
themselves, as well as from fugitive emissions (e.g., leaks).
Stack Sources
Criteria Pollutants /HAPs
Both the combustion turbine and duct burner will exhau st through a single stack. S ele ctive
catalytic reduction (SCR) will be used to control NO x emissions , while the oxidation catalyst will
be used to control CO, VOC, and organic H AP emissions during the combustion turbine and duct
burners’ operations.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 26
No add -on control equipment is available or feasible to reduce emis sions of the other
pollutants. However, the proposed project includes many design feature s that minimize air
emissi ons. The project will use natural gas, which is considered a clean fuel with intrinsically low
emission rate s for criteri a and hazardous air pollutants. Furthermore, as discussed in response
to Question 6, the project uses the efficient and well -demonstrat ed GE LM6000 turbine in a
combined -cycle configuration with the cogeneration of electricity and steam. Finally, the
exhaust stack is well engineered to minimize downwash and provide go od dispersion
characteristics. These design specifications are highly efficient, minimizing fuel use and
associated emissions, and t hus reducing off -site impacts. The potential efficiency and
environmental benefits of cogeneration are significant, reducing emissions by 40 percent or
mo re 7 , the use of clean fuel and efficient design , repre sent (BACT for P M 10 and PM 2.5 . It also
reduces emission rates of other products of combustion. \Furthermore, the proposed project is
expected to offset use of existing onsite boilers, replacing boiler firing with more efficient steam
producti on.
Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
As noted above, the project uses a highly efficient combustion turbine in a combined -cycle
configuration, minimizing fuel use and associated GHG emissions. CHP’s inherent higher
efficiency and elimination of transmission and d istribution losses result in reduced primary
energy use and lowers GHG emissions.8 Use of low -carbon fuel and efficient design represents
BACT for GHGs for this project.
Fugitive Sources – Equipment in Natural Gas Service
This project will be installing various piping, valves, and flanges that will be in natural gas service
and have the potential for fug itive emissions of natural gas. Methane is not a VOC but is
considered a GHG subject to regulation and is the primary component of natural gas. As a
res ult, this equipment is included in the project’s GHG BACT analysis, which concludes that the
control measures described below represent BACT.
Fugitive methane emissions from natural gas service equipment will be regulated and controlled
as specified in the refinery’s existing leak detection and repair (LDAR) program which is
incorporated in the Consolidated LDAR Program in FHR’s existing Title V air emissions permit.
The LDAR program is designed to ensure that leaks are detected an d repaired in a timely
manner. Application of the LDAR program represents BACT for fugitive emission sources.
Ambient Air Quality Evaluation
Under PSD regulations, air dispersion modeling is required for the pollutants for which the
project -related emission increases exceed significance thresholds and for which national
ambient air quality stan dards (NAAQS) are established. For the proposed project, PM 10 and
PM 2.5 meet these criteria, and therefore an ambient air quality modeling analysis was carried out
for these pollutants.
7 EPA. “Combined Heat and Power: Frequently Asked Questions.” Available at www.epa.gov/chp/documents/faq.pdf .
8 EPA. “Combined Heat and Power: Frequently Asked Questions.” Available at www.epa.gov/chp/documents/faq.pdf .
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 27
In order to facilitate the assessment of the project’s potential impacts on ambient air quality,
the EPA has established de minimis thresholds known as sig nificant impact levels (SILs).
Generally, if an air dispersion analysis of the project shows that its impacts are below applicable
SILs, then the project has demonstrated that it will not cause or contribute to exceedances of air
quality standards and no further modeling analysis is required. Under EPA’s latest guidance for
PM 2.5 modeling 9 , this SIL modeling approach is only available for a NAAQS analysis for sources
that can demonstrate that existing ambient background PM 2.5 concentrations are more than one
SIL value less than the NAAQS. FHR has reviewed background PM 2.5 concentrations and as shown
in the table below, has determined that there is sufficient difference between those
concentrations and NAAQS for SIL modeling to be a valid approach for a NAAQS analysis.
PM 2.5 24 Hour and Annual Apple Valley Monitor Concentrations
24 Hour (ug/m 3 ) Annual (ug/m 3 )
Monitor ID 470 470
2013 98th % Value 20 8.8
2012 98th % Value 23 9.3
2011 98th % Value 21 8.4
Average (2011 -2013) 21.3 8.8
NAAQS 35 12
Difference (2011 -2013) 13.7 3.2
SIL 1.2 0.3
Greater than SIL YES YES
The modeled stack parameters for the combustion turbine and duct burner stack SIL modeling
represent a theoretical, worst -case scenario. As stated in the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling
Protocol (AQDM -01) developed for the PSD SIL modeling and submitted to the MPCA, t his
theoretical, worst -case scenario, covers all potential operating scenarios of the combustion
turbine stack and provides the most conservative PM 10 and PM 2.5 modeled air concentrations.
As shown in the table below, using the theoretical worst -case scen ario, the project’s modeled
impacts are well below the SIL for PM 10 and PM 2 .5 , therefore the project does not have the
potential to cause or contribut e to significant deterioration in air quality.
Pollutant
(Averaging Period)
NAAQS/MAAQS
(µg/m 3 ) SIL (µg/m 3 )
Project Modeled
Impact (µg/m 3 ) Percentage of SIL
Particulate Matter
<10 µm (PM 10 )
(24 -hr)
150 5 0.54 11%
Particulate Matter
<2.5 µm (PM 2.5 )
(24 -hr)
35 1.2 0.37 31%
PM 2.5 (annual ) 12 0.3 0.042 14%
9 EPA May 20, 2014 “Guidance for PM 2.5 Permit Modeling.” Available at
http://www.epa.g ov/scram001/guidance/guide/Guidance_for_PM25_Permit_Modeling.pdf
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 28
In the PM 2.5 modeling guidance referenced above, EPA also indicated that, in addition to a SILs
analysis, a permitting agency must ensure that a project subject to PSD for PM 2.5 does not have
the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of PSD increment level s for PM 2.5 .
Increments are a part of the PSD program where emissions from a project are considered with
other relevant projects to ensure that the combined effects do not lead to a significant
deteriorati on in air quality in the area. In this case, MPCA p erformed a detailed screening
analysis and determined that this project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of
PM 2.5 increment levels.
In addition to the air dispersion evaluation performed for PSD purposes, modeling was also
conducted pursua nt to draft MPCA guidance intended to assess potential air impacts for
environmental review purposes. The MPCA’s draft guidance provides that projects subject to
environmental review can demonstrate no significant effects on ambient air quality by showing
that the sum of the monitored background concentration plus the SIL is less than 90 percent of
the ambient air quality standard for each pollutant being evaluated and that the modeled
impacts are then less than the SILs.
FHR’s Pine Bend refinery is likel y the most heavily monitored source in the state of Minnesota,
surrounded by four ambient air quality monitors funded by FHR and fully maint ained and
operated by the MPCA. The monitors record ambient air quality concentrations for a number of
criteria and hazardous air pollutants as determined relevant by the MPCA and the refinery’s
Community Advisory Council (CAC) over mor e than a decade of operations. The data from this
monitoring network coupled with project -related emission estimated from the proposed p roject
provides the basis for demonstrat ing that the project will not adverse ly affect ambient air
quality. As shown in the figures below, SO 2 , NO 2 , and CO levels at the monitor immediately east
of the refinery (Monitor 420) are well below their respective NAAQS. This monitoring data best
represents the potential impact of the existing refinery operations.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 29
NOTE: Concentrations reported in form of the respective Standard:
NO 2 - 98 th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations
SO 2 - 99 th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 30
NOTE: Concentrations reported as second high 1 -hour reading for respective year. Standard allows for one
exceedance per averaging period effectively making standard “2 nd High” or “High, Second High” compliance
purposes.
The table below shows that estimated p otential emission increases from CHP project represent
a small percentage of the FHR Pine Bend facilit y’s limited potential to emit. Given the overall
emissions from this project and the current monitored results, no adverse effects on ambient
standards wo uld be expected from this project.
PM
(tpy)
PM 10
(tpy)
PM 2.5
(tpy)
NO x
(tpy)
SO 2
(tpy)
CO
(tpy)
Combined Heat and Power Project 17 17 17 28 4 67
FHR Pine Bend Refinery Limited Facility
Potential to Emit 1 1033 641 628 3953 3770 2391
Project Compared to the Existing Refinery
Potential to Emit
2% 3% 3% 1% 0.1% 3%
1 The FHR Pine Bend total refinery limited potential to emit is taken from Table 6 of the Technical support document from the
most recent permit amendment (03700011 -010) dated 09/11/13 plus the potential to emit from EU’s permitted in 03700011 -
011.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
2010 2011 2012
CO 1 -hr NAAQS -9ppb
CO 8 -hr NAAQS -35ppb
CO 1 -hr NAAQS -9ppb
CO 8 -hr NAAQS -35ppb
CO 1 -hr NAAQS -9ppb
CO 8 -hr NAAQS -35ppb
Monito r 420 -CO Calendar Year 2nd High 2010 -2012
CO 8 -hr NAAQS -9ppm
CO 1 -hr NAAQS -35ppm
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 31
Nevertheless, FHR has p repared an analysis consistent with the MPCA’s draft guidance for
assessing potential air impacts for environmental review purposes through SIL modeling. More
detailed information on modeling is available in the Air Quality Dispersion Modeling Protocol
(A QDM -01) developed for this EAW and submitted to the MPCA. The results of the SIL modeling
are provided in the tables below. The first table demonstrates that the Regulatory SIL plus
ambient background is less than 90 percent of the NAAQS. The second table shows that the CHP
project’s modeled impacts are less than the Regulatory SIL.
Pollutant
Averaging
Period
Background
Concentration
(µg/m 3 )
Regulatory
SIL (µg/m 3 )
Background
+ SIL (µg/m 3 )
NAAQS/M
AAQS
(µg/m 3 )
Less than 90% of
NAAQS/MAAQS
(Y/N)?
CO 1 -hour 3795 2000 5795 40000 Y
8 -hour 1912 500 2412 10000 Y
PM 10 24 -hour 44 5 49 150 Y
Annual 24 1 25 50 Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 21 1.2 22.2 35 Y
Annual 9 0.3 9.3 12 Y
NO 2 1 -hour 63 7.5 70.5 188 Y
Annual 29 1 30 100 Y
SO 2 1 -hour 8 7.9 15.9 196 Y
3 -hour 56 25 81 1300 Y
24 -hour 4 5 9 365 Y
Annual 1 1 2 60 Y
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 32
Pollutant Averaging Period
Modeled Maximum
Concentration1
(µg/m 3 )
Regulatory SIL
(µg/m 3 )
Less than SIL
(Y/N)?
CO 1 -hour 7.22 2000 Y
8 -hour 4.43 500 Y
PM 10 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y
Annual 0.042 1 Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 0.37 1.2 Y
Annual 0.042 0.3 Y
NO 2 1 -hour 2.4 7.5 Y
Annual 0.07 1 Y
SO 2 1 -hour 0.36 7.9 Y
3 -hour 0.36 25.0 Y
24 -hour 0.13 5 Y
Annual 0.010 1 Y
1 The MPCA draft guidance is intended to apply on a project -specific basis. In the cumulative potential effects analysis under
Question 19, FHR has combined this project evaluation with the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects (the subject of a separate EAW) an d
demonstrated that both projects combined also meet the criteria of the MPCA’s draft guidance.
The FHR refinery is also subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) which requires SO 2
modeling if the facility’s permitted SO 2 increases by 2.28 pounds per hour or more. The
potential SO 2 air emission increase associated with the proposed CH P project is 0.97
pounds/hour, which is below the SIP modeling threshold and therefore no modeling is required
for this project under the SIP. However, because a SIP modification is required for the Tie r 3
Clean Fuels Projects, the SO 2 emissions from this project are included in that modeling
demonstration.
Health Risk Evaluation
Emissions from the project are primarily associated with natural gas combustion, although some
ammonia slip will result from the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control NO X
emissions. As the air emissions discussion above indicates, the incremental emissions increases
due to the proposed project are less than one percent of the existing facility emissions of NO X ,
S O 2 , and HAPs, and approximately one percent of the existing facility emissions of VOCs.
As shown above, modeled concentrations of NO 2 , SO 2 , and PM 2.5 associated with the project are
below the SILs of their respective NAAQS. For NO 2 , the SIL represents less than two percent of
the MPCA acute health benchmark indicating ambient NO 2 concentrations resulting from
project -related NO X emissions are well below guideline levels.
Past analyses of potential health risks associated with the re finery operations have focused on
evaluating monitored ambient air concentrations around the FHR Pine Bend refinery and have
concluded that potential health risks associated with the refinery are below guideline values 10 11 .
10 Gradient 1997. Risk Assessment: Koch Refining Company Rosemount, MN. Prepared by Gradient Corporation,
Cambridge, MA. March 5, 1997.
11 MPCA, 2006. Environmental Assessment Worksheet: #3 Crude Unit Expansion Project.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 33
In addition, a source -receptor st udy conducted by Gradient (1996)12 identified that refinery
emissions contribute little to the ambient air concentrations monitored at nearby sites. Since
that time, refinery air emissions have decreased by greater than 50 percent 13 . The MPCA (2003;
2009)14 , 15 also identified that air concentrations in the Pine Bend area were similar to monitored
air concentrations elsewhere in the Minneapolis -St. Paul metropolitan area.
The SCR control equipment has the potential for some ammonia emissions (referred to as
“am monia slip”). These emissions have not been addressed by the studies and analyses
referenced above. Thus, a screening level analysis of the potential for inhalation health effects
from ammonia emissions related to the project was conducted using the SCREEN 3 model and
converting the modeled result s to a hazard quotient, or HQ 16 . Ammonia has non -cancer toxicity
benchmark values, but it is not a carcinogen, so cancer will not be discussed here. The
estimated HQs were 0.002 for acute exposure and 0.005 for chronic exposure. A hazard
quotient is not a measure of risk probability bu t an indication of whether the potential exposure
exceeds the level at which sensitive populations may experience health effects (threshold
value )17 . MPCA evaluates the potential non -cancer impacts by adding the HQ values across all
pollutants sharing a com mon toxicity endpoint and across all sources including the project, the
total facility, and all other sources. This summation of HQs is called a hazard index (HI). The
MPCA uses a guideline HI value of one for noncancer effects. Using this methodology the
incremental effect of a given project and/or pollutant can be assessed alongside the cumulative
pre -existi ng conditions from all sources.
The CHP ammonia emissions result in an HQ three orders of magnitude below one 18 . The fact
that previous monitored ambi ent air concentrations of potential health risks from the refinery
have shown risks below guideline levels 19 ,20 and the proposed project emissions are a small
fraction of the existing refinery emissions indicates that potential incremental risk from the
proj ect is expected to be low.
In summary, it is expected that any incremental risks from the project would be below one for
inhalation noncancer chronic and acute risks, respectively based on the following:
• Relatively low levels of air toxics emissions are as sociated with natural gas combustion
12 Gradient, 1996. Source allocation of emissions from Koch Refinery. Gradient Corporation, Cambridge, MA.
13 Air emission reductions based on a comparison of total criteria pollutants that were reported by FHR in the 1996 and
2013 MPCA annual air emission inventory reports.
14 MPCA 2003. Air toxics monitoring in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Preliminary repo rt. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, MN. January 2003.
15 MPCA 2009. Air quality in Minnesota: emerging trends. 2009 Report to the Legislature. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, St. Paul, MN. January 2009.
16 Where HQ = (exposure concentratio n/reference concentration) as per EPA, 2005. Human Health Risk Assessment
Protocol. Chapter 7. Characterizing Risk as Hazard. September 2005. Reference concentrations used are the Minnesota
Department of Health HRVs (Heath Risk Values) for ammonia.
17 EPA 1 989. Risk Assessment Guide for Superfund. Volume 1, Chapter 8.
18 MPCA, 2007. Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) Guidance Version 1.1. September 2007.
19 Gradient 1997. Risk Assessment: Koch Refining Company Rosemount, MN. Prepared by Gradient Corporation,
C ambridge, MA. March 5, 1997.
20 MPCA, 2006. Environmental Assessment Worksheet: #3 Crude Unit Expansion Project.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 34
• The demonstration of modeled NO 2 , SO 2 , PM 10 , and PM 2.5 concentrations are below the
respective SILs
• Past assessments indicate that the FHR Pine Bend refinery is not the major contributor
to the monitored ambient air concentrations of air toxics at nearby monitoring sites
• The ammonia screening model demonstrates an HQ three orders of magnitude below
the HQ level of 1
Therefore, no significant increase in potential adverse health effects are expected to result from
this project.
b. Vehicle emissions - Describe the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air emissions.
Discuss the project’s vehicle -rela ted emissions effect on air quality. Identify measures (e.g.
traffic operational improvements, diesel idling minimization plan) that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate vehicle -related emissions.
Traffic associated wi th the operation of the CHP plant will contribute pr imarily to traffic on
Minnesota Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 which are adjacent to the refinery ’s eastern
boundary . Average daily traffic volume information available for 2012 from M innesota
Department of Transportation (MnDOT) indicates that the relevant sections of Minnesota
Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 have average daily traffic volumes of 13,300 and 32,500,
respectively.
On average throughout the year, the proposed project will increase traffic on these roads by less
than 0.001 percent based on the anticipated trip generation rates (see Question 18a). Given the
relatively small increase in total daily traffic volume that the project is expected to generate,
impacts on air quality from project -related vehicle traffic are ex pected to be negligible.
c. Dust and odors - Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of dust
and odors generated during project construction and operation. (Fugitive dust may be
discussed under item 16a). Discuss the effect of dust and odors in the vicinity of the project
including nearby sensitive receptors and quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken to
minimize or mitigate the effects of dust and odors.
Due to the fact that the project involves the construction and operation of a natural gas fueled
CHP facility, it is expected to have little or no odors impact.
Dust impacts are expected to be minimal as a result of operations; however, site preparation
and construction activities may produce fugitive dust emiss ions. If necessary, fugitive dust
emissions from construction activities will be minimized through control measures including
watering or applying dust suppressants. Dust suppressants may be applied to exposed soil
surfaces and unpaved roads. It is possibl e that soil may need to be removed by trucks during
ground preparation for construction. If so, dust controls may also be used for that activity. Other
control options include planned selective grading and staged development, timely job site
cleanup and ha ul -road maintenance. Construction may be halted during periods of high winds to
minimize fugitive dust emissions.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 35
17. Noise
Describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities, and intensity of noise generated during
project construction and operatio n. Discuss the effect of noise in the vicinity of the project
including 1) existing noise levels/sources in the area, 2) nearby sensitive receptors, 3)
conformance to state noise standards, and 4) quality of life. Identify measures that will be taken
to mi nimize or mitigate the effects of noise.
Existing noise from the refinery is typical for a refinery site, with noise generated primarily by
petrochemical furnaces and their air cooled heat exchangers and centrifugal compressor systems.
Other notable noise sources in the area include other industrial activities in the d istrict and traffic
noise from U.S. Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55. Noise levels monitored at a nearby site
(UMore Park site) with noise characteristics that are generally representative of t he area range from
45 to 76 dBA 21 . No existing issues with noise at nearby residential areas have been identified. During
the operation of the CHP cogeneration facility, noise will be generated by the steam turbine
generator, combustion turbine generator, combustion turbine air inlet, and the air cooled
condenser. Noise associated with operation will be minimized by locating the steam turbine
generator and combustion turbine generator inside of the generator building. From outside of the
building , noise from these sources is expected to be negligible. While the combustion turbine air
inlet and the air cooled condenser will be located outdoors, low noise designs will be utilized to
minimize the compressor and air inlet noise levels.
Figure 8 identifies residences in the vicinity of the refinery. As shown in Figure 8, the nearest
residence to the CHP Cogeneration Project site is approximately 1/3 mile southeast of the CHP
cogeneration plant site. At this distance, compressor and air in let noise levels are expected to be in
the range of 32 -41 dBA, well below Minnesota’s residential noise level standards and less than
existing conditions.
Any construction -related effects on noise will be short term, temporary effects and are expected to
be minor.
Given the industrial nature of the area, existing noise exposures at nearby receptors, and the
project’s relatively minor effect on noise, no noise -related change in quality of life is anticipated.
18. Transportation
a. Describe traffic -related a spects of project construction and operation. Include: 1) existing and
proposed additional parking spaces, 2) estimated total average daily traffic generated, 3)
estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated and time of occurrence, 4) indicate source of
tr ip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other
alternative transportation modes.
The proposed project will result in an increase in construction -related traffic to and from the
refinery for a period of approximately 12 months. This additional traffic is expected to be small
compared to the amount of traffic already on roads in the project area.
21 University of Minnesota, 2010. Noise Impact Study for UMore Park Sand and Gravel Resources. UOFMN 103496.
http://www.umorepark.umn.edu/prod/gro ups/ssrd/@pub/@ssrd/@umorepark/documents/content/ssrd_content_2568
20.pdf
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 36
FHR expects to hire approximately 8 -10 new employees to operate the equipment associated
with the project. FHR anticipates t hat no additional parking areas will be needed as part of the
project.
Additional truck traffic will be associated with ammonia delivery to the cogeneration site. Based
on expected ammonia usage rates and typical truck capacity, the proposed project will generate
approximately 40 vehicle trips per year, and a maximum peak hourly trip rate of two.
Traffic associated wi th the operation of the CHP plant will contribute pr imarily to traffic on
Minnesota Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 which are adjacent to the refinery’s eastern
boundary. Average daily traffic volume information available for 2012 from MnDOT indicates
that the relevant sections of Minnesota Highway 55 and U .S . Highway 52 have average daily
traffic volumes of 13,300 and 32,500, respective ly.
b. Discuss the effect on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic
improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project’s impact on the r egional
transportation system.
The traffic that will be generated by new employees and additional truck traffic for ammonia
delivery will be small in comparison to the amount of traffic already on roads in the project area.
No measurable impact to traffic congestion on nearby roads is anticipated as the result of the
project.
A traffic imp act study is not required as the peak hour traffic generated is less than 250 vehicles
and the total daily trips are less than 2,500.
c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation
effects.
As no project -rela ted transportation effects are anticipated, no measures are proposed to
minimize or mitigate impacts.
19. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects
are addressed under the applicable EAW Items)
a. Describe the geographic scales and timeframes of the project related environmental effects
that could combine with other environmental effects resulting in cumulative potential effects.
Minn. R. p t . 4410.1700, subp. 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential
effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an
environmental impact statement. Cumulative potential effects result when impacts associated
with the pro posed project are superimposed on, or added to, impacts associated with past,
present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the area affected by the proposed
project. Analysis of cumulative potential effects accounts for the possibility that, a dded
together, the minor impacts of many separate projects may be significant. This cumulative
potential effect analysis considers resources that are expected to be impacted by the proposed
project and assesses past, present, and reasonably fores eeable pro jects to identify any
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 37
geographic and temporal overlap in impac ts. For past projects, Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 11a
states that “it is sufficient to consider the current aggregate effects of past actions.” In most
cases, the existing conditions in the envir onmentally relevant area provide an equivalent
representation of the past actions.
The project’s main potential environmental effects evaluated are an increase in permitted air
emissions and noise impacts associated with operation of the CHP cogeneration facility. Other
potential environmental effects from the project include minor impacts to stormwater, water
appropriation, and transportation.
The environmentally relevant area for evaluating cumulative potential effects varies in size
depending on the t ypes of resources and potential impacts being considered. Air -quality and
noise impact analysis associated with the project, for example, extend somewhat beyond the
immediate project area. Where other potential impacts from the proposed project have been
i dentified, they are more geographically concentrated in the immediate vicinity of the project.
The timeframe of potential impacts from the proposed project ranges from short -term
temporary construction -related impacts on noise levels, stormwater, and air quality, to longer -
term potential impacts to air quality, noise levels, water appropriation, and transportation.
The table below summarizes the relevant geographic and temporal scale of potential impacts
from the project as well as the expected magnitude and nature of these impacts .
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 38
Resource/Impact Timescale Geographic area of impact Nature/Extent of impacts
Construction Noise Short term,
temporary
Immediate project vicinity (nearest
receptors at a distance of
approximately 1/3 mile)
Minor
Operation Noise Long term/
project life
Immediate project vicinity (nearest
receptors at a distance of
approximately 1/3 mile)
Minor; managed via
implementation of noise
controls
Construction
Stormwater
Short term,
temporary Immediate project vicinity Minor; managed via
implementation of BMPs
Air Quality
(construction -related
impacts)
Short term,
temporary Immediate project vicinity Minor; fugitive dust; managed
via implementation of BMPs
Air Quality (project
operation -related
impacts)
Long term/
project life
Within 10 kilometers of property
boundary
Minor; modeled concentration
below screening thresholds
established in MPCA draft
guidance
Water appropriation Long term/
project life Prairie du Chien -Jordan aquifer Minor; managed under existing
water -appropriations permit
Traffic Long term/
project life
Immediate project vicinity (nearby
stretches of Highway 55 and 52) Minor
b. Describe any reasonably foreseeable future projects (for which a basis of expectation has
been laid) that may interact with environmental effects of the proposed project within the
geographic scales and timeframes identified above.
In addition to the proposed CH P Cogeneration Project, FHR is seeking agency approval for
several additional but separate projects at the refinery. Each of these projects meets the criteria
for establishing a basis of expectation. Those projects are described below along with an
analysis of whether they warrant further consideration for cumulative potential effects. Also, in
2013, the MPCA issued permits for other projects being implemented at the refinery: the #3
Crude/#3 Coker Improvement Projects and the Propylene Storage and Distribution Project. The
Propylene Storage and Distribution Project required an EAW and the impacts of the #3 Crude
and #3 Coker projects were considered as part of that evaluation.
In order to address the “cumulative potential effects of related o r anticipated future projects”
this review also includes other potential future projects identified by contacting the c ommunity
d evelopment d irectors for Rosemount and Inver Grove Heights. FHR contacted the c ommunity
d evelopment d irectors from Rosemount an d Inver Grove Heights to determine whether there
are other entities that are planning activities that could result in potential cumulative effects.
The identified projects are located approximately 0.5 to 1.5 miles away from the CHP
Cogeneration Project. T hese projects were evaluated based upon information from the
community development directors and upon information in publicly available permit
documents.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 39
2013 – SKB Landfill expansion
SKB Landfill located at 140th Street E, Rosemount, Minnesota , east of th e project has been
granted approval to expand the landfill capacity. Based on the SKB’s EAW filed with the c ity of
Rosemount, this project will increase disposal capacity, but will not add any additional traffic or
other operations at the landfill beyond w hat currently occurs. The landfill is separated from the
project by approximately 1.5 miles. Due to the distance and the fact that the landfill expansion
will only increase total storage capacity, but not daily traffic, there will be no potential for
cumul ative environmental effects with the CHP.
2013 Schlomka Services Shop Building
Schlomka Services constructed a shop service building in late 2013 at 11496 Courthouse
Bo ulevard, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota . The shop will be used for maintaining equipment
and trucks. Based on information from the c i ty of Inver Grove Heights, the facility will not have
air emissions other than from comfort heating and water heating. As a mainly commercial
building there will be no potential for cumulative environmental effects with the CHP.
Consequently, these two projects do not contribute to cumulative potential environmental
effects with the CHP project .
FHR is also otherwise aware of the following project through discussions with the owners of the
project as well as publically available documents.
2014 – Northern Natural Gas; Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter Station Project
Northern Natural Gas is in the process of permitting a new natural gas branch line b eginning at a
new takeoff facility in the city of Coates, Minnesota , and ending at the Flint Hills refinery. This
proposed project, the “Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter Station Project”, is located
in Sections 5 and 6, Township 114 North, Range 18 West (Sections 5 and 6, T114N, R18W);
Sections 30, 31 and 32, T115N, R18W; and Sections 24, 25 and 36, T115N, R19W, Dakota
County, Minnesota.
According to p ermit documents filed with the c ity of Rosemount, the Northern Natural Gas
Rosemount Loop , and Rose mount Loop Meter Station project will provide service at a new
delivery point. The proposed alternate feed will consist of a new regulated measurement station
and approximately 4.14 miles of 12 -inch -diameter pipeline with feeds from the existing 24 -inch -
d iameter B -Line and 30 -inch -diameter C -Line. The new 12 -inch -diameter lateral will tap into the
existing B -Line and C -Line south of County Road 46. A new 100 - by 100 -foot lot will be required
east of Donnelly Avenue for a takeoff valve and B -line over -p ress ure protection. The route was
mostly agricultural lands and was completed with a combination of open -cut excavation and
horizo ntal directional drilling.
Impacts associated with the Northern Natural Gas Rosemount Loop and Rosemount Loop Meter
Station proje ct are likely primarily minor wildlife habitat impacts associated with construction
and clearing of vegetation in the pipeline right -of -way. Given the timing of the project, the
distance between the majority of the pipeline route and the proposed CHP Cogen eration Project
location, and the different nature of the anticipated impacts from the projects, there is minimal
potential for overlapping impacts between the Northern Natural Gas Rosemount Loop and
Rosemount Loop Meter Station project and FHR’s CHP proje ct.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 40
The following are other projects undertaken by FHR for which a basis of expectation exists.
FHR Projects
2013 – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
The MPCA has also prepared an EAW and a draft air permit for the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects ,
both currently on public notice . The Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects involve refinery investments to
meet the requirements of the proposed EPA Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard which targets
improvements in ambient air quality. In order to produce gasoline meeting the proposed Tier 3
standard, FHR must remove and recover more sulfur from fuel blends, increasing hydrotreating
(a process that removes sulfur). Thus, FHR also proposes to install a unique process to convert
recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a salable aqueous liquid fertilizer, a mmonium
t hiosulfate. Additionally, FHR is proposing to improve the refinery’s sour water skimming and
storage and switch to a more efficient amine solution in the existing amine units (for sulfur
recovery).
The Tier 3 Clean F uels Projects’ main environmental effect will be a small increase in permitted
air emissions. Other potential environmental effects from these projects include minor long
term effects on stormwater, wastewater, water appropriation, hazardous material stora ge, and
transportation and minor construction -related impacts to noise.
2014 – Spring Lake Collection System Emergency Backup Generators
The Spring Lake Collection System is an environmental remediation system that intercepts and
extracts recovered ground water on and around the Pine Bend refinery for subsequent
treatment, recycling, and/or disposal. FHR proposes to provid e A/C p ower redundancy to the
Spring Lake Collection System by installing three propane emergency generators at Sump 3,
Sump 7, and the L ift Station. The emergency generators will be connected to an automatic
transfer switch and will supply back -up power to the pumps at Sump 3, Sump 7, and the Lift
Station in the event primary power is lost. The generators will be fueled with commercial -gra de
propane. The proposed generators at Sump 3 and Sump 7 are each 50 kW (82 BHP) engines; the
proposed generator at the Lift Station is a 150 kW (230 BHP) engine, with a catalytic muffler to
control CO and VOC emissions. This project provides redundancy t o existing groundwater
collection systems by adding an additional layer of protection in the event of power loss.
While an air quality permit has been submitted for the Spring Lake Collection System emergency
backup generator project, air impacts are expec ted to be negligible due to the limited
operational periods of the new equipment. Other potential environmental effects from this
project include minor construction -related impacts to stormwater and noise. Given the distance
of over one mile between this p roject and the CHP Cogeneration Project location, cumulative
impacts to stormwater and noise will not occur.
2014 – New Administration/Office Building
FHR is in the process of constructing a new office building to be located on the north end of the
refinery near the current North Administration Building (NAB). The three story building will be
approximately 140,000 square feet and house approximately 500 employees. It is anticipated to
be complete by April 1, 2015 , and will also have new parking assoc iated with the building. The
building site is approximately 1.3 miles north of the proposed CHP building site. As an office
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 41
building with only natural gas fired comfort heating and water heaters, there will be no
significant air emissions associated with the building once completed. Construction of the new
office building will be completed before construction of the CHP begins, therefore any air
emissions associated with construction of the office building will not have any cumulative
environmental effects with the CHP construction. Stormwater will be managed in an infiltration
basin located near the existing NAB and will not interact with the CHP stormwater. Sanitary
wastewater will be treated by the c ity of Rosemount’s POTW, which has adequate capacity fo r
the future occupants of the building and will not affect the refinery’s wastewater treatment
plant. Consequently, this new office building will have no potential cumulative environmental
effects with the project.
2014 – West Contractor Parking Lot
FHR rehabilitated and expanded a parking lot on the west side of the refinery for use by
contractors during high -volume work periods such as the Spring 2014 maintenance turnaround
and for overflow to the other contractor parki ng at the refinery. The lot is loc ated on Rich Valley
Boulevard /Blaine Ave nue, approximately 3 ,500 feet north of Bonaire Path/132nd Street. The
parking lot encompass es approximately 10 acres and utilize s two existing entry/exit points onto
Rich Valley Boulevard , therefore no new ditch cro s sings or road entrances was required.
Construction of the new parking lot was completed in April of 2014. Consequently, due to the
approximately one mile distance between the parking lot and the CHP project and the fact that
construc tion of the parking lot was completed before construction of the CHP project
commences, there will be no cumulative environmental effects with the CHP project.
2014 – Temporary, Portable Thermal Oxidizers in Support of the 2014 Tank 2 Maintenance
Turnaround
FHR Pine Bend use d temporary, portable thermal oxidizers as a measure to reduce emissions
while taking the Crude Tank #2 (Tank 2) offline in 2014 for a scheduled internal maintenance
inspection. Tank 2 is a 6.3 million gallon crude oil storage tank located at the refinery. The
associate d minor permit application sought to authorize operation of one or more portable,
temporary thermal oxidizers with a maximum total heat input of up to but not exceeding 40
MMBtu/hr to control residual gases from the ta nk. These thermal oxidize rs were temporary
units and are no longer onsite, therefore no potential for cumulative impacts is expected with
these units and the proposed CHP project .
c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available
informatio n relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental
effects due to these cumulative effects .
Th e cumulative potential effects analysis assesses the degree to which past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future projects ma y have an impact on the same resources potentially
affected by th e proposed p roject. The analysis that follows identifies where overlap in the same
geographic area and over the same timescales may result in some degree of cumulative impacts
on these resources. The analysis below indicates that there is some minor cumulative potential
effe ct for noise, stormwater, hazardous material storage risk, traffic , and air quality.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 42
Noise
The time period of construction for the proposed project will overlap with construction of the
Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects, creating the potential for cumulative noise impacts. However, given
the distance of 0.5 to 1.0 miles between the various Tier 3 construction sites and the CHP site as
well as the low likelihood of exact overlap in timing of the most noise intensive stages of
construction, cumulative noise impa cts are not expected to be significant.
Noise impacts due to CHP cogeneration facility operation are expected to be minimal.
T herefore, cumulative effects during operation are not anticipated to be significant.
Construction Stormwater
Construction of th e proposed project will overlap with construction of the Tier 3 Clean Fuels
Projects. Both projects have a very minor impact on construction stormwater. Given the
distance between the location of the CHP Cogeneration Project and the Tier 3 Clean Fuels
Proj ects components, no overlap in construction stormwater impacts between these projects is
expected. Significant cumulative impacts are not expected.
Air Quality
Operation of the CHP project will overlap with operation of the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects.
Estimated emissions from the proposed Tier 3 Clean F uels Projects are very small (<2 percent of
existing facility emissions). Estimated emissions from the CHP Cogeneration Project are also very
small, ranging from less than 1 percent for SO 2 , NO 2 , and HAPs to 4.4 percent for CO 2 e . Modeling
of air emissions from both projects demonstrates that the combined impacts are less than the
SILs, as described below.
As described in Question 16, in response to MPCA draft guidance, air dispersion modeling has
been pe rformed specifically for this EAW. While the response to Question 16 demonstrated that
the Regulatory SIL plus ambient background is less than 90 percent of the NAAQS and that the
CHP Cogeneration Project alone is less than the Regulatory SIL, in this cumu lative potential
effects analysis , FHR has evaluated the impact of the CHP emissions along with the emissions
from the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects for comparison against the SILs. The table below shows that
impacts from the combined projects are less than the Regulatory SILs.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 43
Pollutant Av eraging
Period
Maximum
Modeled
Concentration
(µg/m3 )
Regulatory SIL
(µg/m3 ) Less than SIL?
(Y/N)
CO 1 -hour 7.24 2000 Y
8 -hour 4.44 500 Y
PM 10 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y
Annual 0.07 1 Y
PM 2.5 24 -hour 0.44 1.2 Y
Annual 0.07 0.3 Y
NO 2 1 -hour 6.44 7.5 Y
Annual 0.19 1 Y
SO 2 1 -hour 4.63 7.9 Y
3 -hour 4.22 25 Y
24 -hour 1.24 5 Y
Annual 0.09 1 Y
H 2 S 1 -hour 2.06 2.1 Y
As the table demonstrates, the combined emissions from both projects are below applicable
levels established by the MPCA guidance to screen projects for the potential for significant
cumulative environmental effects.
Water appropriations
As described in Section 11.B.3.iii, the CHP will minimize water consumption by the utilization of
a ir c ooled c ondensers. The CHP Cogeneration p roject and Tier 3 Clean Fuels P rojects require
very small volumes of input water. Together, through water conservation measures, the projects
will require less than 100 gpm o f clean water. Water needs for both projects can be
accommodated under FHR’s existing water appropriations permit and are not likely to impact
water resources available for appropriation.
Traffic
Cumulative potential effects to traffic are expected to be minor. While the Tier 3 Clean Fuels
Projects and the CHP cogeneration facility will both contribute to minor increases in traffic, the
combined project impact will be minor in comparison to the average daily traffic volumes on the
nearby sections of U .S . Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55.
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Proje ct Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota 44
§¨¦9 4
§¨¦4 9 4
§¨¦3 5 E
§¨¦3 5 W
§¨¦6 9 4
§¨¦4 9 4
£¤6 1
£¤5 2 £¤1 0
£¤5 2
M
i s
s i s s i p p i R i v e r
M i n n e s o t a R i v e r
R O S E M O U N T
I N V E R G R O V E H E I G H T S
D A K O T A C O U N T Y
W A S H I N G T O N C O U N T Y
H E N N E P I N C O U N T Y
R A M S E Y C O U N T Y
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 2 -1 2 1 4 :4 7 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 - S i t e L o c a t i o n M a p .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
I
3 0 3 1 .5
M i l e s
I m a g e r y S o u r c e : F S A , 2 0 1 0 .
F i g u r e 1
S I T E L O C A T I O N M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
P r o j e c t A r e a
F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d R e f i n e r y
C i t y B o u n d a r y
C o u n t y B o u n d a r y
M a j o r R i v e r
^_
S I T E L O C A T I O N
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s
C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
C
l
a
r
k
R
d
1 1 1 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 2 0 t h S t E
A u s t i n C t
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
1 3 8 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
1 4 0 t h S t E
B l a i n e
A v e
E
C o n l e y A v e
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 2
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L I M A G E R Y F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 3 -2 4 0 7 :5 2 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 2 - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l I m a g e r y .m x d U s e r : j r v
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s
C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
C
l
a
r
k
R
d
1 1 1 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 2 0 t h S t E
A u s t i n C t
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
1 3 8 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
1 4 0 t h S t E
B l a i n e
A v e
E
C o n l e y A v e
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 3
S I T E P L A N U S G S T O P O G R A P H I C M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 3 -2 4 0 7 :5 3 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 3 - S i t e P l a n U S G S T o p o .m x d U s e r : j r v
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
B a c k g r o u n d : U S G S T o p o g r a p h i c M a p (D a k o t a C o u n t y )
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
H R S G
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 3
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 2
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k (~1 2 ,0 0 0 G a l )
C o n d e n s a t e T a n k (~2 0 ,0 0 0 G a l )
S t a c k (1 7 0 f t T a l l )
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r (~6 0 f t T a l l )
S t e a m T u r b i n e
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g (~1 0 0 f t W i d e a n d ~8 5 f t T a l l )
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
S t e a m
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
A c c e s s R o a d
F i g u r e 4
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L - P R O J E C T D E T A I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 3 -2 4 1 3 :5 6 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 4 - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l I m a g e r y - P r o j e c t D e t a i l s .m x d U s e r : j r v
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
A c c e s s R o a d
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
C o n d e n s a t e T a n k
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g
H R S G
S t a c k
S t e a m T u r b i n e
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 9 0 1 8 0
F e e t
!;N
E x i s t i n g 2 5 U n i t "S u p e r S u b "
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
F i g u r e 4 (a )(i )
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L - C L O S E U P O F N E W I N T E R N A L D I S T R I B U T I O N S U B S T A T I O N (1 3 .8 k V O P T I O N )F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 3 :2 0 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 4 (a )(i ) - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l – C l o s e U p o f N e w I n t e r n a l D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n (1 3 .8 K V o p t i o n ).m x d U s e r : k a c 2
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 3 0 6 0
F e e t
!;N
H R S G
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 3
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 2
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k (~1 2 ,0 0 0 G a l )
S t a c k (1 7 0 f t T a l l )
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r (~6 0 f t T a l l )
S t e a m T u r b i n e
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g (~1 0 0 f t W i d e a n d ~8 5 f t T a l l )
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
S t e a m
A c c e s s R o a d
M o v e P a r k i n g L o t t o t h i s A r e a
T r a n s f o r m e r Y a r d (1 ) 7 0 0 0 G a l l o n * S t e p -U p T r a n s f o r m e r (1 ) 3 5 0 0 G a l l o n * S t e p -U p T r a n s f o r m e r (2 ) 1 0 0 0 G a l l o n * S t a t i o n P o w e r T r a n s f o r m e r
*T r a n s f o r m e r c a p a c i t i e s l i s t e d a r e g a l l o n s o f d i e l e c t r i c f l u i d .
1 1 5 k V T i e
F i g u r e 4 (b )
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L - 1 1 5 k V R I N G B U S T R A N S M I S S I O N O P T I O N P R O J E C T D E T A I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 3 :3 1 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 4 (b ) - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l - 1 1 5 K V R i n g B u s T r a n s m i s s i o n O p t i o n .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m
1 1 5 k V T i e
A c c e s s R o a d
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g
H R S G
P a r k i n g L o t
S t a c k
S t e a m T u r b i n e
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
T r a n s f o r m e r Y a r d
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 9 0 1 8 0
F e e t
!;N
!!!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
H R S G
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 3
E x i s t i n g G a t e 6 2
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k (~1 2 ,0 0 0 G a l )
S t a c k (1 7 0 f t T a l l )
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r (~6 0 f t T a l l )
S t e a m T u r b i n e
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g (~1 0 0 f t W i d e a n d ~8 5 f t T a l l )
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
S t e a m
A c c e s s R o a d
M o v e P a r k i n g L o t t o t h i s A r e a
T r a n s f o r m e r Y a r d (1 ) 7 0 0 0 G a l l o n * S t e p -U p T r a n s f o r m e r (1 ) 3 5 0 0 G a l l o n * S t e p -U p T r a n s f o r m e r (2 ) 1 0 0 0 G a l l o n * S t a t i o n P o w e r T r a n s f o r m e r
*T r a n s f o r m e r c a p a c i t i e s l i s t e d a r e g a l l o n s o f d i e l e c t r i c f l u i d .
1 1 5 k V T i e
J o h n n y C a k e 1 1 5 k V
F i g u r e 4 (c )
S I T E P L A N A E R I A L - 1 1 5 k V E X T E R N A L /G R I D T R A N S M I S S I O N O P T I O N P R O J E C T D E T A I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 3 :4 1 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 4 (b ) - S i t e P l a n A e r i a l - 1 1 5 K V E x t e r n a l G r i d T r a n s m i s s i o n O p t i o n .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m
1 1 5 k V T i e
!
!
!!J o h n n y C a k e 1 1 5 k V
A c c e s s R o a d
A i r C o o l e d C o n d e n s e r
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a T a n k
A q u e o u s A m m o n i a U n l o a d i n g A r e a
C o m b u s t i o n T u r b i n e
G e n e r a t i o n B u i l d i n g
H R S G
P a r k i n g L o t
S t a c k
S t e a m T u r b i n e
S t e a m a n d C o n d e n s a t e P i p i n g T r e n c h
T r a n s f o r m e r Y a r d
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 9 0 1 8 0
F e e t
!;N
Figure 5. CHP Cogeneration Project Process Flow Schematic
Note: Figure adapted from United States Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/chp/basic/)
New Distribution Substation
115kV Tie
Steam
Natural Gas CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Underground Electric
£¤52
£¤52
55
4 5 6 7 71
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
117th St E
140th St E
135th St E
Pin
e
B
e
n
d
T
r
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
120th St E
111th St E
E 125th St
138th St E
Co
n
l
e
y
A
v
e
Au
s
t
i
n
C
t
140th St E
117th St E
Courth
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Figure 6
SITE MAP LAND USE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
9
-
1
5
1
4
:
5
7
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
C
H
P
_
C
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
6
-
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
-
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
Land Use (2010 - Metropolitan Council)
Farmstead
Seasonal/Vacation
Single Family Detached
Manufactured Housing Park
Single Family Attached
Multifamily
Retail and Other Commercial
Office
Mixed Use Residential
Mixed Use Industrial
Mixed Use Commercial and Other
Industrial and Utility
Extractive
Institutional
Park, Recreational or Preserve
Golf Course
Major Highway
Railway
Airport
Agricultural
Undeveloped
Water
Data Source: MPCA, Metropolitan Council (MetroGIS)
1,200 0 1,200
Feet
!;N
New Distribution Substation
115kV Tie
Steam
Natural Gas CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Underground Electric
£¤52
£¤52
55
4 5 6 7 71
Cl
a
r
k
R
d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
Bl
a
i
n
e
A
v
e
E
117th St E
140th St E
135th St E
Pin
e
B
e
n
d
T
r
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
120th St E
111th St E
E 125th St
138th St E
Co
n
l
e
y
A
v
e
Au
s
t
i
n
C
t
140th St E
117th St E
Courth
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
Figure 7
SITE MAP LAND COVER Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota
MNRRA Corridor
FHR Facility Boundary
Proposed Site Features
Land Cover (MLCCS)
5-10% Impervious
11-25% Impervious
26-50% Impervious
51-75% Impervious
76-100% Impervious
Short Grasses
Agricultural Land
Maintained Tall Grass
Tree Plantation
Forest
Wetland Forest
Wetland Shrubs
Tall Grasses
Wetland Emergent Veg.
Dry Tall Grasses
Open Water
Wetland Open Water
Ba
r
r
F
o
o
t
e
r
:
A
r
c
G
I
S
1
0
.
2
.
1
,
2
0
1
4
-
0
9
-
1
5
1
4
:
5
8
F
i
l
e
:
I
:
\
C
l
i
e
n
t
\
F
l
i
n
t
H
i
l
l
s
\
P
i
n
e
B
e
n
d
\
C
H
P
_
C
o
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
_
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
\
M
a
p
s
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
E
A
W
\
F
i
g
u
r
e
7
-
S
i
t
e
M
a
p
-
L
a
n
d
C
o
v
e
r
.
m
x
d
U
s
e
r
:
k
a
c
2
Data Source: MN DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
1,200 0 1,200
Feet
I
I N V E R G R O V E H E I G H T S
R O S E M O U N T
!
R E S I D E N C E
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
1 1 5 k V T i e
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
!
R E S I D E N C E
!B U S I N E S S
!R E S I D E N C E
!R E S I D E N C E
!
R E S I D E N C E
!
R E S I D E N C E
!
R E S I D E N C E
!
R E S I D E N C E
!R E S I D E N C E
£¤5 2
£¤5 2
5 5
4 5 6 7 7 1
C l a
r k
R d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
B l a i n e A v e E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 4 0 t h S t E
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
C
o
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
B
l
v
d
1 2 0 t h S t E
1 1 1 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
C o n l e y A v e
A u s t i n C t
1 4 0 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
F i g u r e 8
S I T E M A P Z O N I N G F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 4 :5 8 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 8 - S i t e M a p - Z o n i n g .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
P a r c e l s O w n e d b y F l i n t H i l l s R e s o u r c e s
M u n i c i p a l B o u n d a r y
Z o n i n g (2 0 0 7 )
A g r i c u l t u r a l
A g r i c u l t u r a l P r e s e r v e
F l o o d P l a i n
G e n e r a l I n d u s t r i a l
G e n e r a l B u s i n e s s
H e a v y I n d u s t r i a l
P u b l i c /I n s t i t u t i o n a l
W a t e r
W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t
D a t a S o u r c e : C i t y o f R o s e m o u n t a n d C i t y o f I n n v e r G r o v e H e i g h t s
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
N a t u r a l G a s
S t e a m U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
1 1 5 k V T i e
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
F i g u r e 9
C I T Y O F R O S E M O U N T Z O N I N G M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
B a c k g r o u n d D a t a : C i t y o f R o s e m o u n t Z o n i n g M a p
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 4 :5 5 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 9 - C i t y o f R o s e m o u n t Z o n i n g M a p .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
1 1 5 k V T i e
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
4 1 1 A
8 5 7 B
4 1 1 A
6 1 1 F
3 9 B
3 9 B
1 0 3 9
3 9 A
4 5 4 E
3 9 A
6 1 1 D
1 0 3 9
3 9 B
3 9 B
1 0 7 2
1 0 2 9
W
6 1 1 C
4 1 B
8 5 7 A
3 4 2 C
4 5 4 E
3 9 B
3 9 A
4 1 B
3 9 B
8 5 7 A
1 8 2 1
7 B
6 1 1 C
4 1 1 B
4 1 1 A
1 0 3 9
7 B
1 5 5 C
4 1 B
3 4 2 B
3 9 B 2
3 9 B
4 1 B
2 5 0
3 9 B
W
6 1 1 D
4 1 1 B
4 1 B
4 1 A
4 1 A
9 8
4 5 4 B
3 9 B
4 1 B
4 1 A
1 2 9
3 9 B 2
8 5 7 B
4 1 B
1 5 5 B
6 1 1 D
6 1 1 C
8 5 7 B
4 5 4 B
3 9 B
1 0 2 9
W
2 8 3 A
2 7 B
8 9 6 E
4 9 B
4 5 4 C
2 5 0
4 5 4 C
6 1 1 E
4 5 4 E
9 8
4 1 B
4 1 1 B
3 9 B
3 9 B
1 8 2 1
6 1 1 C
4 1 1 A
1 5 5 E
3 9 B
4 1 B
1 8 1 5
3 9 B
3 9 B
8 6 1 C
1 5 5 B
3 9 A
W
1 2 9
4 1 B
8 9 5 B
6 1 1 C
1 2 9
1 5 5 C
1 5 5 B
1 5 5 B
3 9 D
4 1 5 B
6 1 1 C
1 5 5 B
7 C
4 1 1 B
2 5 0
4 5 4 B
3 4 2 E
3 9 B
1 8 1 5
6 1 1 C
8 5 7 A
3 9 C
W
6 1 1 C
3 1 3
2 5 0
3 9 B 2
6 1 1 C
4 1 1 B
5 4 0
4 5 4 C
W
4 1 B
6 1 1 D
2 5 0
2 7 B
W
3 1 3
3 9 A
1 8 9
6 1 1 C
6 1 1 E
3 9 B
4 5 4 C
3 0 1 B
4 1 B
1 0 2 9
6 1 1 C
4 9 B
4 9 B
4 1 1 B
4 5 4 C
3 0 1 B
4 1 1 B
4 6 5
4 5 4 B
4 1 5 B
W
4 1 5 A
6 1 1 D
W
4 9 B
6 1 1 C
3 9 B
W
6 1 1 C
4 1 5 B
2 5 0
4 1 B
2 7 9 B
2 8 3 A
2 5 0
4 5 4 B
4 9 B
3 4 2 B
2 5 2
1 5 5 C
9 8
7 B
3 9 B
4 1 5 A
1 8 1 6
6 1 1 E
3 0 1 B
1 0 2 9 4 9 B
3 9 B
6 1 1 C
4 5 4 C
4 1 5 B
3 0 1 B
1 5 5 C
1 8 1 5
4 1 B
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
2 5 0
1 5 5 B
1 5 5 B
1 9 0 2 B
4 5 4 C
3 0 1 B
2 5 0
3 9 B 2
6 1 1 C
3 4 2 B
3 0 1 B
3 1 3
4 1 5 B
4 5 4 C
2 7 B
3 1 3
6 1 1 E
6 1 1 D
1 0 5 5
6 1 1 D
4 1 B
3 9 B 2
2 5 0
1 9 0 2 B
2 8 3 B
3 9 A
4 1 1 B
1 5 5 B
3 9 D
3 9 B 2
2 7 9 B
2 5 0
3 1 3
3 9 B
2 8 3 A
3 0 1 B
1 2 9
3 0 1 B
3 4 2 B
2 5 0
3 1 3
3 0 1 B
1 0 5 5
4 5 4 B
2 5 0
1 8 1 6
4 1 5 B
3 0 1 B
4 1 B
4 9 B
2 8 3 B
6 1 1 C
3 9 B
3 9 B
3 4 4
W
2 8 3 A
4 1 B
4 1 5 A
2 5 0
4 1 1 B
4 1 5 C
1 5 5 B
2 5 0
1 8 1 6
4 1 5 B
2 8 3 A
8 9 6 E
1 8 1 6
3 9 B 2
3 9 B
W
2 7 9 B
8 9 5 C
3 0 1 B
1 8 1 6
2 8 3 A
4 5 4 C
6 1 1 D
1 5 0 B 1 8 1 6
W
1 5 0 B
4 1 B
8 9 5 C
3 1 3
2 8 3 A 2 5 0
3 4 2 C
6 1 1 C
1 5 5 B
1 8 1 6 1 8 1 6
6 1 1 C
2 5 2
2 5 0
2 5 0
4 1 5 B
6 1 1 D
2 7 A
2 8 3 A
6 1 1 C
2 5 0
1 5 0 B
2 5 0
2 5 0
3 9 B
6 1 1 C
8 9 6 E
3 9 B
3 4 2 B 1 5 0 B
3 0 1 B
6 1 1 C 4 1 1 B
4 5 4 B
8 9 5 C
1 5 0 B 3 9 B 2 3 9 B
6 1 1 C
4 1 5 B
F i g u r e 1 0
S I T E M A P S O I L S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 4 :5 2 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 0 - S i t e M a p - S o i l s .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
A l l a r e a s a r e p r i m e f a r m l a n d
S o i l M a p U n i t N a m e
A l g a n s e e s a n d y l o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d
A n t i g o s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
A q u o l l s a n d H i s t o s o l s , p o n d e d
A u b u r n d a l e s i l t l o a m
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C h e t e k s a n d y l o a m , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
C o l o s i l t l o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d
C y l i n d e r l o a m
D i c k i n s o n s a n d y l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
D i c k i n s o n s a n d y l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
E s t h e r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
E s t h e r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k c o a r s e s a n d y l o a m , 1 2 t o 1 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k c o a r s e s a n d y l o a m , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k l o a m y s a n d , 1 8 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H a w i c k l o a m y s a n d , 2 5 t o 5 0 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H u b b a r d l o a m y s a n d , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
H u b b a r d l o a m y s a n d , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
J e w e t t s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a l m a r v i l l e s a n d y l o a m , f r e q u e n t l y f l o o d e d
K a n a r a n z i l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a n a r a n z i l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K a n a r a n z i l o a m , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K e n n e b e c s i l t l o a m
K e n n e b e c v a r i a n t s i l t l o a m
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y s a n d y l o a m , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i c o m p l e x , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i -S p e n c e r c o m p l e x , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
K i n g s l e y -M a h t o m e d i -S p e n c e r c o m p l e x , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
L i n d s t r o m s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 4 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 1 5 t o 2 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 3 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a h t o m e d i l o a m y s a n d , 8 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
M a r s h a n s i l t y c l a y l o a m
O t t e r h o l t s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
P i t s , g r a v e l
P l a i n f i e l d l o a m y s a n d , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
P l a i n f i e l d l o a m y s a n d , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
Q u a m s i l t l o a m
S e e l y e v i l l e m u c k
S p e n c e r s i l t l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
S p i l l v i l l e l o a m , o c c a s i o n a l l y f l o o d e d
U d o r t h e n t s , m o d e r a t e l y s h a l l o w
U r b a n l a n d
U r b a n l a n d -K i n g s l e y c o m p l e x , 3 t o 1 5 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
U r b a n l a n d -W a u k e g a n c o m p l e x , 0 t o 1 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
U r b a n l a n d -W a u k e g a n c o m p l e x , 1 t o 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 0 t o 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 1 2 t o 1 8 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a d e n a l o a m , 2 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s ,e r o d e d
W a d e n a l o a m , 6 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a t e r
W a u k e g a n s i l t l o a m , 0 t o 1 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
W a u k e g a n s i l t l o a m , 1 t o 6 p e r c e n t s l o p e s
Z u m b r o l o a m y f i n e s a n d
D a t a S o u r c e : U S D A N R C S S S U R G O D a t a b a s e (g S S U R G O )
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
1 8 2 1
4 9 B
1 0 5 5
1 8 9
1 5 5 E
1 5 5 B
1 5 5 C
9 8
1 2 9
4 9 B
2 7 B
4 1 A
4 1 B
6 1 1 D
6 1 1 C
6 1 1 E
6 1 1 F
7 B
7 C
1 9 0 2 B
4 6 5
4 1 5 A
4 1 5 B
4 1 5 C
2 5 0
1 8 1 6
3 4 2 E
3 4 2 B
3 4 2 C
8 9 6 E
8 9 5 B
3 4 2 C
3 0 1 B
4 5 4 E
4 5 4 B
4 5 4 C
2 5 2
2 7 9 B
1 0 2 9
2 8 3 A
2 8 3 B
3 4 4
5 4 0
1 5 0 B
3 1 3
1 0 7 2
1 0 3 9
8 6 1 C
8 5 7 A
8 5 7 B
3 9 A
3 9 D
3 9 B
3 9 B 2
3 9 C
W
4 1 1 A
4 1 1 B
1 8 1 5
!>
!>
!>!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
!>
F H R -P B W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T P L A N T O U T F A L L N O . 0 1 0
F H R -P B W A S T E W A T E R T R E A T M E N T P L A N T
1 1 5 k V T i e
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
N a t u r a l G a s C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
S t e a m
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
0 0 7 5 2 1 1 0
0 0 6 1 2 6 6 3
0 0 2 0 8 3 9 1
0 0 5 0 9 0 6 8
0 0 5 9 4 9 9 8
0 0 2 0 8 3 9 3
0 0 6 1 2 0 1 4
0 0 5 0 9 0 7 0
0 0 5 0 9 0 6 6
0 0 6 1 2 0 0 3
0 0 5 0 9 0 6 3
0 0 5 0 9 0 6 5
0 0 5 5 4 2 0 2
0 0 6 6 6 4 9 0
0 0 2 0 8 3 9 4
0 0 2 0 8 3 9 2
0 0 6 1 2 0 1 5
0 0 6 1 2 0 0 4
0 0 6 1 7 7 8 3
0 0 2 0 8 3 9 0
0 0 2 1 3 5 8 4
0 0 6 1 2 0 1 0
0 0 5 0 9 0 7 1
0 0 6 1 2 7 2 9
0 0 6 4 3 9 2 3
0 0 1 6 1 4 2 1
0 0 6 1 2 0 0 8
0 0 2 7 2 2 6 1
B l a i n e A v e E
C l a r k R d
P i n e B e n d T r C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
C o u r t h o u s e
B l v d
R
i
c
h
V
a
l
l
e
y
B
l
v
d
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
C o u r
t
h o u
s e
B l
v
d
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
5 5
£¤5 2
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 1 1
W A T E R Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T W I T H I N R E F I N E R Y F E N C E L I N E F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 4 :5 9 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 1 - W a t e r Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t w i t h i n R e f i n e r y F e n c e l i n e .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
!>
W e l l s (C o u n t y W e l l I n d e x W e l l s w i t h i n F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y )
W e t l a n d s (N a t i o n a l W e t l a n d s I n v e n t o r y )*
F r e s h w a t e r E m e r g e n t W e t l a n d
F r e s h w a t e r F o r e s t e d /S h r u b W e t l a n d
F r e s h w a t e r P o n d
L a k e
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
8 0 0 0 8 0 0
F e e t
!;N
* M o d i f i e d b a s e d o n a e r i a l i m a g e r y t o r e f l e c t c u r r e n t r e f i n e r y s i t e o p e r a t i o n s .
§
§§
§§
§
§
§
B u t a n e
B u t a n e
W e s t T a n k F a r m S t o r m w a t e r R e t e n t i o n B a s i n
S o u t h w e s t S t o r m w a t e r /F i r e W a t e r B a s i n
S o u t h w e s t B a s i n F i r e W a t e r A n d S t o r m W a t e r R e t e n t i o n B a s i n
S a n d b l a s t a n d P a i n t i n g A r e a
E q u i p m e n t I n s p e c t i o n A r e a
L e a s e d P r o p e r t y S o l b e r g (U n d e r S o l b e r g S W P P P )
L e n e r t z T r u c k i n g W a y n e A r e a
B 5 /N o r t h F i r e W a t e r B a s i n L o w e r B a s i n
R i p r a p
N o r t h F i r e B a r n
G a t e 2
V e g e t a t i o n i n S w a l e
G a t e 5
G a t e 6
G a t e 9 /1 0
V e g e t a t i o n i n S w a l e
C o n t r a c t o r A r e a
M a i n t e n a n c e S h o p A r e a
M a i n t e n a n c e S h o p 5
W a s t e W a t e r T r e a t m e n t P l a n t
R a i l c a r L o a d i n g S p u r
S t o r m w a t e r R u n o f f F r o m T h i s A r e a I s D e t a i n e d O n s i t e O r D i s c h a r g e d U n d e r T h e F a c i l i t y N P D E S W a s t e W a t e r P e r m i t
N o r t h w e s t P o n d
C r e e k
W e t l a n d A r e a
F i g u r e 1 2
S T O R M W A T E R R U N O F F M A P F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C P i n e B e n d , M N
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -0 4 1 7 :1 7 F i l e : I :\C
l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 2 - S t o r m w a t e r R u n o f f M a p .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
§G a t e V a l v e
B e r m
C o n v e y a n c e /S t r u c t u r a l C o n t r o l
F l o w A r r o w s
P r o p e r t y B o u n d a r y
W a t e r s o f t h e S t a t e
D e t e n t i o n B a s i n
R e t e n t i o n B a s i n
W a t e r s o f t h e S t a t e D r a i n a g e A r e a s
R u n o f f A r e a
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
!;N
1 ,0 0 0 0 1 ,0 0 0 5 0 0
F e e t
1 1 t h S t r e e t
1 2 t h S t r e e t
G A T E 1 1
1 1 5 k V T i e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s
C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
£¤5 2
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 1 3
H I S T O R I C W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T A R E A S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 8 -0 4 1 7 :1 7 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 3 - H i s t o r i c W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t A r e a s .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
S o l i d W a s t e M a n a g e m e n t U n i t s
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2
0 3 5 0 7 0 0
F e e t
!;N
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
#
##
#
#
###
#
####
#
##
##
###
#
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##########
#
N e w D i s t r i b u t i o n S u b s t a t i o n
1 1 5 k V T i e
S t e a m
N a t u r a l G a s C H P C o g e n e r a t i o n P l a n t S i t e
U n d e r g r o u n d E l e c t r i c
C
l
a
r
k
R d
1 1 1 t h S t E
1 1 7 t h S t E
1 2 0 t h S t E
A u s t i n C t
R
i
c
h
V
a
l l
e
y
B
l
v
d
1 3 8 t h S t E
E 1 2 5 t h S t
1 3 5 t h S t E
P i n e B e n d T r
1 4 0 t h S t E
B l a i n e
A v e
E
C o n l e y A v e
C o u r t h o u s e B l v d
4 5 6 7 7 1
5 5
£¤5 2
F i g u r e 1 4
S I T E M A P E C O L O G I C A L R E S O U R C E S F l i n t H i l l s P i n e B e n d , L L C R o s e m o u n t , M i n n e s o t a
B a r r F o o t e r : A r c G I S 1 0 .2 .1 , 2 0 1 4 -0 9 -1 5 1 4 :5 7 F i l e : I :\C l i e n t \F l i n t H i l l s \P i n e B e n d \C H P _C o g e n e r a t i o n _P r o j e c t \M a p s \R e p o r t s \E A W \F i g u r e 1 4 - S i t e M a p - E c o l o g i c a l R e s o u r c e s .m x d U s e r : k a c 2
I m a g e r y : D i g i t a l G l o b e - 2 0 1 2 N a t u r a l H e r i t a g e I n f o r m a t i o n S y s t e m R a r e F e a t u r e s D a t a - C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 2 S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a , D e p a r t m e n t o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s
* P o s s i b l e R a n g e a n d /o r G e o g r a p h i c U n c e r t a i n t y f o r S p e c i e s S i g h t i n g
F H R F a c i l i t y B o u n d a r y
P r o p o s e d S i t e F e a t u r e s
R a r e N a t u r a l F e a t u r e s - E l e m e n t O c c u r a n c e s *
V e r t e b r a t e A n i m a l
C o m m u n i t y
V a s c u l a r P l a n t
R a r e N a t u r a l F e a t u r e s - P o i n t s
#V e r t e b r a t e A n i m a l
#C o m m u n i t y
#V a s c u l a r P l a n t
1 ,2 0 0 0 1 ,2 0 0
F e e t
I
Dakota County, Minnesota
[Minor map unit components are excluded from this report]
7B - Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Hubbard (90%)Component:
The Hubbard component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 4s. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
7C - Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Hubbard (90%)Component:
The Hubbard component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. Irrigated land capability classification is 6s. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
27A - Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Dickinson (90%)Component:
The Dickinson component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
27B - Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Dickinson (90%)Component:
The Dickinson component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
39A - Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 1 of 16
APPENDIX A
Dakota County, Minnesota
39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39B2 - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Map unit:
Wadena, eroded (90%)Component:
The Wadena, eroded component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39C - Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
39D - Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Map unit:
Wadena (85%)Component:
The Wadena component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 12 to 18 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
41A - Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Estherville (90%)Component:
The Estherville component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 2 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
41B - Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Estherville (90%)Component:
The Estherville component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
49B - Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Antigo (90%)Component:
The Antigo component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Loess over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. Irrigated land capability
classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
94C - Terril loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Terril (100%)Component:
The Terril component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 4 to 12 percent. This component is on toes on moraines. The
parent material consists of Colluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
98 - Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Colo, occasionally flooded (85%)Component:
The Colo, occasionally flooded component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood
plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches
during April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2w. This soil
meets hydric criteria.
129 - Cylinder loam Map unit:
Cylinder (85%)Component:
The Cylinder component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during April,
May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 3 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
150B - Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Spencer (90%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
155B - Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
155C - Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
155E - Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Chetek (85%)Component:
The Chetek component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is somewhat
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
189 - Auburndale silt loam Map unit:
Auburndale (90%)Component:
The Auburndale component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of
60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation
is at 0 inches during March, April, May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 7 percent. Nonirrigated land capability
classification is 5w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 4 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
250 - Kennebec silt loam Map unit:
Kennebec (100%)Component:
The Kennebec component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 36 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 1. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
252 - Marshan silty clay loam Map unit:
Marshan (90%)Component:
The Marshan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flats on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Glaciolacustrine sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of
60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6
inches during April, May. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 6 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is
2w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
279B - Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Otterholt (85%)Component:
The Otterholt component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
279C - Otterholt silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Otterholt (85%)Component:
The Otterholt component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
283A - Plainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 5 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Plainfield (95%)Component:
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. Irrigated land capability classification is 3e. This
soil does not meet hydric criteria.
301B - Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Map unit:
Lindstrom (100%)Component:
The Lindstrom component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 4 percent. This component is on hills. The parent
material consists of Loess. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
313 - Spillville loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Spillville, occasionally flooded (100%)Component:
The Spillville, occasionally flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is moderately well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation
is at 36 inches during April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is
2w. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
342B - Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
342C - Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 6 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (85%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
344 - Quam silt loam Map unit:
Quam (90%)Component:
The Quam component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on moraines.
The parent material consists of Glaciolacustine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during March, April, May, June. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 11 percent. Nonirrigated land
capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
411A - Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map unit:
Waukegan (90%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
411B - Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Waukegan (90%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
415A - Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 7 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
415C - Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Kanaranzi (100%)Component:
The Kanaranzi component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 13 percent.
454B - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines, outwash
plains. The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
454C - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 8 percent.
454E - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Mahtomedi (85%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains.
The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
excessively drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Map unit:
Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100%)Component:
The Kalmarville, frequently flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 6 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 8 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Map unit:
Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100%)Component:
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 5w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
540 - Seelyeville muck Map unit:
Seelyeville (100%)Component:
The Seelyeville component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Organic material. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water
saturation is at 0 inches during March, April, May, June. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 62 percent. Nonirrigated
land capability classification is 6w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
611C - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (90%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 6 to 12 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611D - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (90%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 12 to 18 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611E - Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 18 to 25 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
611F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
The Hawick component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 25 to 50 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very low. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 9 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
611F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Map unit:
Hawick (100%)Component:
in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 7s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 5 percent.
857A - Urban land-Waukegan complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (90%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Waukegan (10%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 10 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2s. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
857B - Urban land-Waukegan complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (90%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Waukegan (10%)Component:
The Waukegan component makes up 10 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 8 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The
parent material consists of Glaciofluvial sediments over outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches
is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of
72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil
does not meet hydric criteria.
861C - Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Urban land (65%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
Kingsley (35%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 35 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
895B - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 45 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 10 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
895B - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (23%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 23 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Spencer (22%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 22 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 3 to 8 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
895C - Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (45%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 45 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (23%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 23 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 15 percent. This component is on moraines. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Spencer (22%)Component:
The Spencer component makes up 22 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 8 to 12 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-
swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 30 inches during April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3e. This soil does not meet hydric
criteria.
896E - Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (60%)Component:
The Kingsley component makes up 60 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained. Water
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 11 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
896E - Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Map unit:
Kingsley (60%)Component:
movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 3 percent.
Mahtomedi (30%)Component:
The Mahtomedi component makes up 30 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 15 to 25 percent. This component is on moraines. The
parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is excessively
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 1 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 6s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
1029 - Pits, gravel Map unit:
Pits, gravel (100%)Component:
Gravel pits are areas that have been mined for gravel or sand. This map unit is actively being mined or is an abandoned pit. Because of
the variability of this component in this map unit, interpretation for specific uses are not available. Onsite investigation is needed.
1039 - Urban land Map unit:
Urban land (100%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area.
1055 - Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Map unit:
Aquolls, ponded (50%)Component:
The Aquolls, ponded component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Mineral sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 7 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets hydric criteria. The
calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 2 percent.
Histosols, ponded (50%)Component:
The Histosols, ponded component makes up 50 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions
on moraines. The parent material consists of Organic material. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural
drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60
inches is very high. Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is
at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 62 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
1072 - Udorthents, moderately shallow Map unit:
Udorthents, moderately shallow (100%)Component:
Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Udorthents is a miscellaneous area.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 12 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
1815 - Zumbro loamy fine sand Map unit:
Zumbro, non-flooded (100%)Component:
The Zumbro, non-flooded component makes up 100 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood
plains. The parent material consists of Outwash. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is
well drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is moderate. Shrink-swell
potential is low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter
content in the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3s. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
1816 - Kennebec variant silt loam Map unit:
Kennebec (90%)Component:
The Kennebec component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 4 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Colluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is moderately well
drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is very high. Shrink-
swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 36 inches during April.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 5 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not
meet hydric criteria.
1821 - Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded Map unit:
Algansee, occasionally flooded (95%)Component:
The Algansee, occasionally flooded component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on
flood plains. The parent material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage
class is somewhat poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is low.
Shrink-swell potential is low. This soil is occasionally flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 18 inches during
April. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 3 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 3w. This soil does
not meet hydric criteria.
1824 - Quam silt loam, ponded Map unit:
Quam, ponded (90%)Component:
The Quam, ponded component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 1 percent. This component is on depressions on
moraines. The parent material consists of Glaciolacustine sediments. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The
natural drainage class is very poorly drained. Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a
depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is moderate. This soil is not flooded. It is frequently ponded. A seasonal zone of water
saturation is at 0 inches during January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November, December.
Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 11 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 8w. This soil meets
hydric criteria.
1902B - Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Map unit:
Jewett (85%)Component:
The Jewett component makes up 85 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 1 to 6 percent. This component is on moraines. The parent
material consists of Loess over till. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is well drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately low. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential is
low. This soil is not flooded. It is not ponded. There is no zone of water saturation within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in
the surface horizon is about 2 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 2e. This soil does not meet hydric criteria.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 13 of 16
Dakota County, Minnesota
W - Water Map unit:
Water (100%)Component:
Map Unit Description
This mapunit consists of natural occuring bodies of water or water that has been impounded by structures in natural waterways. They
range in size from 1.5 acres to tens of thousands of acres. This map unit is not soil, no interpretations assigned.
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 14 of 16
Washington County, Minnesota
329 - Chaska silt loam Map unit:
Chaska (90%)Component:
The Chaska component makes up 90 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. This component is on flood plains. The parent
material consists of Alluvium. Depth to a root restrictive layer is greater than 60 inches. The natural drainage class is poorly drained.
Water movement in the most restrictive layer is moderately high. Available water to a depth of 60 inches is high. Shrink-swell potential
is low. This soil is frequently flooded. It is not ponded. A seasonal zone of water saturation is at 0 inches during March, April. Organic
matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 percent. Nonirrigated land capability classification is 4w. This soil meets hydric criteria.
The calcium carbonate equivalent within 40 inches, typically, does not exceed 7 percent.
W - Water Map unit:
Water (100%)Component:
This mapunit consists of natural occuring bodies of water or water that has been impounded by structures in natural waterways. They
range in size from 1.5 acres to tens of thousands of acres. This map unit is not soil, no interpretations assigned.
Map Unit Description
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 8
Page 15 of 16
Map Unit Description
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit
descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified
and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties
of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus,
the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if
ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non-soil
(miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included. This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data.
Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the
limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties
included in the map unit descriptions.
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012
Survey Area Version: 7
Page 16 of 16
M arch 27 , 201 4
L isa Joyal
Environmental Review Coordinator
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Box 25
500 Lafayette Road
Saint Paul , MN 55 155
R e: Flint Hills Resources: Combined heat and power cogeneration facility project
Dear Ms. Joyal :
Barr Engineering Company (Barr) is assisting Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCC (FHR) with the
environmental review (Environmental Assessment Worksheet ) for a proposed combined heat and power
cogeneration facility at the Pine Bend R efinery (R efinery) in Dakota County, Minnesota (Figure 1). Barr
requests your review of the proposed Project for potential effects on rare natural resources.
FHR proposes to construct a natural gas based combined heat and power cogeneration facility (proposed
P roject), generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from the grid
and up to 290 ,000 pounds per hour of steam to im prove the efficiency of steam production at the Refinery.
The R efinery is located in the Pine Bend Industrial District , an area of industrial development near the
junction of U.S. Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55 (Figure 1).The proposed Project will be constructed
on a 1.2 acre plot (approximately 370 feet by 140 feet) on the southeast side of the refinery. The facility will
be located in the secured boundary of the current refinery footprint (Figure 2). The total disturbed area
including proposed roads , grading, drainages, and other improvements to the site could be as large as 9
acres when temporary laydown and stockpile areas are considered. Typical construction equipment (e .g.
backhoes, compactors, compressors, concrete mixers, dozers, front loaders, generators, graders
excavators, backhoes, rollers, scrapers) and equipment carrying materials and personnel will be used during
construction.
Barr has a license agreement (LA -674) with the MDNR for access to the Natural Heritage Information
System (NHIS) database, which was queried to determine if any sensitive ecological resources would be
affected by the proposed P roject. The following species have been documented within the vicinity of the
proposed Project : loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ; state -endangered), peregrine falcon (Falco
APPENDIX B
Ms. Lisa Joyal
March 2 7 , 201 4
Page 2
peregrinus ; state -special concern), bull snake (Pituophis melanoleucus ; state -special concern), and fox
snake (Elaphe vullpina ; formerly state -special concern but as of August, 2013 no longer state -listed).
Loggerhead shrike s have been documented in the farmlands and rural areas adjacent to the proposed
Project area within the past four years. Because loggerhead shrike generally prefer broad open areas such
as croplands, lawns and pastures, with adjacent perc hing sites of small trees and shrubs, this species is
unlikely to occur within the developed Project area . The NHIS database indicates a 2011 observation of the
presence of a pair of peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus ; state -special concern) and a nest wi thin the FHR
facility boundary. Impacts to peregrine falcon individuals or populations are not anticipated because the
proposed P roject area is not in the immediate vicinity of the documented nest within the FHR facility
boundary. Moreover, construction ac tivities will not occur in the immediate vicinity of the site where the
nest was observed . Occurrences of the bull snake and fox snake have been reported to the east of the
proposed Project area . Both reports, however, are more than 70 years old and no rec ent sightings have
been reported in the area. B ecause b oth snake species generally prefer wooded and open field river bluff
habitat , i t is not likely that either species will be present on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
Project area due to hi ghly industrialized land use.
According to the NHIS database, several rare species and rare ecological communities have been
documented within the East Rosemount MBS SBS, the Pine Bend SNA, the Inver Grove Heights SBS, the
Mississippi River, and along the Mississippi River bluff area. All of these ecologically sensitive areas are
outside of the proposed Project area and FHR facility boundary.
Due to the industrial nature of the proposed Project area and the absence of suitable habitat for state -
listed species, it has been determined that the proposed Project would not impact state -listed species or
their associated habitats . Your concurrence with this determination is requested.
If you have any questions feel free to contact me by phone (952 -832 -2 694 ) or email (jbutler@barr.com ).
Sincerely,
Jessica Butler
Ecologist
Barr Engineering Company
Enclosure s : Figure 1 – Project Area ; Figure 2 – Site Map
From:Joyal, Lisa (DNR)
To:Jessica L. Butler
Cc:Haworth, Brooke (DNR); Hoaglund, Erica (DNR)
Subject:Flint Hills Resources - Heat and Power Cogeneration Facility - Rare Resources Review
Date:Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:26:40 AM
Attachments:MDNR_Consultation Letter_FHR_CHP Cogeneration.pdf
I have reviewed your assessment of the potential for the above project to impact rare features, and
concur with your assessment. In addition, please note that associated activities (e.g., drainage)
should be carefully designed as to avoid any negative impacts to the ecologically significant areas
that are located east of the proposed project.
The reference number for this correspondence is ERDB #20140336.
Thank you for notifying us of this project, and for the opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
Lisa Joyal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa Joyal
Endangered Species Review Coordinator
NHIS Data Distribution Coordinator
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 651-259-5109
lisa.joyal@state.mn.us
www.mndnr.gov/eco
AP
P
E
N
D
I
X
C