Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6.i. Flint Hills Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs)
ROSEMOUNTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session Date: January 20, 2015 ISSUE The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) has released two Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for Flint Hills Resources (FHR). The first EAW is titled "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 Power (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. These draft letters were discussed briefly at the City Council meeting on January 12, 2015. At the meeting the Council noted that the sewer information was incorrect as the current City sewer plant is not operational and all sewage is piped to the Empire Plant. A question was also asked about the number of trains cars that may be added to local train traffic due to the anticipated projects. While the EAW estimates XXX cars per year for the fertilizer plant, staff has requested more specific information about seasonality of traffic and where the product might be shipped. Flint Hills representatives will be working to obtain this information although staff does not believe this information will impact the EAW comment letters and therefore there has not been additional comments added about train traffic. 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 recently 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. AGENDA ITEM: Flint Hills Environmental Assessment AGENDA SECTION: Worksheets (EAWs) Consent PREPARED BY: Eric Zweber; Senior Planner AGENDA NO. �•� 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 Cogeneration EAW. Dill RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve the Two EAW Comment Letters Pertaining to the Combined Heat and power Cogeneration Plant and the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Project ISSUE The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) has released two Environmental Assessment Worksheets (EAWs) for Flint Hills Resources (FHR). The first EAW is titled "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 Power (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. These draft letters were discussed briefly at the City Council meeting on January 12, 2015. At the meeting the Council noted that the sewer information was incorrect as the current City sewer plant is not operational and all sewage is piped to the Empire Plant. A question was also asked about the number of trains cars that may be added to local train traffic due to the anticipated projects. While the EAW estimates XXX cars per year for the fertilizer plant, staff has requested more specific information about seasonality of traffic and where the product might be shipped. Flint Hills representatives will be working to obtain this information although staff does not believe this information will impact the EAW comment letters and therefore there has not been additional comments added about train traffic. 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 recently 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 existing 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 currently evaluating cogeneration rules in Minnesota to encourage uses such as this. The two turbines within the CHP would be able to generate a total 54.9 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 EAW 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 HI: 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 terminal. The new railroad tracks to the rail terminal go through an area that contains wetlands. A Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) permit will be required for the new railroad tracks and terminal to determine if any wetlands would be impacted. If wetlands are to be impacted, then a determination would need to be made if there were any way to avoid the impacts. The presence of the existing rail terminal to the north may provide an alternative to impacting wetlands for a new terminal. The CHP project is not an allowed use within the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district. FHR would need to 2 apply for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to add CHP or power 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. 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 reviewed 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 building 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. Property 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 power generation and distribution equipment would 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 exemption, staff would recommend that the City request a Host Agreement from FHR for the CHP project. RECOMMENDATION Motion to approve the two attached comment letters. 3 Flint Hills EAWs Drsciaimer_ Map and parcel data art believed to be accurate, bat accuracy is not guaranto&d. This is not a legal Map Sca c document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification. Dakota 1 inch = 2000 feet County assumes no legal responsibility for the information contained in this data_ 1!8;'2015 4ROSEMOUNT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 20, 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 (PCA) from the City of Rosemount on the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). 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 City 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 Wetland 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 wetlands in the vicinity of the New Rail Loading Rack and Planned ATS RR Load In /Out Containment at the former Yocum Oil site and there are NWI wetland along the proposed New Rail Spur. A WCA permit will be required to be submitted and approved either before or concurrently with the Site Plan Review to address any wetland impacts or receive a no loss determination. Page 16, Item 11. B. i. Wattewater: The EAW states that the sanitary wastewater will sent to the City of Rosemount's publicly owned treatment works (POTW). This is incorrect. The sanitary wastewater will be sent to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Metropolitan Council. 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. SPIRIT OF PRIDE 1AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651 - 423 -441 1 • TDD /TTY 651 -423-6219 • Fax 651 - 423 -5203 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Page 19, Item 11. B. iv. a) Surface Water Wetlands: The EAW states that the projects will not involve any physical modifications to wetlands. This statement cannot be verified with the information provided. As stated the comment for Item 11. A. i. above, the EAW does not identify the NWI wetlands 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 concurrently with the Site 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 air health risk of the Tier 3 projects? Page 43, Item 19. c. Cumulative Potential Air Quality 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 shown on page 33 of the CHP EAW. Also, this cumulative air quality table has different CO, N021 SO2 and H2S 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 with 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 Mayor 4ROSEMOUNT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT January 20, 2015 Kim Grosenheider Resource Management and Assistance Division Minnesota 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 City of Rosemount on the Flint Hills Resources (FHR) Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). 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 will generate up to 49.9 MW, while the two turbines within the CHP could generate up to 54.9 MW. It is our understanding that FHR is proposing the 49.9 MW maximum to avoid approval and regulation from the Minnesota Public Utility Commission (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 reviewed and approved by the PUC. Page 9, Item 8. Permits and approvals needed: The EAW does not identify all the City 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 review 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 with the City of Rosemount's rules and regulations. This statement is not correct because the CHP use is not allowed in HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district. As 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 14, Item 11. B. i. Wastewater: The EAW states that the sanitary wastewater will be sent to the City of Rosemount's publicly owned treatment works (POTW). This is incorrect. The sanitary wastewater will be sent to the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Metropolitan Council. SPIRIT OF PRIDE AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068 -4997 651 -423-4411 • TDD /TTY 651 -423-6219 • Fax 651 - 423 -5203 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us Page 23, Item 15. Visual: The CHP building will be 85 feet tall. It is estimated that the upper 75 feet will be visible from US Highway 52, based on the topographical information 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 mitigation measures are discussed. Building materials of the CHP building are not described, but the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district requires that 100% of the facade 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, SO2 and H2S concentrations than the cumulative air quality 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. Sincerely, William H. Droste Mayor 2 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 Public Comment Information Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Flint Hills Resources —Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects 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 Permit public comment period begins: December 23, 2014 Permit public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 2015 Facility Specific Information Facility name and location: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery 13775 Clark Road Rosemount, MN 55068 NW '/4, SW '/4, Section 13, T1 15N, R1 9W Rosemount Township Dakota County, MN MPCA Contact Information MPCA EAW 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 General Information Facility contact: 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 Permit contact person: 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 Doc Type: Public Notice The 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 Agency (EPA) Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard, which targets improvements in ambient air quality. In order to produce gasoline meeting the 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 • 1012114 Page 1 oft p- earl -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 into 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 Submit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit Written comments 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 Citizens' 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 • 1012114 Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 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. Project title: Flint Hills Resources – Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects 2. Proposer: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC (FHR) Contact person: Mark Manninen Title: Senior Air Permitting Engineer Address: P.O. Box 64596 City, State, ZIP: St Paul, MN 55164 -0596 Phone: 651 - 480 -2685 Fax: 651 - 437 -0581 Email:.Mark.Manninen@fhr.com 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: ❑ EIS Scoping x Mandatory EAW 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contact person: Kim Grosenheider Title: Project Manager Address: 520 Lafayette Road North City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 Phone: 651 - 757 -2170 Fax: 651 - 297 -2343 Email: kim.grosenheider @state.mn.us Discretionary: ❑Citizen Petition ❑RGU Discretion ❑Proposer Initiated The EAW is being prepared because of the following mandatory category for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the responsible governmental unit (RGU): Minn. 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. Project Location: County: Dakota City /Township: Rosemount PLS Location (%, A, Section, Township, Range): NW %, SW %, 13, 115, 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 Attached to the EAW: Figure 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- earl -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 Sheets 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 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 into 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). b. Give a complete description of the proposed project 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 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 FHR Pine Bend (PB) Refinery (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 components 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 an atmospheric crude -oil distillation capacity of 339,000 barrels per stream day'. 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 announcementz, the standard is expected 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 (NOJ, volatile organic compounds (VOC), direct fine particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PMZ.$), 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 removal 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, FHR 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 /ref inerycapacity /. Z U.S. EPA Tier 3 Motor Vehicles Emission Fuel Standards Regulatory Announcement. EPA - 420 -F -14 -009. March 2014. http: / /www.epa.gov /otag /documents /tier3 /420fl4009.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 more 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 unique 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 ratings). 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 configuration 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 (NH3) and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from 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 sulfide 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 air emissions perspective, a burner in the ATS unit combustion chamber, and any unconverted SO2 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 conditions (expected to last less than eight hours per event), and converts hydrogen sulfide to SO2 during normal operations. With the efficient design of the process, over 99.9% of SO2 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 NOx and other products 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 process unit, including a diversion line upstream of the ATS process unit 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 process unit 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 intersection of U.S. Highways 52 and State Highway 55 that FHR acquired from Yocum Oil on June 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 gallons each) to store the ATS solution produced at the ATS process unit. An alternate design is also under consideration which would not utilize the existing tanks; instead, the proposed two new tanks would be enlarged to contain the entire required design capacity of approximately 4 million gallons each. The included figures 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 Department of Agriculture (MDA) will regulate the ATS product storage tanks, load - out, and all operations directly after the aboveground flange downstream of the ATS facility receive valve. 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 hydrotreating, 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 impurities 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 back 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 HzS and other reduced sulfur compounds. As a result, additional 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 containing 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 skimmers 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 minimize 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 the sour -water skimmers and one sour -water storage tank are planned to be utilized primarily for process feed to the ATS process unit, but would be built regardless of the installation of the ATS process unit. The sour water skimmers and tank improvements work 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. Description of Construction Activities Site preparation for construction will include demolition of the existing (non - operational) equipment located between the 33 and 38 process units, the existing skimmers, the existing sour water tanks, and an existing structure at the location of the proposed new ATS plant. As shown on Figure 4, three new skimmers and sour water tanks 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 above 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 sour 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 constructed on the east side of the FHR facility, between the 33 and 38 process units 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 an 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 pipeline running from the refinery to the ATS terminal on the east side of U.S. Highway 52. Alternately if the six inch pipeline is found to be unsuitable, FHR will use a different existing line (one of two existing four inch acid pipelines crossing under U.S. Highway 52). The four inch pipeline, if used, would require approximately a 2,000 foot 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 northwest 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 maintained 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 north 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 north 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 purchases from the grid and improve the efficiency of steam 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. 22nd. 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 18,300 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: approximately 195 feet Sour water storage tanks: approximately 48 feet ATS storage tanks: approximately 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 its beneficiaries. As noted above, fuel produced at the FHR PB Refinery 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 Regulatory Announcement (EPA- 420 -F -14 -009) dated March 2014. http: / /www.epa.gov /otag /documents /tier3 /420fl4009.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 before and after development: Cover type conversion estimates below are based on the projected footprint of each of the project elements identified on Figure 4. This reflects current project design. 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 assistance 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 Before After MPCA 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 MPCA Aboveground Storage Tank (AST) Permit Application for major facility 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 assistance 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 Air Emission Permit Application for state major amendment submitted MPCA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Application to be submitted System (NPDES) /State Disposal System for coverage of ATS product (SDS) Industrial Stormwater Multi- Sector storage and load -out area General Permit MPCA Construction Stormwater NPDES /SDS Application to be submitted Permit 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 Agricultural Fertilizer License Application for agricultural Agriculture fertilizer license to be submitted Minnesota Department of Bulk Fertilizer Storage Permit Application for the bulk Agriculture 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 city of Rosemount near the junction of U.S. Highway 52 and State Highway 55. The Industrial District 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 Industrial 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 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 parks, 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 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 8 miles northwest of the city of Hastings (population 22,172), 6 miles northeast of the city of Rosemount (population 21,980), and 6 miles south of the city of Inver Grove Heights (population 34,008). Other nearby cities includes 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 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 6,000 -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 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 Projects are located within the MNRRA. 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 from 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 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 in Item 9a 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 complex 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 Yocum Oil is consistent with the city of Rosemount's rules and regulations for areas zoned for heavy industrial uses. As described above, the projects 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 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, surficial 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. Bedrock 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 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 surficial 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, which 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 which 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 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 activities (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 FHR facility property are primarily sands and loams. No peat soils are present, 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 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 4 http: // deli .dnr.state.mn.us /metadata /Ifrm 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 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 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 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 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 urban 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 well 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 within a depth of 72 inches. Organic matter content in the surface horizon is about 4 %. The ATS process unit, ATS day -tanks and ATS storage tanks are proposed to be located in areas simply classified as urban 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 sour 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 Project 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. Since 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 planted 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: Describe surface water and groundwater 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 Waters 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. However, 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 MDH 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 site 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 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. L 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 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 the city of Rosemount's publicly owned treatment works (POTW). The Projects will result in minimal additional sanitary wastewater from approximately five additional employees 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) 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. Wastewater generated from the Projects 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 effluent 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 (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 per day (mgd) of wastewater and has a calculated design maximum flow rate of S.2 mgd. The facility is subject to operating requirements and effluent limits specified in its NPDES /SDS Permit No. M N0000418. 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 current 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. 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 prevention 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. 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 process unit site, and at the proposed ATS storage tank site. The stormwater in the vicinity of the proposed sour water storage 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 process unit, 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 inventory 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 %) increase in impervious cover in the areas where stormwater is routed 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 containment 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 infiltration of surface water run -off. Stormwater collected in load -in and load -out areas will be managed in a manner similar to the secondary containment 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 into the site construction SWPPP. Site construction managers will ensure that BMPs are appropriately implemented, or as necessary, modified to be effective. Necessary changes to site BMPs will be incorporated into the SWPPP as required by permit conditions. 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, water 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 construction 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 activities 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 source 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 no 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 approximately 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 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 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 impacts 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 surface 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 surface water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity /sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, 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 contamination, 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 construction 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" database and Leaking Underground 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 minimal 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 documented 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 Continental Nitrogen (a former owner of the proposed ATS storage and load -out property) to evaluate the soil and groundwater at the property for impacts from nitrogen compounds. The results of the soil investigation identified nitrogen contamination in the soil. Soil clean -up activities consisted of removing 1,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil from the site. Following completion of the clean -up, a No Further Action letter was issued by MDA in 2005. Historic groundwater monitoring results indicated that the concentration of nitrogen in the groundwater beneath 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 monitoring 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 nitrogen 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 of 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 risk 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 appropriate contaminated 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 progresses. 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 anticipated 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 temporary 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 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 and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. The FHR PB 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, butane, and coke. In addition to end products, the refining process generates numerous flammable or combustible intermediate products. Ammonium Thiosulfate 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 Materials 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 associated with the pipeline will be regulated under the MPCA aboveground storage tank permit. The permit requirements aim to reduce the potential for product 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 regulate 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 accordance 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 include 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 equipment, 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 with 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, minimize or mitigate adverse effects from the generation /storage of hazardous waste including source reduction and recycling. Normal operation of the storage tanks and ATS process unit 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 -site 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 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 adjacent 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 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, 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. c. 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 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 (USFWS) technical assistance website5 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 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 bat 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 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 MDNR /USFWS soil type study indicating that 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 within 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 MDNR 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; federally 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 (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 the Projects, and the abundance of suitable habitat outside of the project area, it is unlikely that loggerhead shrike would utilize the project area. According to the NHIS database, 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 FHR 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 SNA 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 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 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 species, 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, 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 Projects is covered by the existing emergency response planning systems in the 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 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 Projects are proposed to be located. No caves, mines, or upland forests are present within the FHR facility or adjacent areas to provide habitat 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 with 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 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 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 noise levels. Moreover, the FHR facility is separated from the highest - quality wildlife habitats to the east and northeast by U.S. Highway 52, and the proposed ATS tank and load - out area is separated from these high - quality 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 Projects 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 resources. 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, 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 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 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 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 facility, 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, human 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, minimize, 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 emission 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 Protects Air Emissions The new equipment associated with the proposed Projects 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 change from the Projects is less than 2% for all pollutants considered. Pollutant Total Refinery Tier 3 Clean Total Refinery Percent Change Pre - Projects Fuels Projects Post - Projects due to Projects ( %) (tPy) 1 (tpy) Z (tpy) 3 Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 3,952.6 33.53 3,986.1 0.85% Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 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 (PM10) 641.1 8.53 649.6 1.3% Particulate Matter <2.5 Microns (PM2.5) 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) s 7,837,536 33,121 7,870,657 0.42% Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) 854.6 6.35 861.0 0.74% 1Current 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 CH4 and N20 plus those GHG values from new EU's permitted in 03700011 -011. 2Limited PTE of proposed Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects. 3Limited PTE of Total Refinery (current facility plus proposed Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects). 4The Tier 3 project will result in S02 emissions; however these emissions will not require the refinery to increase its S02 air permit emission limit. 5GHGs mean the following pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These values are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e). 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 Title V air emissions permit (Air Emissions 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 SiLynificant Deterioration (PSD The current Refinery is a major source 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 the 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 SO2 from the unit. • The proposed sour water 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 components 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 capture sulfur as the commodity ATS. Inherent to the process is an economic driver to reduce SO2 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 operated to control emissions of particulate matter (PM, PM10, PM2.5) 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 SnurcPs 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 ATS 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 Fueitive Sources Fugitive emissions from process components at the refinery 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 ensure 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 supporting paved and unpaved roads. The Yocum Oil facility operated year -round with approximately 3,500 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 operation design. FHR intends to develop 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 operation, there will be a reduction in annual truck traffic 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 fugitive particulate emissions generated on the property.b Ambient Air Quality Evaluation The FHR Refinery is subject to a State Implementation Plan (SIP) Administrative Order, which requires an updated SOz modeling demonstration if permitted SOz emissions increase by 2.28 pounds per hour or more at a stack vent. The ATS process unit has a potential -to -emit of SOZ emissions of greater than 2.28 pounds per hour; therefore FHR is applying to amend its SIP order to incorporate the ATS process unit. Dispersion modeling is required as part of the amendment process. The results of the dispersion modeling indicate that FHR will meet the SOz standards of the SIP order. In addition to the air dispersion evaluation performed for the SIP order amendment, modeling 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 ambient 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 than 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 existing 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 the 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 110 100 90 so 70 60 s0 40 30 20 10 0 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 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 over more than a decade of operation. The data from this monitoring network coupled with project related emission estimates from the proposed Projects provides the basis for demonstrating that the project will not adversely affect ambient air quality. As shown in the figures below, S02, NO2, 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. Monitor 420 - NO2 & SO2 Calendar Years 2010 - 2013 2013 2012 2011 2010 2010 -2012 Avg 2011 -2013 Avg NOTE: Concentrations reported in form of the respective Standard: NO2 - 98th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations S02 - 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations 11NO2 ppb dS02 ppb Flint Hills Resources — Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Rosemount, Minnesota 30 Worksheet 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Monitor 420 - CO Calendar Year 2nd High 2010 -2012 2010 2011 2012 NOTE: Concentrations reported as second high 1 -hour reading for respective year. Standard allows for one exceedance 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. 1The 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 PM PMlo PM2.1 NO), SO2 CO (tPy) (tPy) (tPy) (tPy) (tPy) (tPy) Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects 11 9 7 34 20 8 FHR PB Refinery Limited Facility Potential to Emit' 1033 641 628 3953 3770 2391 Project Compared to the Existing 1.0% 1.4% 1.1% 0.86% 0.53% 0.33% Refinery Potential to Emit 1The 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 are less than 90% of the NAAQS. The second table shows that the Projects' modeled impacts are less than the SILs. Flint Hills Resources — Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Rosemount, Minnesota 32 Worksheet Less Percent than Background NAAQS/ of Averaging SIL Background + 90% of Pollutant Period Concentration (µg /m3) SIL (µg /m3) MAAQS NAAQS/ NAAQS/ (µg /m3) (Vg/M3) MAAQS MAAQS N (Y /N) CO 1 -hour 3795 2000 5795 40000 14% Y 8 -hour 1912 500 2412 10000 24% Y PM10 24 -hour 44.0 5 49 150 33% Y Annual 23.9 1 24.9 50 50% Y PM2.5 24 -hour 21.3 1.2 22.5 35 64% Y Annual 8.8 0.3 9.1 12 76% Y NO2 1 -hour 63 7.52 70.5 188 38% Y Annual 29 1 30 100 30% Y S02 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 H2S 30 -min. 7.1 2.10 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' (µg/ m 3) 3 SIL (µg /m) Less than SIL? (Y /N) CO 1 -hour 1.74 2000 Y 8 -hour 1.14 500 Y PM1, 24 -hour 0.40 5 Y Annual 0.04 1 Y PM2.5 24 -hour 0.33 1.2 Y Annual 0.04 0.3 Y NO2 1 -hour 5.70 7.52 Y Annual 0.15 1.0 Y S02 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 H2S 30 -min. 2.08 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 CHIP Cogeneration Project (the subject of a separate EAW) and demonstrated 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, minor process - related HAPs, and small amounts of HAPs associated with natural gas combustion during 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 existing facility emissions of NO, S02 and total HAPs, and approximately 1% of the existing facility emissions of VOCs. As shown above, modeling of NO, S02 and PM2.5 emissions associated with the Projects indicated concentrations below the SIL of their respective NAAQS. For NO2 and 502, the SIL represents less than 2% of the MPCA acute health benchmark indicating that ambient NO2 and S02 concentrations resulting from project related NOX and S02 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' H2S emissions meets the screening criteria of MPCA's draft guidance (below 3% of the MAAQS). Past analyses of potential 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 associated with the Refinery are below guideline values''$. In addition, a source - receptor study conducted by Gradient9 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%10. The MPCA11,12 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 results 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 indication 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 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 also uses a guideline 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- existing conditions from all sources. The Projects' ammonia emissions result in an HQ three orders of magnitude below one 14.The fact that previous monitored ambient air concentrations of potential health risks from the refinery have shown risks below guideline levels1s,16 and the proposed project emissions are a small fraction of the existing Refinery emission indicated that potential risk from the Projects is expected to be below 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. to 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, MN. 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 Department of Health HRVs (Heath Risk Values) for ammonia. 14 MPCA, 2007. Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) Guidance Version 1.1. September 2007. is 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 toxics 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 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 with the operation of the plant is expected to contribute 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 (MnDOT) 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. 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, 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. 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 at the Yocum site based on the reduction in annual truck traffic and the elimination of truck 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 minimize 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 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 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 the area range from 45 to 76 dBA17. No existing issues with noise at nearby 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 construction 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) availability 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 areas 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 trips per year. The 17 University of Minnesota, 2010. Noise Impact Study for UMore Park Sand and Gravel Resources. UCFMN 103496. http: / /www.umorepark.umn.edu/ prod / groups /ssrd /@ pub / @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 trucks 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 north side of the ATS tank farm. FHR expects that rail traffic resulting from the Projects (estimated 1,200 railcars per 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 daily traffic volume information available for 2012 from MnDOT 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 affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. The analysis must discuss the project's impact on the regional 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 effects. 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 impacts 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 geographic and temporal overlap in impacts. 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 provide 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, stormwater, 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 geographically 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 expected magnitude and nature of these impacts. Resource /Impact Timescale Geographic Area of Impact Nature /Extent of Projects Impacts Noise (construction Short term, Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor related impacts) temporary (nearest receptors at a distance of approximately % mile) Stormwater Short term, Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor; managed via (construction related temporary implementation of BMPs impacts) Stormwater Long Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor; managed via (operational related term /Projects' implementation of BMPs impacts) life Air Quality Short term, Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor fugitive dust; managed via (construction related temporary implementation of BMPs impacts) Air Quality (Projects Long Within 10 kilometers of Minor; project below PSD significant operation - related term /Projects' property boundary emission rate thresholds; modeled impacts) life 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 established in MPCA draft guidance18 Wastewater Long Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor; additional stormwater term /Projects' treatment accounts for small life percentage of WWTP load Water appropriation Long Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer Minor; managed under existing term /Projects' water appropriation permit life Traffic Long Immediate Projects' vicinity Minor term /Projects' (nearby stretches of Highway life 55 and 52) 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 Projects, 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 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 located 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 increased 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 that 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 increased total storage capacity, 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 Boulevard, Inver Grove 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 commercial 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 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 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 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 permit 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 east of Donnelly Avenue for a takeoff valve and B -line over - pressure protection. The route was mostly agricultural lands and was completed with a combination of open -cut excavation and horizontal directional drilling. Impacts associated with the Northern Natural 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 power cogeneration facility, generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from the grid and improve the efficiency of steam production at the Refinery. An EAW and a draft major air permit amendment for the project are currently 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 increase in permitted air emissions. Other potential environmental effects from the project include minor impacts to stormwater, water appropriation, transportation, and potential noise. 2014 — Sorine Lake Collection Svstem Emereencv Backus Generators The Spring Lake Collection System is an environmental remediation 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 is 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 impacts 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 environmental 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 city 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 other contractor parking at the Refinery. The lot is located on Rich Valley Boulevard /Blaine Avenue approximately 3,500 feet north of Bonaire Path /132nd Street. The parking lot encompasses approximately 10 acres and will utilize two existing entry /exit points onto Rich Valley Boulevard, therefore no new ditch crossings or road entrances were required. Consequently, 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 the 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 Pine 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 MMBTU /hour 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 Projects. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available 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 impacts 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 overlap with 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 overlap 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 The 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 Cogeneration project. Estimated emissions from the proposed Projects are less than 2% of existing facility emissions. Estimated emissions from the CHP Cogeneration project are also small, ranging from less than 1% of existing facility emissions for SOD NO, and HAPs to 4.4% of existing facility emissions for COZ. 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 table below shows that the impacts from the combined projects are less than the SILs. Pollutant Averaging Period Maximum Modeled Concentration (µg /m3) SIL (µg /m) Less than SIL? (Y /N) CO 1 -hour 6.97 2000 Y 8 -hour 4.33 500 Y PM,, 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y Annual 0.07 1.0 Y PM2.5 24 -hour 0.44 1.2 Y Annual 0.07 0.3 Y NO, 1 -hour 6.43 7.52 Y Annual 0.18 1.0 Y SOZ 1 -hour 4.63 7.83 Y 3 -hour 4.22 25 Y 24 -hour 1.24 5 Y Annual 0.12 1 Y HZS 1 -hour 2.08 2.1 Y Water appropriations As discussed 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 conservation 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 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. The project is not expected to cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19. RGU CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date: t Z�I r1l / Dan Card, P.E., Supervisor Environmental Review Unit St. Paul Office Resource Management and Assistance Division Flint Hills Resources —Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects Environmental Assessment Rosemount, Minnesota 44 Worksheet o I 61 I — I INUER GROVE HEIGHTS, I I , I J I:: Project Area : z II ,I mum,.. 10 u - ROSU NT 52 I li ?—" ----- - - - - -- I L -1 r -- - - - - -- —A = j I • Itik- lY SITE LOCATION Flint Hills Pine Bend Refinery L Figure 1 City Boundary e I - - - -- - SITE LOCATION MAP County Boundary 3 1.5 0 3 Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota ^ter^- Major River Miles Imagery: Digital Globe - 2012 FHR Facility Boundary ATS Tank Location Secondary Containment Sour Water Collection HDR ® ATS Unit Location Spill Containment Pond Sour Water Stripper Feed Line Sour Water Tank Location Shop ...... Existing U/G Pipelines -Acid Sour Water Stripper Existing Rail Lines ...... Existing U/G Pipelines - Gas Rail Loading Rack + ++ Anticipated Rail Line Proposed Extension of U/G Pipelines Service Road X Tank to be Demolished Proposed Extension of U/G Pipelines -Acid ATS Truck Route 1,200 0 ATS Daytank ® Truck Loading Feet Figure 2 SITE PLAN AERIAL IMAGERY Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota 1,200 'r e , I I I j • • ♦ A 1 `�. I` A I . '. IV, M1 VC r , r- •may ^c , -' . �"j �r II . ' t f,) bl. { z t \ .� 'I' 1` I. l 1, ' C L r. `y 4�f •xJJ / -, S �'. ��. •� l N 'i'.�t,. x ( I .5,.�,'••a..�•.•�`� :� �1 -� :\f1. i t !,•, -� Wit' \. \ \ •I �`_ � + ' 'S ti r '� �� _ . 1. ,') ' ' �7'� , f'��.y��e�:- �"L %' 'y'�� �• j t �ar' ��J'I �- .•i'�� -� ! ✓"._' 1•' � /f!�f , 1 �9\ J (�, •t Ib �,� \ �y S i• i , ' �. 4 `I ,w i '!. •- p; �• �� a /' -� Y' ,,`1n �/J. �' i:] �1` �'YI KIM L' 1' Pi • l 117th St•E1 f • f Sa1 �Y'i ,'' •r�� 1 •p�T/ i� � \` ~•�`� ~ � _1 I � •� �,lJ/'J, 'I ` ~ •' ; :1 , 120th St��l L -�•'., �_ tu♦ CIO �, !gyp r-}y �L'•- ��...�- �-• • ' .1 —� 'q�`�'1�`_' �, �!�'1 1 �t �I 7 'E-125th-St �� �- -�ll� I 1 s. *'•1....Ar:. ,� �,',1 `'�� r1 .., \ �%f � 'SJ' I /! ��` � I II �!. �N '� •t• � ���� • � • • • -�. '\''t__ f ••-.., • ter:-. - �� n � 1 -'rI� L � II �,f : -.,. ,. 1�, ,� Ic •f ri "►• b �• . `, \1 �-•1' � - � L r J Ems;' ff _! I ��� -• • �1s'lt I` ATS UNIT y ±� I 1,.� U/G PIPELINES -ACID LOCATION ATS DAYTANK U/G PIPELINES - GAS > cc SECONDARY N ;�♦( �'`'! _ i, 4 �l c k� , I `' `,, '_ "•• % �y �Z• .• SOUR CONTAINMENT ° 1 �,+• S R t , y ° ,� 11 j ), rr i• STRIPPER •EXISTING RAIL LOADING m f '�r i •`t SOUR WATER .. `',l -•- , •; 2 • '~yl ;�C • ( . STRIPPER FEED LINE ! ti l���rrli `TRUCK LOADING - , l ii L ! ;.... _ COLLECTION WATER • j _. yy ° .1 �� �• .. J I,� ..L. E TO BIE CONVERTED •, � h 4Se -f,, `7 L CTION HDR ATS TANK TO ATS SERVICE api f� �, 1 �� �•i J LOCATION r " j1! SOUR` NEW RAIL LOADING RACK WATER TANK LOCATION _ PLANNED ATS RR LOAD O • ��,; L-' > U- ?}" `� �:� ,�.�,•.. �� ,�.., { IN /OUT CONTAINMENT -� Joe.-. ' � •? "'� Y ' t 5 ' it tti.(S SHOP / It li �L�1.+' +`,� 1 ♦� n ` � � �... • .. �, i , v � •►y �f�`� r`11y � • ' 1 y, 1 > ^ � 4 II `rJ�� '•..{l �, j�� ' i'-`� '1 p f1� � �1.. fQ �1.,� ,,1 .. ,i• .y\;.•L to � l , �'' �/ 1 {7� NEW RAIL LOADING AREA 4 y Q' 1 I Q a 1 ` 1 1 >L+ tL-�t f•f�. 1►... �jIIII ,�� L 135th St•E ^�c r / � �..�. � �— • • 1, �7 L '+f-- •- `�`� n l ? --- -138th SfE.- �- , �► r, _ - u!--� _ - -_- s •- ( �` Di 0sal, Rich� 1 ` r �r•r :s�,� rte/- (• L•.,.�•- •ter- .. --� -J alley - • 8hn ���- � � _ `� � _ � 1440 th:St :E x • It I r 40 7H _ a 8848 _ �('� � `♦� _ . , ` ` t �, • Ij �' ;B $ r U IV 857 2 G6 "'t C arse `� yam•. A r Backqround: USGS Topoqraphic Map (Dakota County) FHR Facility Boundary Figure 3 Proposed Site Features SITE PLAN Existing Rail Lines 1,200 0 1,200 USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC -+ -*�- Anticipated Rail Line Feet Rosemount, Minnesota FHR Facility Boundary Sour Water Collection HDR Sour Water Stripper Feed Line Existing U/G Pipelines -Acid Existing U/G Pipelines - Gas Proposed Extension of U/G Pipelines Proposed Extension of U/G Pipelines -Acid iM Existing Rail Lines --i i . H Anticipated Rail Line ATS Daytank ATS Tank Location ® ATS Unit Location Sour Water Tank Location Sour Water Stripper Rail Loading Rack Service Road ATS Truck Route ® Truck Loading Secondary Containment Spill Containment Pond Shop X Tank to be Demolished u 0 500 1,000 Feet Figure 4 SITE PLAN AERIAL - PROJECT DETAILS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota High Nitrogen Sourwater Air Emissions - - -- Figure 5 PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC TIER 3 CLEAN FUELS PROJECTS Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota n� n� E 125th St 35th °St E 138th St E 117th St E W Q 111th St E M/EDAYTANK 0 D 140th •St- E ;I Data Source: MPCA, Metro lolitan Council (MetroGlS FHR Facility Boundary SOUR WATER Golf Course Proposed Site Features Retail and Other Commercial STRIPPER SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE i SOUR WATER f. COLLECTION HDR ATS TAN K Mixed Use Residential Airport LOCATION Mixed Use Industrial SOUR NEW RAIL LOADING RACK - Mixed Use Commercial and Other WATER TANK Seasonal /Vacation Industrial and Utility LOCATION Single Family Detached PLANNED ATS RR LOAD _ Manufactured Housing Park IN /OUT CONTAINMENT SHOP Single Family Attached NEW RAIL LOADING AREA 0 D 140th •St- E ;I Data Source: MPCA, Metro lolitan Council (MetroGlS FHR Facility Boundary Multifamily Golf Course Proposed Site Features Retail and Other Commercial Major Highway Existing Rail Lines Office Railway +H Anticipated Rail Line Mixed Use Residential Airport Land Use (2010 - Metropolitan Council) Mixed Use Industrial Agricultural _ Farmstead - Mixed Use Commercial and Other Undeveloped Seasonal /Vacation Industrial and Utility Water Single Family Detached Extractive _ Manufactured Housing Park Institutional Single Family Attached Park, Recreational or Preserve 117th St E U/G PIPELINES -ACID 1► J U/G PIPELINES - GAS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA A B TRUCK LOADING EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED � TO ATS SERVICE i 7 II }{ Q a� Figure 6 SITE MAP 1,200 0 1,200 LAND USE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Feet Rosemount, Minnesota 0 f a E 125th St r ou rce: 1\. nn SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE Pk ATS UNIT ATS DAYTANK U/G PIPELINES -ACID LOCATION U/G PIPELINES - GAS SECONDARY SOUR WATER CONTAINMENT STRIPPER EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA TRUCK LOADING SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR �'I EXISTING TANKS • TO BE CONVERTED ATS TANK TO ATS SERVICE LOCATION SOUR NEW RAIL LOADING RACK WATER TANK LOCATION PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN /OUT CONTAINMENT SHOP NEW RAIL LOADING AREA i Land Cover Classification System f MNRRA Corridor - 26 -50% Impervious Wetland Forest FHR Facility Boundary 51 -75% Impervious Wetland Shrubs ® Proposed Site Features 76 -100% Impervious - Tall Grasses Existing Rail Lines Short Grasses Wetland Emergent Veg. + Anticipated Rail Line Agricultural Land Dry Tall Grasses 1,200 Land Cover (MLCCS) Maintained Tall Grass Open Water 5 -10% Impervious Tree Plantation Wetland Open Water 11 -25% Impervious Forest ,lip 140th St E Ir I Figure 7 SITE MAP 0 1,200 LAND COVER Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Feet Rosemount, Minnesota oW, MW L ROVrHE 138th St E ource: City of Rosemount a J /1J NEW RAIL LOADING AREA nver Grove 140th ^St E FHR Facility Boundary Agricultural Preserve Proposed Site Features Flood Plain Parcels Owned by Flint Hills Resources E__1 General Industrial — -I Municipal Boundary General Business Existing Rail Lines Heavy Industrial Anticipated Rail Line Public /Institutional Zoning (2007) Water = Agricultural Waste Management 0 1,200 0 Feet 1 ;1 ;1 1 ;1 ;1 U/G PIPELINES -ACID U/G PIPELINES - GAS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT I EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA TRUGK LOADING EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED / TOATSSERVICE 0 ZON Figure 8 SITE MAP 1,200 ZONING Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota ATS UNIT LOCATION ATS DAYTANK / i SOUR WATER STRIPPER SOUR WATER STRIPPER FEED LINE j SOUR WATER COLLECTION HDR / / ATS TANK- LOCATION SOUR NEW RAIL LOADING RACK WATER TANK LOCATION PLANNED ATS RR LOAD IN /OUT CONTAINMENT SHOP NEW RAIL LOADING AREA nver Grove 140th ^St E FHR Facility Boundary Agricultural Preserve Proposed Site Features Flood Plain Parcels Owned by Flint Hills Resources E__1 General Industrial — -I Municipal Boundary General Business Existing Rail Lines Heavy Industrial Anticipated Rail Line Public /Institutional Zoning (2007) Water = Agricultural Waste Management 0 1,200 0 Feet 1 ;1 ;1 1 ;1 ;1 U/G PIPELINES -ACID U/G PIPELINES - GAS SECONDARY CONTAINMENT I EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA TRUGK LOADING EXISTING TANKS TO BE CONVERTED / TOATSSERVICE 0 ZON Figure 8 SITE MAP 1,200 ZONING Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Residential: Commercial: Industrial: Other: m PUD RR - Rural Residential C1 - Convenience Commercial 0 3P - Business Park r I AGP - Agricultural Preserve m Mississippi River Critical Area & MNRtdA Corridor R1 - Low Density Residential ; DT - Downtown District IP - Industrial Park i AG -Agricultural ' Railroad RIA- Low Density Residential C3 - Highway Service Commercial - ; GI - General Industrial 1 PI - Publicllnstitutional - R2 - Moderate Density Residential • C4 - General Commercial 0 HI - Heavy Industrial FP - Flood Plain 0 R3 - Medium Density Residential 0 WM - Waste Management o M R4 - High Density Residential W - Water a° ROW - Right -of -Way FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features Existing Rail Lines Anticipated Rail Line Figure 9 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Background Data: City of Rosemount Zoning Map T_ 4ROSEMOUNT The Zoning Designations on this Map should be interpreted in light of the accompanying text and polices contained in the complete Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Designations subject to change as part of the City's ongoing planning process. Data Sources: Dakota County land Surveyors and Office of Geographic Information Systems City of Rosemount Community Deveiopment and Engineering/Public Works Departments L �_ _ EAM O 454J n e m > 1029 41B 1 41B B 41B "-I 41B 250 p 611 E 7 611D 7 V 39B 411 B V 611C 301 B 611D 3 U Q 39D N \ O 0 250 98 611C (n MSR 6110 fi11C 454C MAr MMELM 329 W 18211 611F JUML ATS UNIT U/G PIPELINES -ACID / LOCATION ATS DAYTANK 7B 283A 3962 611 D 283A 8576 /B U/G PIPELINES GAS 7B -� SECONDARY 1283A CONTAINMENT SOUR WATER 611C STRIPPER 394 611E 129 1055 EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA SOUR WATER 283A STRIPPER FEED LINE / TRUCK LOADING 76 B SOUR WATER 98 ) 41B COLLECTION HDR EXISTING TANKS 1039 TO BE CONVERTED��... x962 tso 1039 ATS TANK TOATS SERVICE 2so _ LOCATION >,283A 283A SOUR NEW RAIL LOADING RACK / 41A/ WATER TANK 857B� 39A LOCATION PLANNED ATS RR LOAD 250 283A I -- - - - - -- — - ,, IN /OUT CONTAINMENT 313 250 611D - 3962 155B 155C SHOP 611C ' 416 396 39A Xt255 39C 250 SSC--" 1029 / ir0 396 NEW RAIL LOADING AREA 4156 4156 611C 415A 611C 39A 283A :313 39B 39A 611C 396 / ,39B 611C 416 611C 415A 94C 39B2/ 39C 250 155C. 39B 415B 611C 611C 454C 396 416 396 6111C 396 39B 313 250 61.1 C 4116 416 - 611. 619C 611C �41B 39B 250' 25 396 611 D 4156!; 411A 41B 415B 1815 41B 252 X52 4116 252 25p, 39B 39B 252 250 41B 129 301B 415A 41A 41B 313 27B 27B 4116 411 B " -895C 27B 396 4546 ) 1506 896E 895C 3962 27B 27A 39C 208 Data Source: USDA NRCS SSURGO Database (gSSURGO) FHR Facility Boundary ®sDlopes on sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent Kennebec silt loam 283A slopes Id loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent 397 Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Proposed Site Features 276 Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent Kennebec variant silt loam Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent Water slopes 2838 slopes All areas are rime farmland Estherville sand loam, 0 to 2 percent AM Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent P y � percent slopes [ 344] Quam silt loam slopes slopes Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent +� Existing Rail Lines ® Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Seelyeville muck 4116 slopes slopes fH -- Anticipated Rail Line Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 slopesey sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent 1508 sloopescer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent Zumbro loamy fine sand - percent slopes Soil Map Unit Name Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to S illville loam, occasional) Flooded Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 P Y percent slopes 25 percent slopes 1821 Algansee loamy sand Kin sle - Mahtomedi -S encer - Hawick loam sand, 18 to 25 percent 8958 9 y P 94C Terri) loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes y � complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 49g Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer 1 072 Udorthenfs, moderately shallow Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent 3427 complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1 055 Aquolls and Histosols, ponded - slopes 1039 Urban land Figure 10 Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent Auburndale silt loam Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes 8617 Urban land- Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 SITE MAP ® Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes SOILS — Chaska silt loam 7C Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent percent slopes 857A Urban land- Waukegan complex, 0 to slopes 1 percent slopes — slopes sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent AN Mrcentslopes ysand,3to8 r p Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes rcent slopes slopes Pe P ® Urban land- Waukegan complex, 1 to Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 8 percent slopes Rosemount, Minnesota 1556 slopes Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently percent slopes = flooded Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent 252 Marshan silty clay loam Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 95A slo s � Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 396 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slopes 1,200 0 1,200 129 Cylinder loam AN Pits, gravel Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, ® Kato silty clay loam 3982 eroded Feet . %A41B39B 611C 250 1815 41B rCIP, 3018 2831 � O 454J n e m > 1029 41B 1 41B B 41B "-I 41B 250 p 611 E 7 611D 7 V 39B 411 B V 611C 301 B 611D 3 U Q 39D N \ O 0 250 98 611C (n MSR 6110 fi11C 454C MAr MMELM 329 W 18211 611F JUML ATS UNIT U/G PIPELINES -ACID / LOCATION ATS DAYTANK 7B 283A 3962 611 D 283A 8576 /B U/G PIPELINES GAS 7B -� SECONDARY 1283A CONTAINMENT SOUR WATER 611C STRIPPER 394 611E 129 1055 EXISTING RAIL LOADING AREA SOUR WATER 283A STRIPPER FEED LINE / TRUCK LOADING 76 B SOUR WATER 98 ) 41B COLLECTION HDR EXISTING TANKS 1039 TO BE CONVERTED��... x962 tso 1039 ATS TANK TOATS SERVICE 2so _ LOCATION >,283A 283A SOUR NEW RAIL LOADING RACK / 41A/ WATER TANK 857B� 39A LOCATION PLANNED ATS RR LOAD 250 283A I -- - - - - -- — - ,, IN /OUT CONTAINMENT 313 250 611D - 3962 155B 155C SHOP 611C ' 416 396 39A Xt255 39C 250 SSC--" 1029 / ir0 396 NEW RAIL LOADING AREA 4156 4156 611C 415A 611C 39A 283A :313 39B 39A 611C 396 / ,39B 611C 416 611C 415A 94C 39B2/ 39C 250 155C. 39B 415B 611C 611C 454C 396 416 396 6111C 396 39B 313 250 61.1 C 4116 416 - 611. 619C 611C �41B 39B 250' 25 396 611 D 4156!; 411A 41B 415B 1815 41B 252 X52 4116 252 25p, 39B 39B 252 250 41B 129 301B 415A 41A 41B 313 27B 27B 4116 411 B " -895C 27B 396 4546 ) 1506 896E 895C 3962 27B 27A 39C 208 Data Source: USDA NRCS SSURGO Database (gSSURGO) FHR Facility Boundary ®sDlopes on sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent Kennebec silt loam 283A slopes Id loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent 397 Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Proposed Site Features 276 Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent Kennebec variant silt loam Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent Water slopes 2838 slopes All areas are rime farmland Estherville sand loam, 0 to 2 percent AM Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 411A Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent P y � percent slopes [ 344] Quam silt loam slopes slopes Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent +� Existing Rail Lines ® Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Seelyeville muck 4116 slopes slopes fH -- Anticipated Rail Line Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 slopesey sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent 1508 sloopescer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent Zumbro loamy fine sand - percent slopes Soil Map Unit Name Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to S illville loam, occasional) Flooded Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 P Y percent slopes 25 percent slopes 1821 Algansee loamy sand Kin sle - Mahtomedi -S encer - Hawick loam sand, 18 to 25 percent 8958 9 y P 94C Terri) loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes y � complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes 49g Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer 1 072 Udorthenfs, moderately shallow Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent 3427 complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes 1 055 Aquolls and Histosols, ponded - slopes 1039 Urban land Figure 10 Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent Auburndale silt loam Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes 8617 Urban land- Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 SITE MAP ® Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes SOILS — Chaska silt loam 7C Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent percent slopes 857A Urban land- Waukegan complex, 0 to slopes 1 percent slopes — slopes sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent AN Mrcentslopes ysand,3to8 r p Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes rcent slopes slopes Pe P ® Urban land- Waukegan complex, 1 to Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 8 percent slopes Rosemount, Minnesota 1556 slopes Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently percent slopes = flooded Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent 252 Marshan silty clay loam Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes 95A slo s � Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 396 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Slopes 1,200 0 1,200 129 Cylinder loam AN Pits, gravel Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, ® Kato silty clay loam 3982 eroded Feet 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 * Modified based on aerial imagery to reflect current refinery site operations. r, 4 800 0 800 Feet Figure 11 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT WITHIN REFINERY FENCELINE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota FHR Facility Boundary Sour Water Collection HDR Sour Water Stripper Feed Line Ems= Existing UIG Pipelines -Acid Ems= Existing UIG Pipelines- Gas Proposed Extension of UIG Pipelines Proposed Extension of UIG Pipelines -Acid ter— Existing. Rail Lines mot- Anticipated Rail Line ATS Dayfank ATS Tank Location ® ATS Unit Location Sour Water Tank Location — Sour Wafer Stripper Rail Loading Rack Service Road ATS Truck Route ® Truck Loading Secondary Containment Spill Containment Pond Shop X Tankto be Demolished --� Location ofFermer PCB Waste L _ _ Clean- upf6losure "' PCB and Nitrate impacted soils v re removed from the site vdth letters of No Further Adion is dlby MPCA. 0 N 500 1,000 Feet Figure 12 KEY AREAS OF PRIOR. SOIL IMPACTS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Imagery Digtial Globe -2012 FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features Rare Natural Features - Element gccurancW Vertebrate Animal Community Vascular Plant — EMisting Rail Lines ' P ossib le Range an dlor Geographic Uncertaintyfor Species Sighting � Anticipated Rail Line 1,200 0 m Foot 1.200 Figure 13 SITE MAP ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Flint Hills Pints Bend, LLC Rosemount. Minnesota APPENDIX A Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota [Minor map unit components are excluded from this report] Map unit: 7B - Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Hubbard (90 %) 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. Map unit: 7C - Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Hubbard (90 %) 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. Map unit: 27A - Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Dickinson (90 %) 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. Map unit: 27B - Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Dickinson (90 %) 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. Map unit: 39A - Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 1 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 3982 - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Component: Wadena, eroded (90 %) 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. Map unit: 39C - Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 39D - Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 41A - Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Estherville (90 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 2 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 41B - Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Estherville (90 %) 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. Map unit: 49B - Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes Component: Antigo (90 %) 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. Map unit: 94C - Terril loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes Component: Terril (100 %) 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. Map unit: 98 - Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Component: Colo, occasionally flooded (85 %) 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. Map unit: 129 -Cylinder loam Component: Cylinder (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 3 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 150B - Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Spencer (90 %) 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. Map unit: 155B - Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 155C - Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 155E - Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 189 - Auburndale silt loam Component: Auburndale (90 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 4 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 250 - Kennebec silt loam Component: Kennebec (100 %) 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. Map unit: 252 - Marshan silty clay loam Component: Marshan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 2796 - Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Otterholt (85 %) 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. Map unit: 279C - Otterholt silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Component: Otterholt (85 %) 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. Map unit: 283A - Plainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) 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. Map unit: 2836 - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 5 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) 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: 301 B - Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Component: Lindstrom (100 %) 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. Map unit: 313 - Spillville loam, occasionally flooded Component: Spillville, occasionally flooded (100 %) 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. Map unit: 342B - Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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. Map unit: 342C - Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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. Map unit: 342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 6 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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: 344-Quam silt loam Component: Quam (90 %) 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. Map unit: 411A - Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Waukegan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 411 B - Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Waukegan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 415A - Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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. Map unit: 415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 7 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 4156 - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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: 415C - Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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. Map unit: 4546 - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 454C - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 454E - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Component: Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100°/x) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 8 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Component: Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100 %) 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: 540 - Seelyeville muck Component: Seelyeville (100 %) 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. Map unit: 611C - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Hawick (90 %) 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. Map unit: 611 D - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Component: Hawick (90 %) 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. Map unit: 611 E - Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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. Map unit: 611 F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 9 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 611 F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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: 857A - Urban land- Waukegan complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Urban land (90 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Waukegan (10 %) 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. Map unit: 8576 - Urban land- Waukegan complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes Component: Urban land (90 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Waukegan (10 %) 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. Map unit: 861 C - Urban land- Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes Component: Urban land (65 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Kingsley (35 %) 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. Map unit: 8956 - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 10 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 8956 - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (23 %) 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. Component: Spencer (22 %) 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. Map unit: 895C - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (23 %) 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. Component: Spencer (22 %) 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. Map unit: 896E - Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (60 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 11 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 896E - Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (60 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (30 %) 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. Map unit: 1029 - Pits, gravel Component: Pits, gravel (100 %) 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. Map unit: 1039 - Urban land Component: Urban land (100 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Map unit: 1055 - Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Component: Aquolls, ponded (50 %) 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. Component: Histosols, ponded (50 %) 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. Map unit: 1072 - Udorthents, moderately shallow Component: Udorthents, moderately shallow (100 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Udorthents is a miscellaneous area. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 12 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 1815 - Zumbro loamy fine sand Component: Zumbro, non - flooded (100 %) 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. Map unit: 1816 - Kennebec variant silt loam Component: Kennebec (90 %) 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. Map unit: 1821 - Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded Component: Algansee, occasionally flooded (95 %) 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. Map unit: 1824 - Quam silt loam, ponded Component: Quam, ponded (90 %) 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. Map unit: 19026 - Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Jewett (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 13 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: W - Water Component: Water (100 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 14 of 16 Map Unit Description Washington County, Minnesota Map unit: 329 - Chaska silt loam Component: Chaska (90 %) 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. Map unit: W - Water Component: Water (100 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 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. f S DA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 7 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 16 of 16 Well Log Report - 00208410 Minnesota Unique Well No. County Dakota 208410 Quad Inver Grove Heights Quad ID 103D MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Entry Date WELL AND Update Date BORING RECORD Received Date Minnesota Statutes Chanter 1031 Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX B 09/15/1988 12/16/2011 07/22/2005 Well Name FLINT HILLS RESOURCES KSAU #1 Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed Township Range Dir Section Subsections Elevation 915 ft. 7.5 minute 460 ft. 460 ft. 10/31/2003 I Drilling Method Cable Tool 115 18 W 19 ABBDDD Elevation Method topographic map ( +/- 5 feet) Well Address HWY 52 & HWY 55 ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 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? Geological Material Color Hardness From To SAND 0 106 ❑ No Above 1 ft. DECOMPOSED LIMEROCK 106 118 es /Below Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter LIMEROCK 118 296 SANDROCK 296 409 SHALE 409 411 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 Make Type Diameter Slot /Gauze Length Set 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 ..m. Well Head Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection © 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) REMARKS THIS WELL HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO A MONITOR WELL. REMOVED PUMP, Grouting Information Well Grouted? © Yes El No DUG DOWN 8' AND UNHOOKED LINE FROM PITILESS, PLUGGED HOLE IN PITILESS. WELDED ON LOCKING CAP, PUT Grout Material: Neat Cement from 0 to 304 ft. ON J -PLUG INSTALLED 3 GUARD POSTS. WELLS MEASURED AND STATIC TAKEN. Nearest Known Source of Contamination Located by: Minnesota Geological Method: Digitized -scale 1:24,000 or larger Survey (Digitizing Table) _feet _direction _type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump R Not Installed Date Installed 07/00/1959 Manufacturer's name FAIRBANKS -MORSE Model Unique Number Input Date: 01/01/1990 Verification: Information from owner System: UTM - Nad83, Zone 15, Meters X: 498117 Y: 4956269 number— HP 20 Volts 440 Length of drop Pie ft. Ca acit 150 q.p.m TVpe Submersible Material 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 First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Jordan Stevens Well Drilling Co. Inc. 86654 JOHNSON, R Last Strat St.Lawrence Formation Depth to Bedrock 106 ft. License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No. Name of Driller County Well Index Online Report 208410 Printed 11/19/2013 HE- 01205 -07 http: / /mdh -agua .health.state.mn.us /cwi/well log.asp ?wellid = 0000208410 11/19/2013 Well Log Report - 00255723 Minnesota Unique Well No. County Dakota 255723 Quad Inver Grove Heights Quad ID 103D Page 1 of 1 MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed HEALTH Entry Date 10/26/2001 WELL AND Update Date 12/16/2011 BORING RECORD Received Date 07/22/2005 Minnesota Statutes Chanter 1031 Drilling Fluid Well Name FLINT HILLS RESOURCES KSAU #2 Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed Township Range Dir Section Subsections Elevation 921 ft. 7.5 minute 460 ft. 460 ft. 10/31/2003 I Drilling Method Cable Tool 115 18 W 19 ABBCDB Elevation Method topographic map ( +/- 5 feet) Well Address HWAY 52 & HWAY 55 ROSEMOUNT MN Drilling Fluid Well Hydrofractured? ❑ Yes ❑ No I From Ft. to Ft. Use Monitor well Casing Type Steel (black or low carbon) Joint No Information Drive Shoe? Geological Material Color Hardness From To DRIFT 0 118 SHAKOPEE LIMEROCK 118 305 es No AbovelBelow ft. Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter JORDAN SANDROCK 305 402 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 Make Type Diameter Slot /Gauze Length Set 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) REMARKS CONVERTED EXISITING WELL INTO MONITORING WELL. REMOVED PUMP Grouting Information Well Grouted? ❑ Yes ❑ No 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 Method: Digitization (Screen) - Map Survey (1:24,000) Unique Number Verification: Site Plan Input Date: 12/03/2007 Nearest Known Source of Contamination _feet _direction _type Well disinfected upon completion? El Yes El No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed System: UTM- Nad83, Zone 15, X: 498124 Y: 4956200 Meters Manufacturer's name Model number_ HP _ Volts Length of drop Pie ft. Ca acit .m Type Material 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 First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Stevens Well Drilling Co. Inc. 86654 JOHNSON, R Last Strat Depth to Bedrock 118 ft. License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No. Name of Driller County Well Index Online Report 255723 Printed 11/19/2013 HE- 01205 -07 http: / /mdh- agua.health. state.mn.us /cwi /well log. asp ?wellid = 0000255723 11/19/2013 Well Log Report - 00272261 Minnesota Unique Well No. County Dakota 272261 Quad Inver Grove Heights Quad ID 103D MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Entry Date WELL AND Update Date BORING RECORD Received Date Minnesota Statutes Chanter 1031 Page 1 of 1 10/18/2012 05/01/2013 Well Name W -6 Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed Township Range Dir Section Subsections Elevation 849 ft. ft. ft. 09/06/2012 7.5 minute 115 19 W 24 BAABDC Elevation Method topographic Drilling Method -- map ( +/- 5 feet) Well Address 12555 52 HY ROSEMOUNT MN 55068 Drilling Fluid Well Hydrofractured? ❑ Yes ❑ No From Ft. to Ft. Use Casing Type Joint No Information Drive Shoe? ❑ Yes ❑ Geological Material Color Hardness From To No Above /Below ft. Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter Open Hole from ft. to ft. Screen Make Type Diameter Slot /Gauze Length Set 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) REMARKS ORIGINALLY W- SEARIS N0. W05885. WELL HAD SOME RECONSTRUCTION. Grouting Information Well Grouted? El Yes El No INFORMATION FROM DAKOTA CO. LOCATED BY COORDINATES FROM BILL OLSEN DAKOTA CO. RECONSTRUCTION DONE BY STEVENS DRILLING & ENVIRONMENTA SERVICES, INC. NO RECORD. Nearest Known Source of Contamination Located by: Dakota Cty. Method: Digitization (Screen) -Map (1:24,000) _feet — direction _type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump El Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model number_ HP Volts Unique Number Verification: Info /GPS from data source Input Date: 10/23/2012 System: UTM- Nad83, Zone 15, Meters X: 496346 Y: 4956277 Length of drop Pipe _ft. Ca acit _ ..m Type Material 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 First Bedrock Aquifer Stevens Drilling and Environmental Services, Inc. 2255 JOHNSON, R. Last Strat Depth to Bedrock ft. License Business Name Lic. Or Reg. No. Name of Driller County Well Index Online Report 272261 Printed 11/19/2013 HE- 01205 -07 http:// mdh- agua.health.state.mn.us /cwi /well log.asp ?wellid= 0000272261 11/19/2013 APPENDIX C FLINT HILLS r e s o u r t e s MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 1 CHEMICAL PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION TRADE NAME(S) SOUR PROCESS WATER CAS NUMBER Mixture MSDS NUMBER 9306 SYNONYM(S) CRUDE PROCESS WATER DESALTER EFFLUENT WATER FCC SOUR WATER STRIPPED SOUR WATER MANUFACTURER / SUPPLIER Flint Hills Resources, LP P.O. Box 64596 St. Paul, MN 55164 -0596 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 l01iVe\:70110[ell HEALTH HAZARDS CONTAINS HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS. MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED GAS MAY EVOLVE FROM THIS MATERIAL AND ACCUMULATE IN CONFINED SPACES NON - POTABLE PROCESS WATER DO NOT USE FOR DRINKING, WASHING OR COOKING DIRECT CONTACT MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO EYES AND SKIN CONTAINS MATERIAL WHICH CAN CAUSE CANCER HOT MATERIAL MAY CAUSE THERMAL BURNS SEE "TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION" (SECTION 11) FOR MORE INFORMATION REACTIVITY HAZARDS STABLE POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, SKIN Contact may cause reddening, itching and inflammation. Skin contact may cause harmful effects in other parts of the body. POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, EYE Contact may cause pain and severe reddening and inflammation of the conjunctiva. Effects may become more serious with repeated or prolonged contact. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 1 / 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, INHALATION May release hydrogen sulfide gas which is highly toxic. 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). POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, 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. 3 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name CAS Number Concentration* Exposure Limits / Health Hazards WATER 7732 -18 -5 99-100% No Data PETROLEUM CRUDE OIL 8002 -05 -9 0-0.5% Petroleum Distillates: 500 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (OSHA) NAPHTHA (PETROLEUM), HEAVY 64741 -54 -4 0-0.5% Gasoline: CATALYTIC CRACKED 300 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) 500 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) C3 -C4 HYDROCARBONS 68476 -40 -4 0-0.5% No Data AMMONIA 7664 -41 -7 < 175 ppm 50 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (OSHA) 25 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) 35 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783 -06 -4 < 130 ppm 20 ppm CEILING (OSHA) 10 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) (MNOSHA) 15 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) (MNOSHA) BENZENE 71 -43 -2 < 25 ppm 1 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (OSHA) (MNOSHA) 5 ppm 15 -Min STEL (OSHA) (MNOSHA) 0.5 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) 2.5 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) ACGIH Skin Designation ** *Values do not reflect absolute minimums and maximums; these values are typical which may vary from time to time. COMPOSITION COMMENTS ** Dermal exposure to this chemical may add to the overall exposure, as it is readily absorbed through the skin. 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. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 2/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 4 FIRST AID MEASURES SKIN 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. In the event of a burn injury remove loose clothing from the affected area. Flush with cool water only if skin appears intact. GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION. EYE Flush immediately with large amounts of water for at least 15 minutes. Eyelids should be held away from the eyeball to ensure thorough rinsing. In the event of a thermal burn injury do not flush the eyes with water or apply ointments. GET IMMEDIATE MEDICAL ATTENTION. INHALATION Remove to fresh air. If not breathing, institute rescue breathing. If breathing is difficult, ensure airway is clear and give oxygen. If heart has stopped, immediately begin cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). 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. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS Combustion may produce SOx and other decomposition products in the case of incomplete combustion. EXTINGUISHING MEDIA Use water spray, dry chemical, carbon dioxide or fire - fighting foam for Class B fires to extinguish fire. BASIC FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES 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 and to protect personnel attempting to stop a leak. Material itself burns with difficulty. Use water spray to cool adjacent structures and to protect personnel. 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. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 3/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 UNUSUAL FIRE & EXPLOSION HAZARDS 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. Flash Point Not Applicable Autoignition Temperature Not Applicable Flammability Limits in Air, Lower, % by Volume Not Applicable Flammability Limits in Air, Upper, % by Volume Not Applicable 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES EMERGENCY ACTION Keep unnecessary people away; isolate hazard area and deny entry. Stay upwind. (See Exposure Controls /Personal Protection in Section 8.) 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. SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE Keep unnecessary people away. Isolate area for at least 50 meters (150 feet) in all directions to preserve public safety. For large spills, 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). 7 HANDLING & 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. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 4/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 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. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION 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. EYE PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) 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: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) 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. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) 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 ODOR AND APPEARANCE CLEAR TO CLOUDY WATER, MAY HAVE AN OIL SHEEN, MAY HAVE STRONG ODOR OF AMMONIA AND /OR H2S Flash Point Not Applicable Boiling Point 212 °F (100.0 °C) Approximately Specific Gravity 1 Approximately at 60/60 °F (15.6/15.6 °C) Melting Point No Data Percent Volatile No Data Vapor Pressure No Data Evaporation Rate No Data SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 5/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 Vapor Density Viscosity Solubility in Water Octanol /Water Partn Volatile Organic Pour Point pH Value Bulk Density Freezing Point Surface Tension Molecular Formula Molecular Weight Chemical Family Odor Threshold 10 STABILITY & REACTIVITY STABILITY /INCOMPATIBILITY 1 Approximately No Data 100 % Approximately No Data No Data 32 °F (0.0 °C) Approximately 6 -10 No Data 32 °F (0.0 °C) Approximately No Data No Data No Data Mixture No Data Incompatible with oxidizing agents. See precautions under Handling & Storage (Section 7). HAZARDOUS REACTIONS /DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS Combustion may produce SOx and other decomposition products in the case of incomplete combustion. 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ROUTES OF EXPOSURE Inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact. 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). SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 6/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 CRUDE OIL: Lifetime dermal studies in rodents have shown in an increase in skin tumors with some crude oils. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has concluded that there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. The Overall IARC evaluation for crude oil is: "not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans (Group 3)." Exposure to this material may cause adverse effects or damage to the following organs or organ systems: blood and bone marrow. 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICITY: Components of this product are hazardous to aquatic life. PERSISTENCE /BIODEGRADATION: Not classified in terms of biodegradability. BIOACCUMULATION: This material is not expected to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. MOBILITY IN ENVIRONMENT: May partition into air, soil and water. 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS WASTE DISPOSAL 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. Under RCRA, it is the responsibility of the user of the material to determine, at the time of disposal, whether the material meets RCRA criteria for hazardous waste. The transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of RCRA waste material must be conducted in compliance with 40 CFR 262, 263, 264, 268 and 270. Disposal can occur only in properly permitted facilities. 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. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION BILL OF LADING - BULK (U. S. DOT) Not Determined BILL OF LADING - NON -BULK (U. S. DOT) Not Determined COMMENTS The shipping classification must be evaluated at the time of shipment. Please consult 49 CFR 171 - 180 for specific shipping information. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 7/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION 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, as supplied, contains ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and benzene, which are CERCLA Hazardous Substances as per 40 CFR Part 302.4, and is therefore subject to the release reporting requirements of CERCLA. The reportable quantities for ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and benzene are 100, 100 and 10 pound(s), respectively. This material, as supplied, contains ammonia and hydrogen sulfide which are Extremely Hazardous Substances as per 40 CFR Part 355, and is therefore, subject to release reporting requirements. The reportable quantity for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide is 100 and 100 pound(s), respectively. This material does not contain toxic chemicals (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 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 one or more substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 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. STATE REGULATIONS WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. SARA 311/312 HAZARD CATEGORIES Immediate Hazard: X Delayed Hazard Reactivity Hazard: NFPA RATINGS Health HMIS RATINGS Health Flammability 2* Flammability 401111:11:41111101201WTAFTAV •\ DISCLAIMER X Fire Hazard: Pressure Hazard: 0 Instability 0 Special Hazards 0 Physical Hazard 0 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. SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 8/ 9 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 SECTIONS / SUBSECTIONS CHANGED ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES: SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE CHEMICAL PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION: Product & Company Identification COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: COMPOSITION COMMENTS COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: List of Ingredients DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS: WASTE DISPOSAL ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: ECOTOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION: RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: Fire Fighting Measures: Fire & Explosion Properties FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: UNUSUAL FIRE & EXPLOSION HAZARDS FIRST AID MEASURES: EYE FIRST AID MEASURES: INGESTION FIRST AID MEASURES: INHALATION FIRST AID MEASURES: NOTES TO PHYSICIAN FIRST AID MEASURES: SKIN HANDLING & STORAGE: HANDLING HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: EMERGENCY OVERVIEW HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, EYE HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, INGESTION HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, INHALATION HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, SKIN OTHER INFORMATION: DISCLAIMER PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL PROPERTIES: Physical & Chemical Properties REGULATORY INFORMATION: FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGULATORY INFORMATION: United States STABILITY & REACTIVITY: HAZARDOUS REACTIONS /DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS STABILITY & REACTIVITY: STABILITY /INCOMPATIBILITY TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: CARCINOGENICITY TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: LC50 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: LD50 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: PRE - EXISTING CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: SYNERGISTIC MATERIALS TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: TERATOGENICITY, MUTAGENICITY, OTHER REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: TOXICOLOGICAL DATA TRANSPORT INFORMATION: BILL OF LADING - BULK (U. S. DOT) TRANSPORT INFORMATION: BILL OF LADING - NON -BULK (U. S. DOT) TRANSPORT INFORMATION: COMMENTS Completed By Flint Hills Resources, LP - Operations EH &S SOUR PROCESS WATER Material ID: 9306 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 30- Dec -03 . . ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 FLINT HILLS r e s o u r t e s MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 1 CHEMICAL PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION TRADE NAME(S) CAS NUMBER MSDS NUMBER MANUFACTURER /SUPPLIER AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Mixture 9230 Flint Hills Resources, LP P.O. Box 64596 St. Paul, MN 55164 -0596 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! HEALTH HAZARDS CONTAINS HYDROGEN SULFIDE GAS. MAY BE FATAL IF INHALED GAS MAY EVOLVE FROM THIS MATERIAL AND ACCUMULATE IN CONFINED SPACES 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, SKIN Contact may cause reddening, itching and inflammation. Skin contact may cause harmful effects in other parts of the body. Contains a component(s) that may cause allergic skin reactions in some individuals. POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, EYE 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. AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 1/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, 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. Symptoms may include sore throat, coughing, labored breathing, sneezing and burning sensation, depending on the concentration and duration of exposure. Overexposure to this material may cause systemic damage including target organ effects listed under "Toxicological Information" (Section 11). POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, 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. 3 COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS Ingredient Name CAS Number Concentration* Exposure Limits / Health Hazards WATER 7732 -18 -5 < 99 % No Data HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783 -06 -4 0.3-3.5% 20 ppm CEILING (OSHA) 10 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) (MNOSHA) 15 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) (MNOSHA) METHYLAMINE 74 -89 -5 0.4-2.6% 5 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) 15 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) 10 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (OSHA) METHYLDIETHANOLAMINE 105 -59 -9 0.1 -2.5% No Data AQUA AMMONIA 1336 -21 -6 0.2-1 % As Ammonia: 50 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (OSHA) 25 ppm 8 -Hour TWA (ACGIH) 35 ppm 15 -Min STEL (ACGIH) (MNOSHA) *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 SKIN 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. AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 2/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 EYE 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. 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. 5 FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS Material will not burn or support combustion. EXTINGUISHING MEDIA Material itself will not burn. BASIC FIRE FIGHTING PROCEDURES Use extinguishing agent suitable for type of surrounding fire. Use water spray to cool adjacent structures and to protect personnel. Firefighters must wear NIOSH approved positive pressure breathing apparatus (SCBA) with full face mask and full protective equipment. Flash Point Not Applicable Autoignition Temperature Not Applicable Flammability Limits in Air, Lower, % by Volume Not Applicable Flammability Limits in Air, Upper, % by Volume Not Applicable 6 ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES EMERGENCY ACTION Keep unnecessary people away; isolate hazard area and deny entry. Stay upwind. (See Exposure Controls /Personal Protection in Section 8.) ENVIRONMENTAL PRECAUTIONS 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 the National Response Center, if required. AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 3/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE Keep unnecessary people away. Isolate hazard area and deny entry. 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. Stop leak when safe to do so. See Exposure Controls /Personal Protection (Section 8). 7 HANDLING & STORAGE HANDLING 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. Do not eat, drink or smoke in areas of use or storage. 8 EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION 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. EYE PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) 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: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) 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. RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION EQUIPMENT (PPE) A NIOSH approved air purifying respirator with an appropriate cartridge or canister, such as an organic vapor cartridge, may be used in circumstances where airborne concentrations may exceed exposure limits. Protection provided by air purifying respirators is limited. 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. See OSHA 29 CFR 1910.134 for more information regarding respiratory protection and Assigned Protection Factors (APFs). 9 PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL PROPERTIES ODOR AND APPEARANCE CLEAR TO CLOUDY LIQUID WITH AMMONIA -LIKE ODOR Flash Point Not Applicable AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 4/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 Boiling Point Approximately 212 °F Specific Gravity Approximately 1 at 60/60 °F (15.6/15.6 °C) Melting Point No Data Percent Volatile No Data Vapor Pressure No Data Evaporation Rate Vapor Density Viscosity Solubility in Water Octanol /Water Partn Volatile Organic Pour Point pH Value Freezing Point Surface Tension Molecular Formula Molecular Weight Chemical Family Odor Threshold 10 STABILITY & REACTIVITY STABILITY /INCOMPATIBILITY No Data No Data No Data 100% No Data No Data No Data >7 Approximately 32 °F (0 °C) No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data See precautions under Handling & Storage (Section 7). HAZARDOUS REACTIONS /DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS None. 11 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ROUTES OF EXPOSURE Inhalation, ingestion, skin and eye contact. TOXICOLOGICAL DATA 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). METHYLDIETHANOLAMINE: Results of laboratory animal studies indicate a potential to induce allergic dermatitis (sensitization). No significant developmental effects were reported from a study of pregnant rats exposed dermally during gestation. Findings from genotoxicity studies have been largely negative. Exposure to this material may cause adverse effects or damage to the following organs or organ systems: eyes, skin, lungs, central nervous system, respiratory tract, and immune system. PRE - EXISTING CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE Pre - existing medical conditions which may be aggravated by exposure include disorders of the lungs and respiratory tract. AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 5/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 12 ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION ECOTOXICITY: Not classified in terms of ecotoxicity. PERSISTENCE /BIODEGRADATION: Not readily biodegradable. BIOACCUMULATION: Not likely to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. MOBILITY IN ENVIRONMENT: May partition into air, soil and water. 13 DISPOSAL CONSIDERATIONS WASTE DISPOSAL This material, as supplied, when discarded or disposed of, is not a hazardous waste according to Federal Regulations (40 CFR 261). Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), it is the responsibility of the user of the material to characterize and determine, at the time of disposal, whether the material is a hazardous waste subject to RCRA. The transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of RCRA waste material must be conducted in compliance with 40 CFR 262, 263, 264, 268 and 270. Disposal can occur only in properly permitted facilities. 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. 14 TRANSPORT INFORMATION BILL OF LADING - BULK (U. S. DOT) Not Determined BILL OF LADING - NON -BULK (U. S. DOT) Not Determined COMMENTS The shipping classification must be evaluated at the time of shipment. Please consult 49 CFR 171 - 180 for specific shipping information. AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 6/ 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 15 REGULATORY INFORMATION FEDERAL REGULATIONS All ingredients are on the TSCA inventory, or are not required to be listed on the TSCA inventory. This material, as supplied, contains methylamine and aqua ammonia, which are CERCLA Hazardous Substances as per 40 CFR Part 302.4, and is therefore subject to the release reporting requirements of CERCLA. The reportable quantities for methylamine and aqua ammonia are 100 and 1000 pound(s), respectively. 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 one or more substances listed as hazardous air pollutants under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act. 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. STATE REGULATIONS Based on available information this product does not contain any components or chemicals currently known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or reproductive harm at levels which would be subject to Proposition 65. Reformulation, use or processing of this material may affect its composition and require re- evaluation. SARA 311/312 HAZARD CATEGORIES Immediate Hazard: X Delayed Hazard: X Fire Hazard: Pressure Hazard: Reactivity Hazard: NFPA RATINGS Health 3 Flammability 1 Instability 0 Special Hazards HMIS RATINGS Health 3* Flammability 1 Physical Hazard 0 Following ingredients of this material are listed in SARA 313 above the de minimis concentration SARA Listed Ingredient Name CAS Number Maximum % AQUA AMMONIA 16 OTHER INFORMATION AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 1336 -21 -6 1.0 7i 8 ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 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. SECTIONS / SUBSECTIONS CHANGED ACCIDENTAL RELEASE MEASURES: SPILL OR LEAK PROCEDURE CHEMICAL PRODUCT & COMPANY IDENTIFICATION: Product & Company Identification COMPOSITION / INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS: List of Ingredients ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION: ECOTOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION: RESPIRATORY PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION EXPOSURE CONTROLS / PERSONAL PROTECTION: SKIN PROTECTION: PERSONAL PROTECTION FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: Fire Fighting Measures: Fire & Explosion Properties FIRE FIGHTING MEASURES: HAZARDOUS COMBUSTION PRODUCTS FIRST AID MEASURES: EYE FIRST AID MEASURES: INGESTION FIRST AID MEASURES: INHALATION FIRST AID MEASURES: NOTES TO PHYSICIAN FIRST AID MEASURES: SKIN HANDLING & STORAGE: HANDLING HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: EMERGENCY OVERVIEW HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, EYE HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, INGESTION HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, INHALATION HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION: POTENTIAL HEALTH EFFECTS, SKIN OTHER INFORMATION: DISCLAIMER PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL PROPERTIES: Physical & Chemical Properties REGULATORY INFORMATION: FEDERAL REGULATIONS REGULATORY INFORMATION: SARA Listed Ingredients REGULATORY INFORMATION: STATE REGULATIONS STABILITY & REACTIVITY: HAZARDOUS REACTIONS /DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: LC50 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: LD50 TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: PRE - EXISTING CONDITIONS AGGRAVATED BY EXPOSURE TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: SYNERGISTIC MATERIALS TOXICOLOGICAL INFORMATION: TOXICOLOGICAL DATA TRANSPORT INFORMATION: BILL OF LADING - BULK (U. S. DOT) TRANSPORT INFORMATION: BILL OF LADING - NON -BULK (U. S. DOT) TRANSPORT INFORMATION: COMMENTS Completed By Flint Hills Resources, LP - Operations EH &S AMINE REGENERATOR SOUR WATER Material ID: 9230 Revision Date: 02- Oct -09 Replaces Sheet Dated: 28- Aug -03 W ND = No Data NA = Not Applicable Printed On: 02- Oct -09 FLINT HILLS r e s o u r c e s� 1. Product and Company Identification MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET 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 Chemtrec 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 MSDS US 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 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, 4. First Aid Measures nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain and signs of nervous system depression (e.g. First aid procedures headache, drowsiness, dizziness, loss of coordination and fatigue), irregular heartbeats, Eye contact pulmonary edema, weakness and convulsions. Breathing of the mists, vapors or fumes may irritate the nose, throat and lungs. Skin contact 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. 3. Composition / Information on Ingredients Components CAS # Concentration* WATER 7732 -18 -5 90-100% HYDROGEN SULFIDE 7783 -06 -4 0.3-3.5% AMMONIA 7664 -41 -7 0.1 -1.3% ETHYL MERCAPTAN 75 -08 -1 0 - 1 % METHYL MERCAPTAN 74 -93 -1 0 - 1 % BENZENE 71 -43 -2 < 100 ppm *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 nnsos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 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. 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 nnsos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 3/8 Explosion hazard if exposed to extreme heat. Extinguishing media Suitable extinguishing Use water spray, dry chemical, carbon dioxide or fire - fighting foam for Class B fires to extinguish media fire. Protection of firefighters Specific hazards arising Combustion may produce hazardous combustion products such as COx, NOx, SOx, reactive from the chemical hydrocarbons, and phenolics which may be hazardous. Fire fighting Evacuate area and fight fire from a safe distance. equipment/instructions 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 nnsos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 3/8 8. Exposure Controls / Personal Protection Occupational exposure limits ACGIH Components Type Value Form AMMONIA (7664 -41 -7) STEL 35.0 ppm TWA 25.0 ppm BENZENE (71 -43 -2) STEL 2.5 ppm Skin TWA 0.5 ppm Skin ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75 -08 -1) TWA 0.5 ppm HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783 -06 -4) STEL 5.0 ppm TWA 1.0 ppm METHYL MERCAPTAN (74 -93 -1) TWA 0.5 ppm U.S. - OSHA Components Type Value Form AMMONIA (7664 -41 -7) PEL 35.0 mg /m3 50.0 ppm BENZENE (71 -43 -2) Ceiling 25.0 ppm Skin STEL 5.0 ppm Skin TWA 1.0 ppm Skin ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75 -08 -1) Ceiling 25.0 mg /m3 10.0 ppm HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783 -06 -4) Ceiling 20.0 ppm METHYL MERCAPTAN (74 -93 -1) Ceiling 10.0 ppm 20.0 mg /m3 U.S. - Alaska (AKOSH) Components Type Value BENZENE (71 -43 -2) STEL 5.0 ppm TWA 1.0 ppm U.S. - Minnesota (MNOSHA) Components Type Value BENZENE (71 -43 -2) STEL 5.0 ppm TWA 1.0 ppm ETHYL MERCAPTAN (75 -08 -1) TWA 0.5 ppm 1.0 mg /m3 HYDROGEN SULFIDE (7783 -06 -4) STEL 21.0 mg /m3 15.0 ppm TWA 10.0 ppm 14.0 mg /m3 METHYL MERCAPTAN (74 -93 -1) TWA 0.5 ppm 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 ansos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 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, Not available % by volume Flammability limits in air, lower, Not available % by volume 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 Not available (n- octanol /water) 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 Not anticipated under normal conditions. products Possibility of hazardous Will not occur. reactions Material name: SOUR WATER ansos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 5/8 11. Toxicological Information Carcinogenicity ACGIH Carcinogens BENZENE (CAS 71 -43 -2) IARC Monographs. Overall Evaluation of Carcinogenicity BENZENE (CAS 71 -43 -2) US NTP Report on Carcinogens: Known carcinogen Al Confirmed human carcinogen. 1 Carcinogenic to humans. BENZENE (CAS 71 -43 -2) Known carcinogen. US OSHA Specifically Regulated Substances: Cancer hazard BENZENE (CAS 71 -43 -2) Cancer hazard. Pre - existing conditions Pre - existing medical conditions which may be aggravated by exposure include disorders of the aggravated by exposure 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 / Not likely to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Accumulation Mobility in environmental May partition into air, soil and water. media Material name: SOUR WATER nnsos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 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. 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) The transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of RCRA waste material must be conducted HYDROGEN SULFIDE (CAS 7783 -06 -4) in compliance with federal regulations. Check state and local regulations for any additional METHYL MERCAPTAN (CAS 74 -93 -1) requirements as these may be more restrictive than federal laws and regulations. Chemical US EPCRA (SARA Title III) Section 304 - Extremely additions, processing or otherwise altering this material may make the waste management AMMONIA (CAS 7664 -41 -7) information presented in this MSDS incomplete, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate. Disposal HYDROGEN SULFIDE (CAS 7783 -06 -4) of this material must be conducted in compliance with all federal, state and local regulations. METHYL MERCAPTAN (CAS 74 -93 -1) For additional handling information and protection of employees, see Section 7 (Handling and US EPCRA (SARA Title III) Section 313 - Toxic Chemical: De minimis concentration Storage) and Section 8 (Exposure Controls /Personal Protection). 14. 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 ansos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 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 This document has undergone significant changes and should be reviewed in its entirety. changes from the previous version in section(s): Completed by Flint Hills Resources, LP - Operations EH &S Material name: SOUR WATER nnsos us 5687 Version #: 15 Revision date: 08 -04 -2011 Print date: 08 -04 -2011 8/8 TESSENDERLTessende rlo ZIGROUP KERLEY TM 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 ............................. Chemical Family .......................... Synonyms ..... ............................... Formula ......... ............................... 1.2 Manufacturer .......... Information ............... 1.3 Emergency Contact THIO -SUL Inorganic salt solution Ammonium thiosulfate, ATS, 12- 0- 0 -26S, Thiosulfuric acid (H2S2O3), diammonium salt (N H4)252O3 ............Tessenderlo Kerley Inc. 2255 N. 44th Street, Suite 300 Phoenix, Arizona 85008 -3279 ........... (602) 889 -8300 ............. (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: HAZARDS 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 skin 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 toxicity 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: Immediately 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. Obtain 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 combustibles involved in fire. 5.4 FIRE & EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS: Heating to dryness may cause the release of ammonia, ammonium sulfate, sulfur and oxides of sulfur. NH3 (16 -25 %) may form flammable mixtures with air. Keep containers /storage vessels in fire area 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 None TWA STEL NA NA ACGIH TLV STEL 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: 9.2 ODOR: 9.3 BOILING POINT: 9.4 VAPOR PRESSURE: 9.5 VAPOR DENSITY: 9.6 SOLUBILITY IN WATER: 9.7 SPECIFIC GRAVITY: 9.8 FREEZING POINT: 9.9 pH: 9.10 VOLATILE: Colorless to yellow to tan liquid. May have a slight ammonia and /or organic odor. 210 °F(98.9 °C) - 220 OF (104.4 °C) 18 mm Hg @ 70 OF (21.1 °C) Not determined Complete 1.32 - 1.35 (11.0 - 11.2 Ibs /gal) 30 OF — 60 °F ( -1.1 °C — 15.6 °C) typical 6.5-8.5 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 LD50: 1,950 - 2,890 mg /kg Oral -Mouse LD50: 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 LC50: > 2,260 mg /m3 (4 hrs) Inhalation -Mouse LC50: > 1,800 mg /m3 (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 -LC50 for bluegills is 1,000 mg /L. Static acute 96 hour -LC50 for rainbow trout is 770 mg /L. Static acute 96 hour -LC50 for sheepshead minnow is > 1,000 mg /L. Static acute 96 hour -LC50 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 14.2 DOT Hazard Class: 14.3 UN /NA Number: 14.4 Packing Group: 14.5 DOT Placard: 14.6 DOT Label(s): 14.7 IMO Shipping Name: 14.8 RQ (Reportable Quantity) 14.9 RR STCC Number: Ammonium thiosulfate solution (See Regulatory Information, 15.7) NA W-A NA NA NA Ammonium thiosulfate solution NA 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 1,11) 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. /_17 »:111 1:1 7 resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants April 24, 2014 Lisa Joyal Environmental Review Coordinator Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Box 25 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, MN 55155 Re: Flint 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 Refinery (refinery) in Dakota County, Minnesota (Figure 1). Barr requests your review of the proposed Projects for potential effects on rare natural resources. FHR is proposing the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects, which 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, 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). 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 skimmers, the existing sour water tanks, and an existing structure at the location of the proposed new ATS plant. The proposed Projects will include construction of three 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 Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Ms. Lisa Joyal April 24, 2014 Page 2 elements with existing infrastructure. Existing underground piping will transfer product to up to four new 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 resources would be affected by the proposed Projects. The following species have been documented within the vicinity of the proposed Project areas: 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 shrikes have been documented in the farmlands and rural areas adjacent to the proposed Project areas within the past four years. Because loggerhead shrikes generally prefer broad open areas such as croplands, lawns and pastures, with adjacent perching sites of small trees and shrubs, this species is unlikely to occur within the developed Project areas. 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 areas. Both reports, however, are more than 70 years old and no recent sightings have been reported in the area. Because both snake species generally prefer wooded and open field river bluff habitat, it is not likely that either species will be present on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project areas 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 areas and FHR facility boundary. Due to the industrial nature of the proposed Project areas and the absence of suitable habitat for state- listed species, it has been determined that the proposed Projects would not impact state - listed species or their associated habitats. Your concurrence with this determination is requested. Ms. Lisa Joyal April 24, 2014 Pa4e 3 If you have any questions feel free to contact me by phone (952- 832 -2694) or email (abutler @barr.com). Sincerely, Jessica Butler Ecologist Barr Engineering Company Enclosures: Figure 1— Site Location Map; Figure 2— Project Area Map 14Historical Minnesota Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 7, 2014 Mr. Greg F. Myers Sr. Air Permit Engineer Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend PO Box 64596 St. Paul, MN 55164 APPENDIX E Using the Power of History to Transform Lives PRESERVING SHARING CONNECTING RE: EPA air permit to allow construction of a Combined Heat and Power Cogeneration Facility at the Rosemount refinery T115 R19 S24 NE Rosemount, Dakota County SHPO Number: 2014 -1580 Dear Mr. Myers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and implementing federal regulations at 36 CFR 800, and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Based on available information, we conclude that no historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed project. Please contact our Compliance Section at (651) 259 -3455 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, 0 "'Re Sarah J. Beimers, Manager Government Programs and Compliance Minnesota Historical Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651- 259 -3000 • 888 - 727 -8386 • www.mnhs.org Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 Public Comment Information Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power 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 Permit public comment period begins: December 23, 2014 Permit public comment period ends: 4:30 p.m. on January 21, 2015 Facility Specific Information Facility name and location: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend Refinery 13775 Clark Road Rosemount, MN 55068 NW '/4, SW '/4, Section 13, T1 15N, R1 9W Rosemount Township Dakota County, MN MPCA Contact Information MPCA EAW 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 General Information (CHP) Cogeneration Project Facility contact: 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 Permit contact person: 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 Doc Type: Public Notice The 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. p- earl -64a 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 • 1012114 Page 1 oft 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 the 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 Submit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit Written comments 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 Citizens' 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 • 1012114 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 the 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 Submit Written Comments on the EAW and Air Emissions Permit Written comments 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 Citizens' 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 • 1012114 Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET 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. Project Title: Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project 2. Proposer: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC Contact person: Mr. Greg Myers Title: Senior Air Permitting Engineer Address: P.O. Box 64596 City, State, ZIP: St Paul, MN 55164 -0596 Phone: 651 - 480 -2712 Fax: 651 - 437 -0581 Email: Greg.Myers @fhr.com 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: ❑ EIS Scoping x Mandatory EAW 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Contact person: Kim Grosenheider Title: Project Manager Address: 520 Lafayette Road North City, State, ZIP: St. Paul, MN 55155 -4194 Phone: 651 - 757 -2170 Fax: 651 - 297 -2343 Email: kim.grosenheider @state.mn.us Discretionary: ❑ Citizen Petition ❑ RGU Discretion ❑Proposer Initiated This EAW is being prepared because of the two following mandatory categories: 1. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 3 for construction of an electric power generating plant and associated facilities designed for or capable of operating at a capacity of between 25 megawatts and 50 megawatts, the EQB shall be the RGU. 2. Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 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. Based 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. Flint 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- earl -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 (%, %, Section, Township, Range): NW %, SW %, 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 Attached 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) Figure 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. SHPO Letter 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 city 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 electricity 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 Project 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 expansion 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 city 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 Geological 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 Minnesota and nationwide via pipelines, trucks, barges, and rail cars. The refinery has an atmospheric crude oil distillation capacity of 339,000 barrels per stream day'. Proposed Project Currently, the refinery's electrical load is supplied from the grid and purchased from the local utility. FHR wishes to implement self - generation of electricity via a natural gas —based combined - cycle combustion turbine to produce both heat and power at the FHR refinery site as 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 purchases 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 distributed generation are significant. Cogenerating electricity and steam is more efficient than producing them separate lyz. 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 /. z The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that CHP reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and other pollutants 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 from new power plants (EPA, 2013. "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units." See Section 111.6.1.b.3.). Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 degrees Fahrenheit. Depending on power and refinery steam demands and limits, the produced steam will either be regulated to 250 psig and exported to the refinery, or directed to a steam turbine capable of converting the energy in the steam into up to 12 MW of electricity'. 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 existing 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, pending final engineering and design: 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 and connect into the refinery's existing 13.8 kV electric distribution system or at an internal distribution substation, noted as the "25 Unit Super- Sub ". The location of the substation is shown in Figures 4(a) and 4(a)(i). Alternative two would step up the power from 13.8 kV to 115 kV 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 3,500 gallons of dielectric fluid. These volumes are estimates based on preliminary design considerations and may change slightly once final engineering is completed. From this transformer yard, the power would be routed through either 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 transformers may be needed in the substation 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 transformers used to step power down from 115kV 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 automatically 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 reach 42.9 MW, the steam turbine can be used to generate a larger portion of the difference. This ability is part of a CRP's overall inherent flexibility and efficiency advantage over utility scale generators and on- purpose steam production. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 4 3. Alternative three also would use the same GSU configuration and design, but instead would tie the power feed from the GSU transformer yard to Xcel Energy's 115 kV 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 delivery point located at the refinery. The delivery pressure is expected to vary between 700 to 800 psig, depending on pipeline conditions. Piping will transport the natural gas from the delivery point to the CHP cogeneration facility. The gas turbine will be equipped with dry low nitrogen oxides (NOx) combustors. The natural gas turbine exhaust will be sent directly to the HRSG. No exhaust bypass stack will be used, so the turbine will not be capable of running separately from the H RSG. 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 organic compounds (VOCs), and an aqueous ammonia -based selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system for nitrogen oxides (NOX) reduction. Aqueous ammonia (19 percent) for the SCR system will be delivered to the CHP cogeneration facility site and stored on -site 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. Demineralized 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 for 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. Blowdown 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 blowdown removes some of the boiler water and is replaced with clean feedwater. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 5 The proposed CHP cogeneration facility 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 access 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 combustion 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 construction 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, generators, graders excavators, rollers, scrapers) and equipment carrying 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 continue 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 the main refinery process area. This would result in an excavation of approximately 50' by 50'. The location is denoted in Figures 2 and 4(a)(i). As shown in Figure 4(a)(i), this location is currently in the middle of a heavy industrial process unit of the Refinery. The footprint currently contains multiple underground conduits and utilities. The new distribution substation would be built on support columns over 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 approximately one acre to the CHP site immediately to the north east of the CHP building (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 additional 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 selected. 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 6 Tier 3 Clean Fuels Proiects 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 "d. 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 process that removes sulfur). FHR also 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 amine 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? Eyes 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? Eyes 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 7 7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Cover type estimates below are based on footprint of each of the project elements identified in Figure 4. This reflects current preliminary project design. Units are in acres. 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 assistance 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 Before After MPCA Before After Wetlands 0 0 Lawn /landscaping 0 0 Deep 0 0 Impervious surface Stormwater Multi- Sector General water /streams Permit MPCA 1.29 1.91 Wooded /forest 0 0 Stormwater Pond 0 0 0.05 0 Other: Sand /gravel pits with 26- Up to Application to be submitted Brush /Grassland Building Permit To be obtained when required City of Rosemount Excavation and Grading Permit 0 Minnesota Public Utilities Route Permit Application to be submitted if the 50% impervious surface 2.57 electrical power is transmitted 0 0 Other: Aggregate lined Transmission Study Two part application, part one to Cropland be submitted in mid - November. transformer yard —50% 0 Up to impervious surfaces 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 assistance 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 Major permit modification (PSD) Air Emissions Permit application submitted MPCA National Pollutant Discharge In effect Elimination System ( NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Multi- Sector General Permit 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 Route Permit Application to be submitted if the Commission (MPUC)* electrical power is transmitted using alternative 2 or 3. Midcontinent Transmission Study Two part application, part one to Independent System be submitted in mid - November. Operator (MISO)* *Only required if transmission alternatives 2 or 3 are selected. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 Industrial District, an area of industrial development in the city of Rosemount near the junction of Minnesota Highway 55 and U.S. Highway 52. The Industrial District 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 approximately 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 northwest of the city of Hastings (population 22,172), six miles northeast of the city of Rosemount (population 21,980), and six miles south of the city of Inver Grove Heights (population 34,008). Other nearby cities includes 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 Figure 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 residence, 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, 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 6,000 -acre Industrial District. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 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 Pine Bend Industrial District. The project is not located within any water - related land use 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 in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The project is 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 project is consistent with the city of Rosemount's rules and regulations for areas zoned for heavy and general industrial uses. As described above, the project is not located within or immediately adjacent to the MNRRA and therefore, is 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 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 for Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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, surficial 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. Bedrock 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 basin, 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 Mississippi 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 component 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 activities (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 present, 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- Waukegan 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 Department of Natural Resources Geographic Information System (GIS) Data Deli at http: // deli .dnr.state.mn.us /metadata /Ifrm karstpt3.html. Accessed 6/19/2009. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 11 upland soils are considered 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 vicinity of the proposed CHP cogeneration facility is classified 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 actively 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 apply 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 SWPPP 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 detention area during construction. Localized BMPs such as silt fences, area inlet protection, 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 groundwater 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 Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 12 3O3d 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 project 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 material 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 MDH 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 site 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 Well Index (CWI) well locations within the FHR facility boundary are summarized below and shown in 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 Project 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 W. 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 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 the city of Rosemount's publicly owned 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 Project 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 effluent 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 feed 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 result 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. The 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 the 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 prevention 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 existing stormwater watershed. Runoff 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 areas 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 Project 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 stormwater 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 stormwater. 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 permitting 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 stabilize 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. The 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 Stormwater 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, 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, 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 that 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 approximately 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, No. 1954 0071. FHR Pine Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 16 Bend currently uses approximately 94 percent 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 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 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 - contact 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, filling, 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 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 surface water features, including in -water Best Management Practices that are proposed to avoid or minimize turbidity /sedimentation while physically altering the water features. Discuss how the project will change the number or type of watercraft on any water body, 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 Project 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 effects 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 indicate no potential conflicts involving environmental hazards in the project vicinity due to past uses at the proposed turbine site. Petroleum contaminated soils exists along FHR's 12th Street, which runs in an east -west direction approximately 500 feet north - 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 12th Street and west of the project area 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 example, 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 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. Typical construction waste, including scrap metal, welding rods, etc., is anticipated to be generated during the construction phase of this project. If any excavation 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 and recycling. Include development of a spill prevention plan. The FHR Pine 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 combustible intermediate products. The proposed project will include the storage of aqueous ammonia and dielectric fluid, discussed in the paragraphs below. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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,, reductions. The SCR control equipment is designed to convert NO, into atmospheric nitrogen (NZ) and water vapor; however it does have the potential for some ammonia air emissions (referred 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 feet 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 substance" under the MPCA tank rules. The tank will be registered with the state and subject to the facility's AST permit requirements for design and operation, including 110 percent containment with a material impervious to the aqueous ammonia solution. If transmission alternatives 2 or 3 are chosen, the project would require the construction of a transformer yard with four transformers, two GSU transformers and up to two 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 transformers 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 engineering and final specifications. These transformers are subject to the federal SPCC rules but are exempted from the Minnesota Above Ground Storage Tank program under the provisions of the facility's AST permit and Minn. R. 7151.1300, subp. 2.13. because they are "electrical equipment" that contain "substances for operational purposes ". The transformer yard will be fenced, gated, and locked. 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 yard surface will be aggregate. It is a general practice that aggregate is used as a base in transformer yards as a safety precaution. If there were a loss of primary containment 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, the 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 location 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 transformer 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 with 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, 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 Project 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 plan will be periodically shared with the MPCA, Dakota County, and city 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 habitats 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 adjacent 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 Grove Heights SBS (outstanding biodiversity significance); within the Mississippi River; and along the Mississippi 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 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 Company, 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 MDNR is included as Appendix B). 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 14. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) technical assistance websites 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 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 bat are not present within the refinery or adjacent to the FHR facility boundary. The 5 Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered Species Program. Available at URS: http: / /www.fws.gov /midwest/ endangered /lists /minnesot- cty.htmi. Accessed October, 2013 Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 MDNR / 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 county 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 basswood and floodplains dominated by elm and cottonwood, is not present within the FHR facility or adjacent to the FHR facility. The MDNR 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; federally 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 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 (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 the 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 the 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, 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 refinery 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 SNA 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 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 Project 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 the 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 facility 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 impacts 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 previously 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 Heights 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 likely to be habituated to Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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. Considering 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 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 Pine Bend refinery. There are no reported historic properties 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 with 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 additional 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 lights 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 project 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 23 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, human health 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, minimize, 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 Unit Add -On Control Equipment Combustion Turbine Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), NO, 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 fugitive 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. Protect 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 applicability6 and the method described by Minn. R. 7007.1200, subp.3, the calculations for this EAW conservatively assume year -round operation at maximum, worst -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. MMPCA, 2007. Calculating Air Emission Increases for EAW Applicability. p- ear -03. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 24 Pollutant Total Refinery Pre- CHP Cogeneration Total Refinery Percentage Change Project (TPY)1 Facility (TPY) 2 (Post- Project TPY) 3 Due to Project (%) Nitrogen Oxides 3,952.6 27.7 3,980.3 0.7% (NOx) Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 4 3,770.0 4.1 3,770.0 0.0% Carbon Monoxide 2,391.0 66.9 2,457.9 2.8% (CO) Particulate Matter 1,032.7 16.8 1,049.5 1.6% (PM) Particulate Matter 641.1 16.8 657.9 2.6% <10 microns (PMlo) Particulate Matter 627.6 16.8 644.4 2.7% <2.5 microns (PM2.5) Volatile Organic 2,610.4 28.0 21638.4 1.1% Compounds (VOCs) Greenhouse Gases 7,837,536 345,263 8,182,799 4.4% (GHG)' Hazardous Air 854.6 6.8 861.4 0.8% Pollutants (HAPs) ICurrent 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. Tarik Hanafy of the MPCA, updated to reflect current global- warming potentials for CH4 and N20 plus those GHG values from new ELI's permitted in 03700011 -011. 2Limited PTE of CHP Cogeneration Project, including combustion turbine, duct burner, and fugitive emissions. 3Limited PTE of total refinery (current facility plus proposed CHP cogeneration project) 4The CHP project will result in a small amount of S02 emissions, however these emissions will not require the refinery to increase its S02 air permit emission cap. 5GHG contains the following pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These values are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) Air Emission Permittin Title V The refinery is currently a permitted major air emissions source under Title V of the federal Clean Air Act Amendments. The proposed project will result in increased criteria pollutant emissions, most significant of which are particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PMlo), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), 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 Sienificant Deterioration (PSD The current 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) for several criteria pollutants. The potential emissions of PM1Oi PM2.5 and greenhouse gas (GHG) from the proposed project exceed significant emission rate thresholds 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 Project 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 (PMlo, PM2.5 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 basis, taking into account energy and environmental and economic impacts. The controls resulting from the project's BACT analysis are included in the mitigation discussion 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 (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 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 highly 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 associated emissions. As such, there are a number of regulations that do not apply to the proposed project: Y EPA has proposed a NSPS for GHG from electric generating units. The project is anticipated to meet 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. Y The proposed project will be subject to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary combustion 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 catalyst 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 exhaust through a single stack. Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) will be used to control NOx emissions, while the oxidation catalyst will be used to control CO, VOC, and organic HAP emissions during the combustion turbine and duct burners' operations. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 26 No add -on control equipment is available or feasible to reduce emissions of the other pollutants. However, the proposed project includes many design features that minimize air emissions. The project will use natural gas, which is considered a clean fuel with intrinsically low emission rates for criteria and hazardous air pollutants. Furthermore, as discussed in response to Question 6, the project uses the efficient and well- demonstrated 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 good dispersion characteristics. These design specifications are highly efficient, minimizing fuel use and associated emissions, and thus reducing off -site impacts. The potential efficiency and environmental benefits of cogeneration are significant, reducing emissions by 40 percent or more', the use of clean fuel and efficient design, represent(BACT for PM10 and PM2.5. 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 production. 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 distribution losses result in reduced primary energy use and lowers GHG emissions.$ 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 fugitive 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 result, 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 and 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 standards (NAAQS) are established. For the proposed project, PM10 and PM2.5 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 / fag.pdf. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 significant 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 PM2.5 modeling9, this SIL modeling approach is only available for a NAAQS analysis for sources that can demonstrate that existing ambient background PM2.5 concentrations are more than one SIL value less than the NAAQS. FHR has reviewed background PM2.5 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. PM2.5 24 Hour and Annual Apple Valley Monitor Concentrations NAAQS / MAAQS 24 Hour (ug /m3) Annual (ug /m3) Monitor ID 470 470 2013 98th % Value 20 8.8 2012 98th % Value 23 9.3 201198th % 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, this theoretical, worst -case scenario, covers all potential operating scenarios of the combustion turbine stack and provides the most conservative PM10 and PM2.5 modeled air concentrations. As shown in the table below, using the theoretical worst -case scenario, the project's modeled impacts are well below the SIL for PM10 and PM2.5i therefore the project does not have the potential to cause or contribute to significant deterioration in air quality. Pollutant NAAQS / MAAQS Project Modeled (Averaging Period) (µg /m) SIL (µg /m3) Impact (µg /m3) Percentage of SIL Particulate Matter 150 5 0.54 11% <10 µm (PM1o) (24 -hr) Particulate Matter 35 1.2 0.37 31% <2.5 µm (PM2.5) (24 -hr) PM2.5 (annual) 12 0.3 0.042 14% 9 EPA May 20, 2014 "Guidance for PM2.5 Permit Modeling." Available at httD: / /www.eDa.izov /scram001 /guidance /guide /Guidance for PM25 Permit Modeling.0df Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 28 In the PM2.5 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 PM2.5 does not have the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of PSD increment levels for PM2.5. 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 deterioration in air quality in the area. In this case, MPCA performed a detailed screening analysis and determined that this project would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of PM2.5 increment levels. In addition to the air dispersion evaluation performed for PSD purposes, modeling was also conducted pursuant 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 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 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 more than a decade of operations. The data from this monitoring network coupled with project - related emission estimated from the proposed project provides the basis for demonstrating that the project will not adversely affect ambient air quality. As shown in the figures below, S02, NOD 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 29 110 100 90 g0 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Monitor 420 - NO2 & SO2 Calendar Years 2010 - 2013 2013 2012 2011 2010 2010 -2012 Avg 2011 -2013 Avg NOTE: Concentrations reported in form of the respective Standard: NO2 -98th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations S02 - 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations i1NO2 ppb 11502 ppb Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 30 Monitor 420 - CO Calendar Year 2nd High 2010 -2012 40 35 .�- CO 1 -hr NAAQS - 35ppm 30 25 20 15 10 CO 8 -hr NAAQS - 9ppm 5 0 2010 2011 2012 NOTE: Concentrations reported as second high 1 -hour reading for respective year. Standard allows for one exceedance per averaging period effectively making standard "2nd High" or "High, Second High" compliance purposes. The table below shows that estimated potential emission increases from CHP project represent a small percentage of the FHR Pine Bend facility's limited potential to emit. Given the overall emissions from this project and the current monitored results, no adverse effects on ambient standards would be expected from this project. 1The 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. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 31 PM PMla PM2.1 NO), SOZ CO (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) (tpy) Combined Heat and Power Project 17 17 17 28 4 67 FHR Pine Bend Refinery Limited Facility Potential to Emit' 1033 6411 628 3953 3770 2391 Project Compared to the Existing Refinery 2% 3% 3% 1% 0.1% 3% Potential to Emit 1The 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. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 31 Nevertheless, FHR has prepared 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 (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 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 /m3) Regulatory SIL (µg /m3) Background + SIL (µg /m3) NAAQS /M AAQS 3 (µg /m) Less than 90% of NAAQS / MAAQS (Y /N)? CO 1 -hour 3795 2000 5795 40000 Y 8 -hour 1912 500 2412 10000 Y PM,, 24 -hour 44 5 49 150 Y Annual 24 1 25 50 Y PM2.5 24 -hour 21 1.2 22.2 35 Y Annual 9 0.3 9.3 12 Y NO2 1 -hour 63 7.5 70.5 188 Y Annual 29 1 30 100 Y SO2 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 32 Pollutant Averaging Period Modeled Maximum Concentrationl (µg /m3) Regulatory SIL (µg /m3) Less than SIL (Y /N)? CO 1 -hour 7.22 2000 Y 8 -hour 4.43 500 Y PM10 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y Annual 0.042 1 Y PM2,5 24 -hour 0.37 1.2 Y Annual 0.042 0.3 Y NO2 1 -hour 2.4 7.5 Y Annual 0.07 1 Y S02 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 1The 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) and 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 S02 modeling if the facility's permitted S02 increases by 2.28 pounds per hour or more. The potential S02 air emission increase associated with the proposed CHP 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 Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects, the S02 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 NOx 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 NOx, SOD and HAPs, and approximately one percent of the existing facility emissions of VOCs. As shown above, modeled concentrations of NOD SOD and PM2.5 associated with the project are below the SILs of their respective NAAQS. For NOD the SIL represents less than two percent of the MPCA acute health benchmark indicating ambient NO2 concentrations resulting from project - related NOx emissions are well below guideline levels. Past analyses of potential health risks associated with the refinery 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 valueslo 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 33 In addition, a source - receptor study 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 percent13. The MPCA (2003; 2009) 14, "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 "ammonia 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 SCREEN3 model and converting the modeled results to a hazard quotient, or HQ16. 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 but 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 common 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- existing conditions from all sources. The CHP ammonia emissions result in an HQ three orders of magnitude below one 18. The fact that previous monitored ambient air concentrations of potential health risks from the refinery have shown risks below guideline levels19,20 and the proposed project emissions are a small fraction of the existing refinery emissions indicates that potential incremental risk from the project 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 associated 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 report. 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 concentration /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 1989. 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, Cambridge, 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 34 • The demonstration of modeled NOD 5O2, PMlo, and PM2.5 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 - related 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 with the operation of the CHP plant will contribute primarily 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 Minnesota 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 expected 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 emissions. 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 possible 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 haul -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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 35 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 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 district 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 the area range from 45 to 76 dBA21. 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 inlet 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 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) 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 / groups /ssrd / @pub / @ssrd / @umorepark/ documents /content /ssrd_content_2568 20.pdf Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 36 FHR expects to hire approximately 8 -10 new employees to operate the equipment associated with the project. FHR anticipates that 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 with the operation of the CHP plant will contribute primarily 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, respectively. 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 regional 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 impact 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 - 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 effects. Minn. R. pt. 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 proposed 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, added 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 foreseeable projects to identify any Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 37 geographic and temporal overlap in impacts. 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 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 types 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 identified, 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 38 Resource /Impact Timescale Geographic area of impact Nature /Extent of impacts Short term, Immediate project vicinity (nearest Construction Noise receptors at a distance of Minor temporary approximately 1/3 mile) Long term/ Immediate project vicinity (nearest Minor; managed via Operation Noise project life receptors at a distance of implementation of noise approximately 1/3 mile) controls Construction Short term, Immediate project vicinity Minor; managed via Stormwater temporary implementation of BMPs Air Quality Short term, Minor; fugitive dust; managed (construction - related temporary Immediate project vicinity via implementation of BMPs impacts) Air Quality (project Minor; modeled concentration operation related Long term/ Within 10 kilometers of property below screening thresholds impacts) project life boundary established in MPCA draft guidance Water appropriation Long term/ Prairie du Chien - Jordan aquifer Minor; managed under existing project life water- appropriations permit Traffic Long term/ Immediate project vicinity (nearby Minor project life stretches of Highway 55 and 52) 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 CHP 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 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 located approximately 0.5 to 1.5 miles away from the CHP Cogeneration Project. These 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 39 2013 — SKB Landfill expansion SKB Landfill located at 140th Street E, Rosemount, Minnesota, east of the project has been granted approval to expand the landfill capacity. Based on the SKB's EAW filed with the city of Rosemount, this project will increase disposal capacity, but will not add any additional traffic or other operations at the landfill beyond what 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 cumulative environmental effects with the CHP. 2013 Schlomka Services Shop Building Schlomka Services constructed a shop service building in late 2013 at 11496 Courthouse Boulevard, Inver Grove 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 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 Proiect Northern Natural Gas is in the process of permitting a new natural gas branch line beginning 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 permit 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 east of Donnelly Avenue for a takeoff valve and B -line over - pressure protection. The route was mostly agricultural lands and was completed with a combination of open -cut excavation and horizontal directional drilling. Impacts associated with the Northern Natural 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 CHP Cogeneration 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 project. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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, 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 amine units (for sulfur recovery). The Tier 3 Clean Fuels 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 storage, 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 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 is 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 of over one mile between this project 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 associated 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 Project 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 city 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 project. 2014 — West Contractor Parkine 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 parking at the refinery. The lot is located on Rich Valley Boulevard /Blaine Avenue, approximately 3,500 feet north of Bonaire Path /132nd Street. The parking lot encompasses approximately 10 acres and utilizes two existing entry /exit points onto Rich Valley Boulevard, therefore no new ditch crossings 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 construction 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 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 MMBtu /hr 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 CHP project. c. Discuss the nature of the cumulative potential effects and summarize any other available 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 project. 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 effect for noise, stormwater, hazardous material storage risk, traffic, and air quality. Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project 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 impacts are not expected to be significant. Noise impacts due to CHP cogeneration facility operation are expected to be minimal. Therefore, cumulative effects during operation are not anticipated to be significant. Construction Stormwater Construction of the 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 Projects 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 Fuels 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 S02i NOD and HAPs to 4.4 percent for COze. 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 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 cumulative 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 43 Pollutant Averaging 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" 24 -hour 0.54 5 Y Annual 0.07 1 Y PM2.' 24 -hour 0.44 1.2 Y Annual 0.07 0.3 Y NOZ 1 -hour 6.44 7.5 Y Annual 0.19 1 Y SOZ 1 -hour 4.63 7.9 Y 3 -hour 4.22 25 Y 24 -hour 1.24 5 Y Annual 0.09 1 Y HZS 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 11.13.1iii, the CHP will minimize water consumption by the utilization of air cooled condensers. The CHP Cogeneration project and Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects require very small volumes of input water. Together, through water conservation 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. 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 Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 44 20. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environment will be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. The project is not expected to cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19. RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.) I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature: Date: (�I Dan R. R. Card, P.E., Supervisor Environmental Review Unit St. Paul Office Resource Management and Assistance Division Flint Hills Resources — Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment Cogeneration Project Worksheet Rosemount, Minnesota 45 i o I �I I F-- - -- -- -- -- -- o - I i I INUER GROVE HE-IGHTs � I I II I I- ' r I /fib: n f � Project Area Ap- } RI; _ I - _- m > Imagery Source: FSA, 2010 Flint Hills Pine Bend Refinery L Figure 1 City Boundary e r - - - -- - SITE LOCATION MAP County Boundary 3 1.5 0 3 Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota ^ter^- Major River Miles FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features 1,200 0 1,200 Feet Figure 2 SITE PLAN AERIAL IMAGERY Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota J 7v , � I ` + w_ \µ r�, , � r `•'-, ' S,�'Z ,�k�Fw'``v,� ^ �� Q�� '�r•�I� +frfi �,�'^ --� I Ao\" t� 1:�A`C�i,61,t 17 �1 '�1 � f:-C4 w �• * • r r ( .J a `!° %f .1 1�e - -'.i• .r�.19� `+ S T--�.1 � 4' •;.° Y ',,JF 1,'{. �., • •�' •r .1.< ,�t�• .'� ,II r;;�� ��/ � .± ` \� � 1� t .7th �I •� � - r 11 St;E _ - ---�•— :-r. _- l -- � ' :''\ 0� �, 't_�, � •�•,,� J � ;• •' � �� � /�% ``t��y � �` !~, if tt ; `, ' 1• � , / ,/' � • `' � '' /•� ° t1•• • rl C� �.-d y f�f .` t'� r � II... �. tft it Q1 - /Lr 1 Soh 1 �'• r✓ 1 '� a f' Imo'. f. , �•^� \. 1. i! t r-:► ie. •t �~ I t,• • a • t �! l ; 1,,, 1� J r L` `ri -�. 17 2o�J^- ; i ''1' t � �':.)1 S ' t yf� _ -�,\ •��� Il.Il ^ ``r , E= � - �� t \'•.�Lfl .�E �' �Irk ) ' a, ; ` `-� ;�.> Ifni y__�_�1 _ —_ •l. ``� �� 4fS "� ��_ _��� -✓` �' � : �c .�.ro...9 j� i► fy rr' -+ ft t :� r' . _ _fa, � j �� () i '":'l r '�.%'`• -• r _ rl at • :..rss'.' ' I I !f � F1(j� + 1. • �, � L', �I- 1 � rte.. • •. I� ���, � � r �r.i LI fo 14 It lot NI � �,i,� ,,,,�.i�l t I ,Y� (-� + - ..� .t ,� ��:r. :r -,. _; �:� - �,:� �1� -� ` � � i � � � .r _ �. t `5• � "``I�ti. rj N" EO 1• ,• ' L'tv l� _ y jj /I `7�'�� —• ��. . -�,,. �.� y1`,;, 1 `'.-ti�`_�`, ', t �� •4 25I th•_} �- 1 <.•t� '�1i� - {{, 7 fflti.'.• �.` t • • :1...7 d s• 1 J t. 'a\ `-� o '�•' c �)fnl� , � � � .��:� ,rte '+"�•� II + : � � a i\ 1 _ • � .... \ � rf"^' r 1�- y `� u r %�� '`' f 1 r � � + \•�` ism I :�: �� �� � ' .,r IS. 1 � . fj.� ��_- � _ ` `., l �f1, Q /r ,r - ■. .lrT, Ah \ , T_ \1: >> f r \� � fin` , �%� I 1 I �� 11 -� i 11 �l� It, fl /� Lam• Steam It Underground r �: ....... �` Electric .. It z �� 9.t � \ 936 f .. r .. ^_ - .. - - {"- - •. . i..ti� �J�} • ,��,:_.- _, CHP Cogeneration Plant Site o LY 1 ` 1_+ 1 , ��1• •` ... .t�%`'�ri 2l }-� L� ^4..• t f. • `.' ;` .+ - l� ✓ 1� 1i�• ` I �• c dt*!a.�A.i`f Natural �Y' r�� �• • t (1 '� .l%'i •� , mil- �,.i...' �'� 1 { t• Yc�• � 1i � ti 'a os -- -� � + , .r ,�• Gas e. i 1 i ` • t `• � 1 �� �. .. ,.... ... Ir � •`; \/ � � � � r rS 4t{.•� 1 ` ik- ^''try �_ ��f��-� � r �.r 135th St , - —� �! J i c �', r �� - .Y N �i v ^ II �, r co i �� • t���. ,_'1'`���_ f(''� ti.l ll ��J „?/ 7 - -` rte• n -.. -- 138thSfE � � I -'L ` l �� I rte^' -,..r ` 1l '1tM1 •7� ' �� � •w •. •1 Rich (� a '41 It �• �, �` _ _ �, dllc�, -Aso _ __ �� _ _ `7 � -��,_g - -� ' i -� �„� -1• ' • ` - -- — j40th_StiE..�l � - l 4i?T� 1 •- ,S�TRIz ��5� -� EN 8'.19 I ti 848 � } IQ— Go o -'`` , Backqround: USGS Topoqraphic Map (Dakota County) Proposed Site Features FHR Facility Boundary 0 1,200 0 Feet 1,200 Figure 3 SITE PLAN USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota r. Q 0 90 180 Feet Figure 4 SITE PLAN AERIAL - PROJECT DETAILS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota FHR Facility Boundary Natural Gas Steam Underground Electric Access Road Air Cooled Condenser Aqueous Ammonia Tank Aqueous Ammonia Unloading Area Combustion Turbine Condensate Tank Generation Building HRSG Stack Steam Turbine 4MSteam and Condensate Piping Trench r. Q 0 90 180 Feet Figure 4 SITE PLAN AERIAL - PROJECT DETAILS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota /\/ ❑ ❑❑❑L11111❑ER] IEI= ■ ■■ m' nmiiin■mi■�� ■■■mm�■ 0 na Pi ❑❑❑❑ ■111 ■ ■t "� . ■rli ■111 ■' ;� ■ ■ ■'7 ■■ 111 ■ °" ■ ■■ ■ ■'� ■'� ■e 1141111 no ■ ■ '�11 ■■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ 111 ■ 111■ ■111 ■';4■ ■■ ■■111 ■ ►. ' ;�■ ' ;� ■ ■ 111 ■ ■11111.7111111' 111 ■I' ;� ■ ■ ■:' ;� ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■ ■ ■C' ; ;� III ■ ■■ ■111 FHR Facility Boundary Natural Gas Steam 115kV Tie Access Road Air Cooled Condenser Aqueous Ammonia Tank Aqueous Ammonia Unloading Area Combustion Turbine _ Generation Building _ HRSG Parking Lot Stack Steam Turbine Steam and Condensate Piping Trench Transformer Yard N 0 90 180 Feet Figure 4(b) SITE PLAN AERIAL - 115kV RING BUS TRANSMISSION OPTION PROJECT DETAILS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota FHR Facility Boundary Natural Gas V Steam /\/ 115kV Tie /\/ Johnny Cake 115kV Access Road Air Cooled Condenser ' Aqueous Ammonia Tank Aqueous Ammonia Unloading Area Combustion Turbine _ Generation Building - HRSG Parking Lot Stack Steam Turbine Steam and Condensate Piping Trench Transformer Yard N 0 90 180 Feet Figure 4(c) SITE PLAN AERIAL - 115kV EXTERNAUGRID TRANSMISSION OPTION PROJECT DETAILS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Water Fuel Heat Recovery Unit Hot Exhaust Gases Engine or Turbine Steam Steam Generator Turbine Generator Figure 5. CHP Cogeneration Project Process Flow Schematic Electricity Note: Figure adapted from United States Environmental Protection Agency (http: / /www.epa.gov /chp /basic /) Electricity Refinery Processes FHR Facility Boundary Office Railway 111th St E - Proposed Site Features Mixed Use Residential Airport n 0 c _ Mixed Use Industrial Agricultural Figure 6 Farmstead 0 c m m of a Undeveloped 117th St E Industrial and Utility I � � � 117th St E 1 SITE MAP Single Family Detached 52 _ Manufactured Housing Park U Q N Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC 1 Institutional 120th St E Rosemount, Minnesota Single Family Attached Park, Recreational or Preserve I I I ZOO O I ZOO , , Multifamily _ Golf Course (N Feet c6 U Retail and Other Commercial U Y Q) X E w E 125th St Z) c m J 3 mG � v �° CO G � O- N 7 New Distribution A o Substation eon Q o• w 0 Underground co4� Steam Electric ho4Se6i �a U N 0 n` � 115kV Tie c 0 U CL Natural U Gas CH P Cogeneration Plant Site m m C � c CL °'135th.St E 2 c LL c m U Ank LL 138th St E LP <t `� 52 0 v 0 N 140th•St,E 140th St E 0 U) 0 Q' m Q o U 0 0 LL Data Source: MPCA, Metropolitan Council m MetroGIS FHR Facility Boundary Office Railway - Proposed Site Features Mixed Use Residential Airport Land Use (2010 - Metropolitan Council) _ Mixed Use Industrial Agricultural Figure 6 Farmstead _ Mixed Use Commercial and Other Undeveloped Seasonal /Vacation Industrial and Utility Water SITE MAP Single Family Detached LAND USE _ Manufactured Housing Park Extractive N Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Institutional Rosemount, Minnesota Single Family Attached Park, Recreational or Preserve I I I ZOO O I ZOO , , Multifamily _ Golf Course Feet Retail and Other Commercial Major Highway ikoll; m n 120th i St E I E 125th St • • r Al Z New Distribution Substation r 1380% ?E — 1 th St E ource: MN DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System ® MNRRA Corridor Maintained Tall Grass FHR Facility Boundary Tree Plantation Proposed Site Features Forest Land Cover (MLCCS) Wetland Forest 5 -10 % Impervious Wetland Shrubs 11 -25% Impervious Tall Grasses 26 -50 % Impervious Wetland Emergent Veg. 1,200 51 -75 % Impervious Dry Tall Grasses 76 -100% Impervious Open Water Short Grasses Wetland Open Water Agricultural Land �.I Underground Steam Electric . 11 5k Tie P. I Natural Gas CHIP Cogeneration Plant Site 0 Feet 1,200 1401h St E _ Figure 7 SITE MAP LAND COVER Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota RESIDENCEI INNER GROVE HEIGHTS New Distribution Substation Natural Gas 1.1thSfE�- k, I� Underground Steam Electric ,' .�, ,- -� E- 1 0 I 'Data Source: City of Rosemount and City of Innver Grove Heiqhts FHR Facility Boundary = Flood Plain Proposed Site Features General Industrial Parcels Owned by Flint Hills Resources General Business l Municipal Boundary Heavy Industrial Zoning (2007) ® Public /Institutional 1,200 0 Agricultural Water Feet Agricultural Preserve - Waste Management 1,200 17 1 � ;1 ;1 I \ I �I Figure 8 SITE MAP ZONING Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Residential: Commercial: Industrial: Other: CS PuD RR -Rural Residential C1 - Corvenience Commercial — Bp - Business Park AGP - Agricultural Preserve tZ Mississippi River Critical area & MNRRA Corridor R1 - Low Density Residential a DT - Downtown Cistrict IP - Industrial Park - AG - Agricultural Railroad R1A- Low Density Residential 0 C3 - Highway Service Commercial n GI - General Industrial :.: PI - Public/Institutional R2 - Moderate Density Residential • 04 - General Commercial 111111111 HI - Heavy Ir idusiriol —: FP - Flood Plain • R3 - Medium Density Residential • WM - Waste Management + 0 R4 - High Density Residential i -: IN - Water ROW - Right -of -Way i - .. .... NINE 3 oz AG FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features Figure 9 CITY OF ROSEMOUNT ZONING MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Background Data: City of Rosemount Zoning Map INN I Ju 4ROSEMOUNT The Zoning Designations on this Map should be interpreted in light of the accompanying text and polices contained in the complete Rosemount Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Designations subject to change as part of the City's ongoing planning process. Data Sources: Dakota County Land Surveyors and Office of Geographic Information Systems City of Rosemount Community Development and Engineering,Public Works Departments I I I I I II is r Appi -ed July 16, 20 13 nflfF..ga d A,,£ i11. n+ / x B w� 3426 /41, 1B_ 1816 \\'\J.l\ 411 B 411 B 1A 41B 342C ' 1816 1j 9026 2796 41 B 816 /�W 896E VW� 8576 611 D 1816 1072 4 • ..��. 454B 611 C 41 Y 1556 7 454B °x 496 \ \ \454B � 454E( - l\ // 4540 J 4546 `' � 3016 N895C 1029 1 1 155B 5B\ Q, pry 1556 'r,4 BA 4540 I 454B�__!J 45> 313 1 L 0143W13 ',,I 16 611D N 4156 39P i V 396 n 301 B u L:1111L1� I ii'll�� iLw 11 SAM s 41B J 250 283A 857B New Distribution Substation 98 ) 41B 1 j411 611 C Underground Steam Electric j 1556 155C Natural 155c Gas 313 1029 ,3399B% — �/ / 155C �4C /39 416 B 41B f3 34 B �454C 1902 B W 342B W 857A 454E #wW 250 1821 1029 / W 454c W 611 F 1055 465, 7B 540 1821 611 D 7B >\ 611 C 1039 \ 2250 8576 11 5k Tie zso 396 93 313 250 611C 39B 416 CHP Cogeneration Plant Site 4156,396 396 415B 4158 611C 415A 611C 396 � 39A 611C 611C 416' 415A 39C 39B i 41560 611C 5 415A 611 C 39B 250 r 611 C 25 0 i 396 611 D I 416 \ 252 41A 41B Udtd JUUIUU. UJU/ -1 lNr—%U0 JJUICUV UdtdUdS(d kY000MUU) 33016 I C: 611C N 41 A, Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Y] 283A - 82 41B Proposed Site Features All areas are prime farmland Soil Map Unit Name 1821 Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded 49B Antigo silt loam; 1 to 8 percent slopes 1055 Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Auburndale silt loam Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent — slopes Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent 155B slopes Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Pe 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded 129 Cylinder loam Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent 496 Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent 276 slopes 41 B © 611C - 7C 0 ® -Kanaranzi -slopes Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Pe Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Kane ra nzi loam, 6 to 12 percent Kennebec silt loam 342C 896E 8956 F 342C X01 B -pits Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Kingsley sand loam, 8 to 15 percent 9 Y Y P slopes Kin sle Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 9 Y- P 25 percent slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent P Slopes Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes P Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Marshan silty clay loam Ototeerrs It silt loam, 1 to 6 percent , gravel 7861 C 857A -Urbanland- - 396 41B D k6l 11C / ',,I 16 611D N 4156 39P i V 396 n 301 B u L:1111L1� I ii'll�� iLw 11 SAM s 41B J 250 283A 857B New Distribution Substation 98 ) 41B 1 j411 611 C Underground Steam Electric j 1556 155C Natural 155c Gas 313 1029 ,3399B% — �/ / 155C �4C /39 416 B 41B f3 34 B �454C 1902 B W 342B W 857A 454E #wW 250 1821 1029 / W 454c W 611 F 1055 465, 7B 540 1821 611 D 7B >\ 611 C 1039 \ 2250 8576 11 5k Tie zso 396 93 313 250 611C 39B 416 CHP Cogeneration Plant Site 4156,396 396 415B 4158 611C 415A 611C 396 � 39A 611C 611C 416' 415A 39C 39B i 41560 611C 5 415A 611 C 39B 250 r 611 C 25 0 i 396 611 D I 416 \ 252 41A 41B Udtd JUUIUU. UJU/ -1 lNr—%U0 JJUICUV UdtdUdS(d kY000MUU) FHR Facility Boundary 41 A, Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Kennebec variant silt loam 283A Plainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 82 Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Proposed Site Features All areas are prime farmland Soil Map Unit Name 1821 Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded 49B Antigo silt loam; 1 to 8 percent slopes 1055 Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Auburndale silt loam Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent — slopes Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent 155B slopes Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Pe 98 Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded 129 Cylinder loam Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent 496 Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent 276 slopes 41 B © 611C - 7C 0 ® -Kanaranzi -slopes Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Pe Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Kane ra nzi loam, 6 to 12 percent Kennebec silt loam 342C 896E 8956 F 342C X01 B -pits Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Kingsley sand loam, 8 to 15 percent 9 Y Y P slopes Kin sle Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 9 Y- P 25 percent slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent P Slopes Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes P Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Marshan silty clay loam Ototeerrs It silt loam, 1 to 6 percent , gravel 7861 C 857A -Urbanland- - 396 Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Quam silt loam Seelyeville muck Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Spillville loam, occasionally flooded Udorthents, moderately shallow Urban land Urban land- Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes Urban land- Waukegancomplex,Oto 1 percent slopes Waukegancomplex,lto 8 percent slopes Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes © Water Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent 411A slopes Pe Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent 4118 slopes Zumbro loamy fine sand Figure 10 SITE MAP SOILS Flint Hills Pine Bend LLC , Rosemount, Minnesota 1,200 0 1,200 Feet 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 * Modified based on aerial imagery to reflect current refinery site operations. r, 4 800 0 800 Feet Figure 11 WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT WITHIN REFINERY FENCELINE Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Area . 6ftj an Area Riprap B5/North Fire Water Basin Lower ° Basin A _M911 � Butane E 0 01 'A G WU► Vegetation rr Maintenance in Swale Stormwater Runoff Shop 5 'n: Forn This Area is Discharged ;, -Z :7 r. ri .1 Gate 5 Waste Water Permit s► N t.! aintenance-, -:Shop Area =.A..6ALId Gate 6 IXContractor Area Gate 9/10 Vegetation in Swale West Tank Farm Stormwater Retention Basin Southwest Stormwater/Fire Water C7 Basin AIN 141ir 0 CI CI > Southwest Basin Fire Water And Storm Water 0 I Retention Basin 0 01 'A G WU► Vegetation rr Maintenance in Swale Stormwater Runoff Shop 5 'n: Forn This Area is Discharged ;, -Z :7 r. ri .1 Gate 5 Waste Water Permit s► N t.! aintenance-, -:Shop Area =.A..6ALId Gate 6 IXContractor Area Gate 9/10 Vegetation in Swale 0 0 nl Iftagery: Digital Globe - 2012 V_ q-IW. r.---. - Gate Valve Waters of the State Figure 12 Berm Detention Basin O STORMWATER RUNOFF Conveyance / Structural Control Retention Basin MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Flow Arrows Waters of the State Drainage Areas 1,000 500 0 1,000 Pine Bend, MN Property Boundary Runoff Area Feet Equii ment ins* cion Area 0 0 nl Iftagery: Digital Globe - 2012 V_ q-IW. r.---. - Gate Valve Waters of the State Figure 12 Berm Detention Basin O STORMWATER RUNOFF Conveyance / Structural Control Retention Basin MAP Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Flow Arrows Waters of the State Drainage Areas 1,000 500 0 1,000 Pine Bend, MN Property Boundary Runoff Area Feet �•f���`�� � r r � � � ., i� r GA I E 11 ♦ + f �'+ -Underground Electric �A►�fj���O� �� ®�� ♦���� ♦� 4.. : Steam M OVA 'VA zw lb V199 Jr 1 !� l:�F;� A ' _ s c �•�� 115kV Tie • •.4.t.T - . g _= Natural Gas �_ _171 c m LL `• t - CD .. w • _... It , d !W CHP Cogeneration Plant Site r 52 Imagery: Digital Globe - 201 FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features Solid Waste Management Units N 350 Feet 700 Figure 13 HISTORIC WASTE MANAGEMENT AREAS Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Rare Features Data - Copyright 2012 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources FHR Facility Boundary Proposed Site Features Rare Natural Features - Element Occurances` Vertebrate Animal Community Vascular Plant Rare Natural Features - Points 0 Vertebrate Animal Community • Vascular Plant Possible Range and /or Geographic Uncertainty for Species Sighting 1,200 0 1,200 Feet Figure 14 SITE MAP ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC Rosemount, Minnesota APPENDIX A Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota [Minor map unit components are excluded from this report] Map unit: 7B - Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Hubbard (90 %) 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. Map unit: 7C - Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Hubbard (90 %) 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. Map unit: 27A - Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Dickinson (90 %) 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. Map unit: 27B - Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Dickinson (90 %) 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. Map unit: 39A - Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 1 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 39B - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 3982 - Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded Component: Wadena, eroded (90 %) 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. Map unit: 39C - Wadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 39D - Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Component: Wadena (85 %) 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. Map unit: 41A - Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Estherville (90 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 2 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 41B - Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Estherville (90 %) 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. Map unit: 49B - Antigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes Component: Antigo (90 %) 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. Map unit: 94C - Terril loam, 4 to 12 percent slopes Component: Terril (100 %) 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. Map unit: 98 - Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded Component: Colo, occasionally flooded (85 %) 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. Map unit: 129 -Cylinder loam Component: Cylinder (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 3 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 150B - Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Spencer (90 %) 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. Map unit: 155B - Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 155C - Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 155E - Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Chetek (85 %) 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. Map unit: 189 - Auburndale silt loam Component: Auburndale (90 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 4 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 250 - Kennebec silt loam Component: Kennebec (100 %) 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. Map unit: 252 - Marshan silty clay loam Component: Marshan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 2796 - Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Otterholt (85 %) 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. Map unit: 279C - Otterholt silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes Component: Otterholt (85 %) 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. Map unit: 283A - Plainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) 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. Map unit: 2836 - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) The Plainfield component makes up 95 percent of the map unit. Slopes are 2 to 6 percent. This component is on outwash plains. The USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 5 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 283B - Plainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Plainfield (95 %) 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: 301 B - Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes Component: Lindstrom (100 %) 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. Map unit: 313 - Spillville loam, occasionally flooded Component: Spillville, occasionally flooded (100 %) 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. Map unit: 342B - Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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. Map unit: 342C - Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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. Map unit: 342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 6 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 342E - Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (85 %) 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: 344-Quam silt loam Component: Quam (90 %) 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. Map unit: 411A - Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Waukegan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 411 B - Waukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Waukegan (90 %) 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. Map unit: 415A - Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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. Map unit: 415B - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 7 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 4156 - Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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: 415C - Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Kanaranzi (100 %) 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. Map unit: 4546 - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 454C - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 454E - Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Mahtomedi (85 %) 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. Map unit: 465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Component: Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100°/x) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 8 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 465 - Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently flooded Component: Kalmarville, frequently flooded (100 %) 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: 540 - Seelyeville muck Component: Seelyeville (100 %) 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. Map unit: 611C - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes Component: Hawick (90 %) 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. Map unit: 611 D - Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18 percent slopes Component: Hawick (90 %) 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. Map unit: 611 E - Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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. Map unit: 611 F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 9 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 611 F - Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent slopes Component: Hawick (100 %) 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: 857A - Urban land- Waukegan complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes Component: Urban land (90 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Waukegan (10 %) 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. Map unit: 8576 - Urban land- Waukegan complex, 1 to 8 percent slopes Component: Urban land (90 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Waukegan (10 %) 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. Map unit: 861 C - Urban land- Kingsley complex, 3 to 15 percent slopes Component: Urban land (65 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Component: Kingsley (35 %) 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. Map unit: 8956 - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 10 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 8956 - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (23 %) 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. Component: Spencer (22 %) 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. Map unit: 895C - Kingsley - Mahtomedi- Spencer complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (45 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (23 %) 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. Component: Spencer (22 %) 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. Map unit: 896E - Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (60 %) 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 USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 11 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 896E - Kingsley - Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes Component: Kingsley (60 %) 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. Component: Mahtomedi (30 %) 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. Map unit: 1029 - Pits, gravel Component: Pits, gravel (100 %) 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. Map unit: 1039 - Urban land Component: Urban land (100 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Urban land is a miscellaneous area. Map unit: 1055 - Aquolls and Histosols, ponded Component: Aquolls, ponded (50 %) 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. Component: Histosols, ponded (50 %) 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. Map unit: 1072 - Udorthents, moderately shallow Component: Udorthents, moderately shallow (100 %) Generated brief soil descriptions are created for major soil components. The Udorthents is a miscellaneous area. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 12 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: 1815 - Zumbro loamy fine sand Component: Zumbro, non - flooded (100 %) 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. Map unit: 1816 - Kennebec variant silt loam Component: Kennebec (90 %) 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. Map unit: 1821 - Algansee sandy loam, occasionally flooded Component: Algansee, occasionally flooded (95 %) 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. Map unit: 1824 - Quam silt loam, ponded Component: Quam, ponded (90 %) 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. Map unit: 19026 - Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes Component: Jewett (85 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 13 of 16 Map Unit Description Dakota County, Minnesota Map unit: W - Water Component: Water (100 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 14 of 16 Map Unit Description Washington County, Minnesota Map unit: 329 - Chaska silt loam Component: Chaska (90 %) 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. Map unit: W - Water Component: Water (100 %) 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. USA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 8 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 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. f S DA Natural Resources Survey Area Version: 7 Conservation Service Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012 Page 16 of 16 offB resourceful. naturally. BARR engineering and environmental consultants March 27, 2014 Lisa Joyal Environmental Review Coordinator Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Box 25 500 Lafayette Road Saint Paul, MN 55155 Re: 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 Refinery (Refinery) 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 Project), 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 improve the efficiency of steam production at the Refinery. 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).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 Project. The following species have been documented within the vicinity of the proposed Project: loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus; state - endangered), peregrine falcon (Falco Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com Ms. Lisa Joyal March 27, 2014 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 shrikes 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 perching 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 within the FHR facility boundary. Impacts to peregrine falcon individuals or populations are not anticipated because the proposed Project area is 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. Both reports, however, are more than 70 years old and no recent sightings have been reported in the area. Because both snake species generally prefer wooded and open field river bluff habitat, it is not likely that either species will be present on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Project area 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 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 -2694) or email (*butler @barr.com). Sincerely, Jessica Butler Ecologist Barr Engineering Company Enclosures: Figure 1— Project Area; Figure 2— Site Map From: loyal, 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, L% a 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.joyaI(@state.mn.us www.mndnr.gov /eco 14Historical Minnesota Society STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE May 7, 2014 Mr. Greg F. Myers Sr. Air Permit Engineer Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend PO Box 64596 St. Paul, MN 55164 APPENDIX C Using the Power of History to Transform Lives PRESERVING SHARING CONNECTING RE: EPA air permit to allow construction of a Combined Heat and Power Cogeneration Facility at the Rosemount refinery T115 R19 S24 NE Rosemount, Dakota County SHPO Number: 2014 -1580 Dear Mr. Myers: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and implementing federal regulations at 36 CFR 800, and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Based on available information, we conclude that no historic properties listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the proposed project. Please contact our Compliance Section at (651) 259 -3455 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. Sincerely, 0 "'Re Sarah J. Beimers, Manager Government Programs and Compliance Minnesota Historical Society, 345 Kellogg Boulevard West, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 651- 259 -3000 • 888 - 727 -8386 • www.mnhs.org