HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.c. Flint Hills Resources Conditional Use Permit for a Combined Heat and Power Plant
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Regular Meeting: August 16, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: Flint Hills Resources Conditional Use
Permit for a Combined Heat and Power
Plant
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 9.c.
ATTACHMENTS: Site map, Project location map,
applicant’s narrative, project renderings,
building elevations, landscape plan,
grading and drainage plan, Engineer’s
Memorandum dated August 10, 2016,
Environmental Assessment Worksheet,
MPCA negative declaration
APPROVED BY: ddj
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt a Resolution Approving a Conditional Use
Permit for Flint Hills Resources to Construct a Combined Heat and Power Plant subject to
conditions.
SUMMARY
The City received an application from Flint Hills Resources to construct a combined heat and power
(CHP) plant with a maximum capacity of 49.9 megawatts. The proposed plant would utilize a natural gas-
fired turbine to produce electricity, while simultaneously capturing heat that would otherwise be lost in the
process to support refinery functions. This will reduce the amount of electricity Flint Hills purchases to
power their facility as well as reduce overall emissions produced by the electrical grid. The CHP plant will
utilize an air-cooled condenser that will save 300,000 gallons of water per day over other water cooled
systems. The proposed CHP plant will be located on the site of an existing parking lot. As such, a new
parking lot is proposed to be constructed with this project.
The ordinance does not currently permit power plants, or CHP’s, as a use in the Heavy Industrial zoning
district. On the agenda is a text amendment to allow CHP’s as a conditional use in the HI district. The
standards used to evaluate the proposal are based upon the proposed ordinance criteria.
Applicant: Flint Hills Resources
Property Owner: Flint Hills Resources
Property Location: 13775 Clark Road
Size of Property: Approximately 5 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: GI – General Industrial
Zoning: HI – Heavy Industrial
Current Neighboring Land Uses: North - Project site is located within the FHR refinery and
surrounded by Heavy Industrial uses.
South – The closest non-industrial use is agricultural in nature and
is located approximately 1 mile from the project site.
East – US Highway 52 and industrial uses beyond.
2
West – Residential uses are located 2.4 miles from the site and are
buffered by land owned by FHR that is zoned AG-Agricultural.
Planned Neighboring Land Uses: The site is surrounded by land that is guided General and Light
Industrial, Agricultural, and Business Park
BACKGROUND
The applicant began the process of developing a combined heat and power (CHP) plant in 2014. An
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was completed at that time. Following agency review and
public comment on the EAW a negative declaration was approved in 2015 by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency about the need for an Environmental Impact Statement.
Currently, the refinery’s electrical load is supplied by the grid and purchased from the local utility. FHR
wishes to produce a portion of their own 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 of steam to displace a portion of the steam production
at the refinery’s existing boilers.
JULY 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
A couple questions arose regarding the siting of the CHP. Nearby residents wondered if the proposed
project would impact traffic levels and increase noise. Don Kern of Flint Hills Resources attended the
meeting and represented the applicant. Mr. Kern indicated that the project would not be louder than the
current level of background noise at the refinery. Additionally, this project will be sited on the eastern side
of the refinery closer to Highway 52, so any additional traffic generated during the construction of the
project would be kept on Clark Road. Once the project is operational, only 2 employees will be needed to
run the CHP facility and therefore traffic impacts long-term, should be minimal.
Commission Chair Kenninger asked the applicant how Flint Hills will ensure operation at 49.9 MW when
the equipment is able to produce a maximum of nearly 60MW. Mr. Kern explained that in addition to
software that limits the electrical output of the CHP plant the operator must keep records and faces fines
if more than 50MW is produced at any given time.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Review and Analysis
Combined Heat and Power plants have been designated as conditional uses in the HI-Heavy Industrial
zoning district. Conditional Uses are uses that can be permitted provided the impacts of the use (such as
health, safety, and public welfare concerns) are addressed, mitigated or conditioned. For the City Council
to approve the conditional use, eight (8) general findings must be made:
Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed project is not detrimental to the surrounding uses. It is similar to uses
currently within the FHR refinery. It is a benefit to the overall health and welfare of the greater
community as it results in fewer total emissions from the generation of electricity by local utilities.
Will be harmonious with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and city code provisions.
Finding: The use and location are consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies regarding General
Industrial-guided areas. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with an identified goal to
reduce the use of non-renewable resources and to reduce pollution.
Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be compatible or similar in an
3
architectural and landscape appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or
impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The height of the tallest structure will be less than other existing structures on the site,
and the building that will house the plant meets the building material and massing standards for the
HI-Heavy Industrial zoning district as recommended by the zoning text amendment. Because of
the height and massing of the structure, the CHP will be visible to existing and future residents
west of the site. It is recognized that the facility is similar to other equipment currently on site and
the CHP is a reasonable use at the property. However, the cumulative effect of the site equipment
is it’s visibility for a greater distance to surrounding residential, or future, residential areas. Staff has
discussed moving much of the required landscaping associated with the project, westward, to the
perimeter of the FHR property to aid in mitigating views to the CHP and other site equipment.
Will be served adequately by existing (or those proposed in the project) essential public facilities
and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer systems and schools.
Finding: The refinery is currently being served by all essential public services, and the proposed
project does not require any additional public facilities.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, material equipment, and conditions of operation that
will be hazardous or detrimental to and persons, property, or general welfare because of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
Finding: During its review of the EAW, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency found no
significant environmental effects that have not been addressed by the design process and by
ensuring conformance with regional and local plans.
Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets.
Finding: The proposed project is not anticipated to generate additional traffic, and the site will be
accessed via an existing entrance to the refinery.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major
importance and will comply with all local, state, and federal environmental quality standards.
Finding: The applicant submitted an EAW for review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The result of that review was a negative finding on the need for a more comprehensive
Environmental Impact Statement. The proposed CHP plant is designed to meet all applicable
environmental quality standards.
These standards apply in addition to specific conditions as may be applied throughout this code.
Finding: The CHP plant’s design and surrounding area meet all the standards of the City Code for
the HI-Heavy Industrial zoning district except for those areas noted in the staff report and as
conditions of approval.
Combined Heat and Power Plants--Conditions of Approval
In addition to the eight general findings that must be made for issuance of a conditional use permit, the
following conditions must also be met in order to approve construction of the proposed combined heat
and power plant.
The combined heat and power plant is customarily incidental and subordinate to the primary use
of the site and must support existing processes within the facility. A minimum of 80% of power
generated by the CHP plant must be utilized by the facility.
Finding: The energy requirements of Flint Hills Resources’ refinery greatly exceed the electrical
4
output of the proposed combined heat and power plant. All of the electricity produced will be used
onsite. The heat produced in the generation of electricity will be used to support refining
processes.
For the sale of power from the combined heat and power plant to remain incidental and
subordinate to the primary use (i.e., the Refinery), the sale of excess power cannot exceed 30% of
the total amount of power needed to operate the refinery. This 30% limit, however, cannot be
calculated based upon the total amount of power that can theoretically be generated by the CHP
plant. Rather, the 30% sale limitation must be based upon: (1) the critical load and ancillary load
demand of the refinery itself; and (2) necessary redundancy power.
Finding: The applicant does not expect to sell any excess power as the energy requirements of the
refinery exceed the output of the CHP plant.
The owner/operator of the combined heat and power plant may not sell any power in excess of
the maximum power sale amounts set forth herein without the advance consent of the City; the
City shall only consider such a request by the owner/operator of the CHP plant in the event of a
crisis or casualty (i.e., a tornado, or other similar disaster).
Finding: The applicant does not expect to sell any excess power as the energy requirements of the
refinery exceed the output of the CHP plant.
The combined heat and power plant must have a single owner at all times.
Finding: The proposed facility will be owned solely by Flint Hills Resources.
The owner/operator of the combined heat and power plant is prohibited from selling, transferring
or otherwise providing power to any third party user directly, and shall only sell, transfer, or
otherwise provide power, if at all, to the City, Xcel Energy, Dakota Electric, and shall only export
power through an interconnection with the regional electric grid.
Finding: The applicant does not expect to sell any excess power as the energy requirements of the
refinery exceed the output of the CHP plant.
Maximum building height cannot exceed that allowed by the zoning ordinance or that of any
existing structures within the facility , whichever is lower.
Finding: The tallest structure relating to the proposed combined heat and power plant is the 170
foot stack. The maximum structure height in the HI-Heavy Industrial district is 250 feet, although
structures may be allowed to exceed this height through the issuance of a conditional use permit.
The refinery currently has several structures that exceed 200 feet in height. The proposed project
meets the requirements of this condition.
The project must comply with all other applicable zoning code provisions for the HI-Heavy
Industrial zoning district with regard to site and building requirements as well as performance
standards.
Finding: The structures that comprise the combined heat and power plant comply with the
applicable zoning code provisions of the Heavy Industrial District for height and setback as well as
building materials. Some of the structural portions of the CHP similar to that of other structures at
FHR are considered equipment versus building. This is important to the City because property
taxes are not paid on equipment that is used for the generation of electricity that is used on site.
The project must comply with all requirements of state and federal agencies.
Finding: The applicant has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency for review. Due to the amount of electricity that will be produced the
proposed CHP plant is not subject to regulation by nor required to receive approval from the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
5
Landscaping plans must take into account sightlines from neighboring rights of way and land
uses that differ from the project.
Finding: A preliminary landscape plan was submitted with the application that provides a degree
of screening to the east, along public right of way. The landscape plan does not meet the ordinance
criteria as currently submitted and staff will work with the applicant to develop a plan that is in
compliance with the City’s landscape ordinance prior to building permit approval. A total of 73
trees must be planted as part of this project. Staff has discussed moving the majority of required
landscaping westward, to the perimeter of the Flint Hills landholdings to aid in mitigation views to
the plant for existing and future residential development.
The CHP plant cannot exceed the principal structure in square footage, height, or massing as
determined by the City.
Finding: The refinery is an unusual facility in that the bulk of the site is comprised of processing
equipment. That being said, the generator building is smaller in size than the administration
building on the site, and meets this condition of the permit.
The parcel where the CHP plant is located must be greater than 100 acres.
Finding: The parcel where the proposed CHP plant will be located is approximately 150 acres in
size.
Site Plan
The proposed CHP plant will be located on the site of an existing 223 stall parking lot, set back
approximately 270 feet from the property line along Clark Road. The plant is comprised of a building that
will house the generator and a cooling apparatus. The building is approximately 155 feet long, 94 feet wide,
and approximately 33 feet in height. In addition to the generator building, the facility also includes a large
cooling apparatus that will shield the bulk of the building from Highway 52. To the west side of the
generator building will be a stack that will stand 170 feet tall. The proposed site is south of most of the
refinery processing facilities and west of the intersection of Pine Bend Trail and Highway 52. The parking
lot where the CHP plant is proposed will be replaced by a 226 stall parking lot located east and southeast
of the plant. The replacement lot will be set back 50 feet from the property line.
Engineering Comments
Stormwater will be managed on site using an underground detention system. Engineering had general
comments relating to consistency of the size and configuration presented on different plan sheets that
were submitted with the application. Final design plans will address this concern when review of grading
and building permit applications occurs. The applicant provided a stormwater plan that included hydraulic
modeling. The plans did not use the City standard Atlas-14 precipitation data. Revised plans will need to
be submitted for review before any grading permits will be approved. Staff has drafted a condition to
address this comment from the City engineer. Additional comments can be found in the engineer’s memo
dated August 10, 2016.
Building Massing and Materials
As previously described, the proposed plant features a large, air-cooled condenser located on the east side
of the main generator building. The 170 foot stack is west of the building approximately 560 feet from the
eastern property line of the FHR facility. The exterior of the main building facing Highway 52 will be a
modular brick face with soldier coursing every 15 feet. On the non-public view sides the exterior materials
will be finished metal siding. Much of the building will be obscured from Highway 52 by the air-cooled
condenser. All the structures meet the requirements for height and setbacks within the HI-Heavy
Industrial zoning district.
Landscaping
6
The applicant anticipates the removal of 8-12 significant trees, and they have been willing to work with
staff to identify ways to best position the required trees, both new and replacement, to achieve the greatest
impact. City Code requires 1 tree for every 3,000 square feet of gross land area. The site of the proposed
project is five acres, which amounts to 73 trees. Additional information will be needed to understand the
tree replacement requirements such as the caliper inches of all trees removed per the tree preservation
ordinance. Additional trees will need to added on the site.
Parking
The proposed project will be located on the site of an existing 223 space parking lot. That lot will be
replaced by a new 226 space lot shifted to the south and east. The plant will require an additional two
operators per shift, but during construction there will be another 100-200 construction workers. The
applicant indicates that this number will still be far below recent historical employment highs from other
much larger construction projects. The replacement parking lot will be constructed in the first phase of
construction to assist in parking. After reviewing all the other parking lots within the refinery facility, the
applicant feels that there is ample room for all of Flint Hills Resources’ staff and contractors. Specifically,
the site of the proposed CHP plant may also be served by a 253 space lot to the north of the proposed
site.
Wastewater
The proposed CHP plant will utilize an air-cooled condenser to minimize the amount of water needed for
its operation. The savings due to this cooling technology, as opposed to a water-cooled system, is
estimated to be 300,000 gallons per day. There will still be waste water produced by the plant from the
kitchenette and restrooms as well as oily water waste collected in drains in the floor. These two forms of
waste water will be contained in two 3,000 gallon tanks that are to be emptied by a vacuum truck when
needed. The waste water will then be transported to the appropriate environmental treatment facility
within the refinery.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a conditional use permit for Flint Hills Resources to construct a combined
heat and power plant within its refinery at 13775 Clark Road.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 2016-
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) TO
CONSTRUCT A COMBINED HEAT AND POWER PLANT
WHEREAS, the City of Rosemount received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
from Flint Hills Resources to construct a Combined Heat and Power Plant; and
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2016, the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemount held a public
hearing to review the CUP application from Flint Hills Resources to construct a Combined Heat
and Power Plant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a motion recommending that the City Council
approve the CUP for Flint Hills Resources subject to the conditions listed below; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rosemount reviewed the Planning
Commission’s recommendation and the CUP application to construct a Combined Heat and Power
Plant.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Rosemount hereby
approves the CUP to construct a construct a Combined Heat and Power Plant, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum
dated August 10, 2016.
2. The applicant shall comply with landscape and tree preservation ordinance standards for
the project. Final landscape plans are required prior to issuance of a building permit.
ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2016 by the City Council of the City of Rosemount.
__________________________________________
William H. Droste, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
Clarissa Hadler, City Clerk
Flint Hills
July 12, 20161:38,400
00.3250.651.3mi
00.512km
Property Information
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal,
survey, or for zoning verification.
CHPProjectLocation
N DLΏЉЌ {ƷğĭƉΉĻƓƷ \[ƚĭğƷźƚƓƭ
FHR PINE BEND FIGURE 8
Meters
1000100200300400500
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Device.pdf
AnthonyandKylecanyoureviewthisapplicationforcompletenesstomorrow?AnthonytakeacrackatitWednesday
morning.TxK
Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
CityofRosemount,2875145thStreet,Rosemount,MN55068
Ph.6513222020/http://www.ci.rosemount.mn.us
From: Kern, Don S. \[mailto:Don.Kern@fhr.com\]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:21 PM
To: Lindquist, Kim
Cc: Nemcek, Anthony
Subject: Site plan review permits CHP and ATS
KimFHRPineBendwouldliketosubmitthefollowingtwoprojectsforSitePlanReview.Theseprojectsarethe
CombinedHeatandPower(CHP)and Ammonium Thiosulfate fertilizer Terminal project(ATS).Wewouldliketo
proceeddownaparallelpathforreviewandapprovals.PleaseletmeknowwhatelseIwillneedtodotokeepthis
processmoving.IwillcutaPOforthese(2)$1200permits($2400)thatwillbewiretransferredtothecity.The
informationboxinthepermitischaracterlimitedsoIaddedalittlemoretothisemail,howeverIcanprovidemore
informationasyouneedit.Ihaveattachedplotplansandthepermits.
ATS Terminal
As announced in 2014, Flint Hills Resources plans to use an innovative approach to capturing sulfur from fuel
and using it to produce a stable form of fertilizer to help meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
pending Tier 3 standard for gasoline.Through this process, sulfur – a source of vehicle tailpipe emissions – and
nitrogen are removed from fuels and converted into a salable aqueous liquid fertilizer or ammonium thiosulfate
(ATS). The project will allow the refinery to produce a new valued product more efficiently than alternative
approaches while at the same time helping satisfy the EPA’s new gasoline standard, which is designed to reduce
emissions from passenger cars and trucks. Specific to this site review, FHR plans to convert the former RCE
storage terminal, located at the intersection of Highways 52 and 55, into an ATS terminal designed to store and
distribute the water based fertilizer throughout the region. Improvements to the site include the replacement of
several older, existing tanks with new tanks better fit for ATS service. Additional investments are expected to
include improved rail and truck loadout facilities as well as small buildings to house pumps and garage space.
ConstructiononATSterminalisexpectedtobegininearly2017.
1
/ƚƒĬźƓĻķIĻğƷğƓķtƚǞĻƩΛ/ItΜ
CHPsystemssimultaneouslyproduceelectricityandusefulsteamfromasingleheatsourcesuchasnaturalgas.The
cogenerationofelectricityandsteamismoreefficientthanproducingthemseparately,andonsiteelectricity
generationavoidslossesassociatedwithtransmissionanddistribution.Byrecoveringandusingheattypicallywastedby
theconventionalproductionofelectricity,CHPsreduceenergyusageandcanloweroverallgridemissions.Accordingto
thePewEnvironmentGroup,doublingcogenerationby2020wouldreduceenergyconsumptionby3percent,which
wouldoffsettheneedformorethan200midsizepowerplants.Currently,thestateofMinnesotahasagoalofdoubling
itsCHPgeneration,whichiscurrentlyatabout1,000MW.PresidentObamaalsohasissuedanexecutiveorder
encouragingthedevelopmentofCHPprojects.
PineBendCHPProject:
FlintHillsResourcesPineBendrefineryplanstogenerateaportionofitsownelectricityusingthelatestinCHP
technology.ThisprojectwillallowPineBendtogenerateaportionofitsownelectricityandprovidethe
refinerywithaflexiblesteamsupplyusingthelatestincombinedheatandpowertechnology.Thesystemwill
usenaturalgasandheatrecoverytoproduceroughly40%oftheelectricityandupto230,000poundsper
hourofsteamfortherefinery.
ThePineBendCHPisexpectedtobeamongaźƓƓĻƭƚƷğƭmostefficient:
Byrecoveringandusingheattypicallywastedbytheconventionalproductionofelectricity,itwillreduceenergy
usageandloweroverallgridemissions.
Itwillalsoallowustocapturewasteheatforreuseintherefineryitself,whichhastheeffectofimprovingour
efficiencyandloweringemissions.
CHPsystemslikeoursthatareclosertowherethepowerisusedalsocanreducewastefromtransmissionloss
byabout7percent.
Wealsoplantouseaircooledcondensertechnologytosaveapproximately300,000gallonsofwaterperday
comparedtotraditionalwaterbasedcoolingsystems.
TheCHPwillbefullyintegratedwiththerefineryandisexpectedtoimprovetheƩĻŅźƓĻƩǤƭoveralloperating
efficiency.Theprocessingequipmentwillbesimilarinappearancetotheexistingrefineryinfrastructure.Inadditionto
integratedprocessingequipment,therewillbeapermanentbuildingstructurewithacontrolroomthatmeetsthecity
ofwƚƭĻƒƚǒƓƷƭbuildingcoderequirements.
ThePineBendCHPisalsoexpectedtocontributetothecityofwƚƭĻƒƚǒƓƷƭsustainabilitygoalsunderthenationalSTAR
Communitiesprogram.
Stateandlocalapprovals
ThePineBendCHPprojecthasundergoneenvironmentalreviewandhasreceivedallthenecessaryapprovalsfromthe
stateofMinnesota.Asintegratedrefineryequipment,źƷƭunclearwhethertheCHPisapermittedusewithinthe
ƩĻŅźƓĻƩǤƭheavyindustrialzoningdistrict.Forclarity,azoningordinancetextamendmentandsiteplanreviewarebeing
d.
requeste
Constructionisslatedtobegininfallof2016.TheCHPisexpectedtobeoperationalby2018.
2
SHA E TREE
A R C NSTR CTI N
LIMITSSEE MI T RE MN T ERTILI ER T E
ISC ANCH RE M LCH
LEGEN
Pine Bend Refinery
MH
SI E
81148"81160"81148"811 6"
1 48"
GRATE
MN T
802A802A802A802A
00
CASTING
MN T RING
R SE C NT R
INISHE ELEV AT T AC C R INISHE ELEV AT C R L LINE
STR CT RE ATA
G
4020
MN T
ESIGN T E
LEGEN
C 1
C 2C C 4CM RISER
MH
4020
2 R RING CASTING ST LATE SEE 4101 AN 412 R GRATE ST LATE SEE 4140 4110 AN 41 1
1 SEE SHEET 4 R ST RM SE ER R ILES 1 R STR CT RE ST LATES SEE 400 4006 AN
STR CT RE
N TES STR CT RE N TES
Pine Bend Refinery
A
R
R
A
L
C
T
T
SEE ETAIL 6 4
CHAM ER RISERSMN T CASTING 1 T
SEE ETAIL 6 4
CHAM ER RISERS
SEE ETAIL 6 4
CHAM ER RISERS
MN T CASTING 1
MN T CASTING 1
THERS
ATER IN ILTRATI N
N ERGR N ST RM
ST RM SE ER C NNECTI N R CH
SEE C NTECH RA INGS
THERS
N ERGR N TILITIES
I E RAC
THERS
THERS
C M INE HEAT AN ER LANT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:August 10, 2016
TO:Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC:Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
John Morast,Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Amy Roudebush, Planning Department Secretary
FROM: Mitch Hatcher, ProjectEngineer
RE:Flint Hills Combined Heat-PowerEngineeringReview
S UBMITTAL:
Prepared by Flint Hills Resources, Sega Inc, and TKDA the Combined Heat-Power plans, received
June 28, 2016. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents
included in the submittal:
Topo and Location Survey Yard Layout Plan
Grading and Drainage Plan Site Plan
Utility Plan Geotechnical Report
Details Stormwater Management Report
ENERAL S TORMWATER C OMMENTS:
G
1.A stormwater management plan was submitted for review. However the report does not use
the city standard Atlas-14 precipitation data. See attached Atlas-14 Memo for additional
information.
2.The revised plan will need to be reviewed and accepted prior to any permit issuance.
3.The stormwater storage ponds and underground storage areas are to be privately owned and
maintained. The property owner is required to maintain so they operate as designed.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.
EXCERPT OF DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
JULY 26, 2016
6.f. Request by Flint Hills Resources for a Conditional Use Permit for a Combined Heat and Power Plant.(16-
23-CUP)
Planner Nemcek gave a brief overview of the staff report.
Commissioner Forester inquired if the environmental worksheet is still valid since is showed an old site. Nemcek stated
that the only the site has changed. Forester also inquired what the material on the cooling tower would be. Question was
deferred to Mr. Kern.
Chair Kenninger inquired if the system can produce more than 49.9 kW or can the system can do more. Nemcek stated
it can produce a bit more, but they would need additional approvals to produce more. Kenninger if there is any benefit
to add that requirement to the conditional use permit. Nemcek stated that the conditional use permit states it needs to
comply with all state and federal laws Kenninger inquired if there would be any reason that the city would want to
review it at that time. Lindquist stated it might make sense but it is hard to know since this is the first one.
Commissioner Clements inquired if there is something that is identifying to a regulatory body that it is capped. Nemcek
referred to the Applicant.
Chair Kenninger Inquired about the location of the landscaping, it’s not in the general area but to screen those residents
in the west. Nemcek they would continue that conversation with the applicant. Lindquist stated that the City has
received feedback from residential developers about the view of Flint Hills to have a berm and landscaping near Ryland
and to the south.
The public hearing was opened at 10:40 pm.
Public comments:
Don Kern, Flint Hills, stated that traffic would be entering and exiting to the east. Construction will be small relative to
other projects at Flint Hills, working on traffic issues with county for a longer term plan. Capacity rated at 49.9, but
machines capacity is 60 mw of power and anything over 50 MW triggers another set of regulations. The CHP is a
pollution friendly, green machine want to integrate in their process. They will consume all the energy internally at the
plant.
Commissioner Forester inquired about material on the cooling tower. Kern stated a tan material, typically its sheet metal
but whatever is the City’s preference.
Kern also stated that he is working with one of the developers on berming and landscaping. Plant over 10,000 trees in
the area, most are seedlings that are only year or two old. They want to look at berming in the more challenging areas
but doesn’t want this to hold up progress on this project.
Commissioner Clements what controls are in place to keep the machines running at 49.9 kW. Kern stated there is
software that limits capacity; they are required to keep records and could get fines if go over.
Commissioner Kenninger inquired about smell and air quality. Kern stated it should reduce other emissions on site.
Frank Knoll, representing St. John’s Church, stated that after hearing the report the location is not going to affect the
church and is in support of the project. He also hopes Flint Hills plants better trees than those along the pathway that
hasn’t been built, they had all died out. Lindquist stated goal is to plant on perimeter to the south and west, more the
adjoining property they don’t own.
Cynthia Sievert, 14180 Blaine Avenue, inquired about the sound it will generate. Kern stated that it will be less than
background noise, they have decibel requirements they need to meet. She shouldn’t hear any additional noise. Sievert
stated Flint Hills has been a great neighbor.
MOTION by Mele to close the public hearing.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 10:52 pm.
Additional Comments:
Commissioner Clements inquired about what type gas is flared. Kern state it is various types but most is recovered and
put back into the refinery.
Planner Nemcek reviewed the conditions.
recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit for Flint Hills Resources to construct a
Motion by Clements to
Combined Heat and Power Plant subject to the following conditions:
1.Submission of a stormwater management plan with hydraulic model and details for the underground
storage system
2.Compliance with the conditions and standards within the City Engineer’s Memorandum dated July 21,
2016.
3.Submission of an elevation for the entire facility showing how the building relates to the cooling apparatus
and the 170’ stack.
4.The applicant shall comply with landscape ordinance standards for the project. Final landscape plans are
required prior to issuance of a building permit.
5.Limit operation to a maximum capacity of 49.9 megawatts.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 5. Nays: 0. Motion Passes
Notice of Availabilityof an
Environmental Assessment
Worksheet (EAW)
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) Cogeneration Project
Doc Type: Public Notice
Public CommentInformation
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:Facility contact:
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend RefineryFlint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
13775 Clark RoadGreg Myers
Rosemount, MN 55068Senior Air Permitting Engineer
NW ¼, SW ¼, Section 13, T115N, R19W Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC
Rosemount TownshipP.O. Box 64596
DakotaCounty, MNSt Paul, MN 55164-0596
Phone: 651-480-2712
Fax: 651-437-0581
Email:Greg.Myers@fhr.com
MPCA Contact Information
MPCA EAW contact person:MPCA Permit contact person:
Kim GrosenheiderTarik Hanafy
Resource Management and Assistance DivisionIndustrialDivision
Minnesota Pollution Control AgencyMinnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul, MN 55155St. Paul, MN 55155
Phone: 651-757-2170Phone: 651-757-2404
Fax: 651-297-2343Fax: 651-296-8717
Email: kim.grosenheider@state.mn.usEmail: Tarik.hanafy@state.mn.us
Admin staff phone: 651-757-2100
General Information
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)isdistributing this Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for a 30-day
review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. TheMPCA uses the EAWand any
comments received to evaluate thepotential for significant environmental effectsfrom the project and decide onthe need for an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
An electronic version of the EAW is available on the MPCA Environmental Review webpage athttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/oxpg691.
If youwould like a copy of the EAW <or Permit>orhave any questions on the EAW <or Permit>, contact the appropriate person(s)
listed above.
www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 • 800-657-3864 •TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats
i-admin12-08•10/2/14Page 1 of 2
Description of Proposed Project
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCCproposes 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 theEAW and Air Emissions Permit
Written comments on the EAW mustbe received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to commenton the (insert type of) Permit,contactthe MPCA Permit contactperson 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
Information on the Board is available at:
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items.
.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406
www.pca.state.mn.us•651-296-6300•800-657-3864•TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864•Available in alternative formats
i-admin12-08•10/2/14Page 2of 2
Description of Proposed Project
Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LCCproposes 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 theEAW and Air Emissions Permit
Written comments on the EAW mustbe received by the MPCA EAW contact person within the comment period listed above.
For information on how to commenton the (insert type of) Permit,contactthe MPCA Permit contactperson 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
Information on the Board is available at:
public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items.
.
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/nwqh406
www.pca.state.mn.us•651-296-6300•800-657-3864•TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864•Available in alternative formats
i-admin12-08•10/2/14Page 2of 2
E NVIRONMENTAL A SSESSMENT W ORKSHEET
Note to reviewers:Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30-day comment period
following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and
completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an
EIS.
1.Project Title:Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project
2.Proposer: Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend,3.RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control
LLCAgency
Contact person:Mr. Greg MyersContact person:Kim Grosenheider
Title:Senior Air Permitting EngineerTitle:Project Manager
Address:P.O. Box 64596Address:520 Lafayette Road North
City, State, ZIP:St Paul, MN 55164-0596City, State, ZIP:St. Paul, MN 55155-4194
Phone:651-480-2712Phone:651-757-2170
Fax:651-437-0581Fax:651-297-2343
Email:Greg.Myers@fhr.comEmail:kim.grosenheider@state.mn.us
4.Reason for EAW Preparation:(check one)
Required:Discretionary:
o EIS Scoping o Citizen Petition
x Mandatory EAW o RGU Discretion
o 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 emissionsexpressed 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 Actfor purposes of permitting or environmental review.
p-ear1-04
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332
Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
5.Project Location:
County:Dakota
City/Township:Rosemount
PLS Location (¼, ¼, Section, Township, Range):NW ¼, SW ¼, 13, 115, 19
Watershed (81 major watershed scale):Mississippi River-Lake Pepin Watershed
Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 07040001
GPS Coordinates:UTM NAD83 Zone 15N: Easting: 497095.14581, Northing: 4955897.07966.
Tax Parcel Number:34—01300-75-010
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 ManagementAreas
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, Minnesota2
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 Highway55 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) mapshowing 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 differentcrude 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 atmosphericcrudeoil distillation capacity of 339,000 barrels per stream
1
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 Projectgenerating 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.
2
Cogenerating electricity and steam is more efficientthan producing them separately. Figure 4
shows project features discussed in detail below. A schematic overview of the process flows for
the project is shown on Figure 5.
1
Crude-oil distillation capacity is reported annually to the United States Energy Information Administration. Reported
information can be viewed at http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/refinerycapacity/.
2
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that CHP reduces the emissions of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) and other 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 III.B.1.b.3.).
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota3
The cogeneration plant will utilize a42.9 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 psigand exported to the refinery, or directed to asteam turbine capable of
3
converting the energy in the steam into up to 12MW 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, butsouth 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 onsupportsthat 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:
1.Alternative onewould 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 systemor at an internal
distribution substation, noted as the “25 Unit Super-Sub”. The location of the substation is
shown in Figures4(a) and 4(a)(i).
2.Alternative two would step up the power from 13.8 kV to 115kV 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 lyingjust 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 willcontain 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 CHP’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, Minnesota4
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 kVJohnny Cake
Transmission Line located directly to the east of the facility.
The combustion turbine will be fueled by natural gas. The naturalgas 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 (NO)
x
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 fromthe
HRSG.
The HRSG will have natural gas fired duct burner(s) for supplementary heat input and will also
contain an oxidation catalyst for reduction of carbon monoxide (CO) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs),and an aqueous ammonia-based selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system
for nitrogen oxides (NO)reduction.
X
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 110percentcontainment with a material impervious to the aqueous ammonia solution,
consistent withthe 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 poweroutage 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-waterstorage 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, Minnesota5
The proposed CHP cogeneration facility will be constructed on a 1.5-acre plot (approximately
400feet by 140 feet) on the southeast side of the refinery. The facility will be locatedin 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 tenacres 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 turbinewill 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 industrialprocess 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 approximatelyoneacre 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, Minnesota6
Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects
The MPCAhas prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)for the Tier 3 Clean
Fuels Project, currently on public notice. Anairpermit forthe Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projectwill be
nd
placed on public notice on Dec. 22.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 aprocess
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 toa 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 preliminaryproject design.
Total Project AcreageApproximately 9 acresplus up to 2additional acre,
depending on the Transmission/Distribution
Alternative selected
Linear project length9,007 feet
Number and type of residential units0
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 heightsExhaust 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 newnatural
gas-based, CHP systems and distributed generation.
e.Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned
or likely to happen? Yes xNo
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 xNo
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, Minnesota7
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.
BeforeAfterBeforeAfter
Wetlands00Lawn/landscaping00
Deep 00Impervious surface
1.291.91
water/streams
Wooded/forest00Stormwater Pond00
0.050Other: Sand/gravel pits with 26-Up to
Brush/Grassland0
50% impervious surface2.57
00Other: Aggregate lined
Up to
Croplandtransformer yard ~50% 0
2.00
impervious surfaces
TOTAL:3.913.91
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 GovernmentType of ApplicationStatus
MPCAPrevention of Significant Deterioration Major permit modification
(PSD) Air Emissions Permitapplicationsubmitted
MPCANational Pollutant Discharge In effect
Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial
Stormwater Multi-Sector General
Permit
MPCAConstruction Stormwater NPDES PermitApplication to be submitted
MPCANPDES Wastewater Discharge PermitIn effect (undergoing a
reissuance unrelated to this
project)
Rosemount Fire MarshalPlan Review and ApprovalApplication to be submitted
City of RosemountBuilding PermitTo be obtained when required
City of RosemountExcavation and Grading PermitTo be obtained when required
Minnesota Public Utilities Route PermitApplication to be submitted if the
Commission (MPUC)*electrical power is transmitted
using alternative 2 or 3.
Midcontinent Transmission StudyTwo 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, Minnesota8
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 Highway55 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 onemile 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 (7miles), 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 refinerysite. 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-acreIndustrial
District.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota9
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 ispart 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, Minnesota10
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 onebillion 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 thesurficial 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
4
(MDNR) . 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 Bendboundary 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/lfrm_karstpt3.html. Accessed 6/19/2009.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota11
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 4.6percentgrade, 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 quantitiescan 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 onthe current MPCA
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota12
303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public
Waters Inventory number(s), if any.
Figure 11 shows hydrologic features in the vicinity of the refinery. The location of the
proposed project components does not coincide with any National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
wetlands or Public Waters Inventory watercourses. As noted above, a portion of FHR’s
property extends to the east allowing for pipeline transfer of materials to the Mississippi
River. However, none of the components of the proposed project will impact this area.
The existing water detention area on the south side of the proposed 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 ofany 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 IDWell NameEastingNorthingSource
CWI
00752110FLINT HILLS RESOURCES NO. 10497043.9534956248.84
CWI
00594998TK505-BW3A496787.0944957175.554
CWI
00509068KOCH REFINING RW-44971944957407
CWI
00612663W-35497175.9344957394.214
CWI
00208391GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 54964644957233
CWI
00208393GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.24966704956984
CWI
00612014TK88/EW-2496130.1674957560.901
CWI
00509070KOCH REFINING RW-64971974957430
CWI
00509066KOCH REFINING RW-34971944957382
CWI
00509063KOCH REFINING RW-14971964957338
CWI
00612003BDP/EVW-3497142.7314957618.61
CWI
00666490FLINT HILLS REFINERY497115.4114957471.605
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota13
Location UTM NAD83 Zone 15N Meters
Unique IDWell NameEastingNorthingSource
CWI
00208394GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.44968524957116
CWI
00554202PR12-1496865.5564957435.668
CWI
00509065KOCH REFINING RW-24971974957360
CWI
00612015MP-1496850.4964957302.932
CWI
00208392GREAT NORTHERN OIL NO.14968354956993
CWI
00612004PW-1495891.0494957485.495
CWI
00617783497179.9034957120.369
CWI
00509071KOCH REFINING RW-54971994957450
CWI
00612010PW-2496735.4024957296.979
CWI
00213584KOCH REFINING NO.74968134956961
CWI
00208390GREAT NORTHERN OIL CO. 34964994957344
CWI
00643923MW-50497115.4114957191.807
CWI
00612729MW-1496221.4484957672.027
CWI
00161421KOCH REFINING NO.8497042.8754956230.75
CWI
00612008MP-1495953.5574957459.698
CWI
00272261W-6496345.96514956276.649
None of the elements of the proposed project are located within a Minnesota Department
of Health (MDH) wellhead protection area.
b.Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or
mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below.
i.Wastewater -For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition
of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the
site.
1)If the wastewater discharge is to a publicly owned treatment facility, identify any
pretreatment measures and the 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 significanteffect 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, Minnesota14
Wastewater generated from the CHP Cogeneration Projectwill 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 facilityto 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 increasedprocess wastewater flows
to the refinery’s wastewater treatment facility. As discussed in Item 6, blowdown,
approximately5 gallons per minute (gpm),will be pumped to a refinery coolingtower 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 0.5percentof the daily average flow to the
treatment plant and less than 0.4percentof 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, Minnesota15
barge dock facilities (see Figure11) 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 withoutflooding 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 sourceand 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 gpmof 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. FHRPine
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota16
Bend currently uses approximately 94percentof 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.
Identifymeasures 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, Minnesota17
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 existsalong 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).
th
Another area of petroleum contaminated soils to north of FHR’s 12Street 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 adverseeffects 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 BendRefinery 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 ammoniaanddielectric fluid, discussed in
the paragraphs below.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota18
A new 12,000 gallon ASTwill store aqueous ammonia (19percent) for use in the SCRsystem
used for NOreductions.The SCR control equipment is designed to convert NOinto
xx
atmospheric nitrogen (N) and water vapor; however it does have the potential for some
2
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 willbe registered with the state and subject to the facility’s
AST permit requirements for design and operation, including 110percentcontainment 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 aresubject 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.B. 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 XcelEnergy, 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 transformeryards 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, Minnesota19
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 nearthe 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 SNAand 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 numberand/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 MDNRto 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.
5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) technical assistance websitelists 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 onemile 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.html. Accessed October, 2013
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota20
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 onemile 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, lawnsand
pastures, with adjacent perching sites in small trees and shrubs.Therefore, the species is
unlikely to occur within the developedFHR 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, Minnesota21
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
directimpacts 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, andthe 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 controlsand 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 onemile 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.
Whileseveral 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 outsidethe 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, Minnesota22
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 traditionalcultural properties on or in
close proximity tothe 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 FHRPine 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, Minnesota23
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 pollutantsand 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 UnitAdd-On Control Equipment
Combustion TurbineSelective Catalytic Reduction (SCR), NOControl CO and
x
VOCCatalyst, CO and VOC Control
Duct BurnersSCR, 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.
Project Air Emissions
The potential air emissions from the project have been calculated based on performance
specifications and estimates from manufacturers of the combustion turbine, duct burners, and
control equipment, as well as EPA factors for emissions from combustion of natural gas.
6
Following MPCA guidance on calculating air emission increases for EAW applicabilityand the
method described by Minn. R. 7007.1200, subp.3, the calculations for this EAW conservatively
assume year-round operationat 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.
6
MPCA, 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, Minnesota24
PollutantTotal Refinery Pre-CHP Cogeneration Total Refinery Percentage Change
123
Project (TPY)Facility (TPY)(Post-Project TPY)Due to Project (%)
Nitrogen Oxides 3,952.627.73,980.30.7%
(NO)
X
4
Sulfur Dioxide (SO)3,770.04.13,770.00.0%
2
Carbon Monoxide 2,391.066.92,457.92.8%
(CO)
Particulate Matter 1,032.716.81,049.51.6%
(PM)
Particulate Matter 641.116.8657.92.6%
<10 microns (PM)
10
Particulate Matter 627.616.8644.42.7%
<2.5 microns (PM)
2.5
Volatile Organic 2,610.428.02,638.41.1%
Compounds (VOCs)
Greenhouse Gases 7,837,536345,2638,182,7994.4%
5
(GHG)
Hazardous Air 854.66.8861.40.8%
Pollutants (HAPs)
1
Current total refinery PTE is based on the values in the FHR’s Title V Permit Technical Support Document (TSD) dated 9/9/13
and 4/15/14. GHG values from a June 26, 2013 letter from FHR to Mr. Tarik Hanafy of the MPCA, updated to reflect current
global-warming potentials for CHand NO plus those GHG values from new EU’s permitted in 03700011-011.
42
2
Limited PTE of CHP Cogeneration Project, including combustion turbine, duct burner, and fugitive emissions.
3
Limited PTE of total refinery (current facility plus proposed CHP cogeneration project)
4
The CHP project will result in a small amount of SOemissions, however these emissions will not require the refinery to
2
air permit emission cap.
increase its SO
2
5
GHG contains the following pollutants: carbon dioxide (CO), methane (CH), nitrous oxide (NO), sulfur hexafluoride (SF),
2426
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). These values are expressed as carbon dioxide equivalents (COe).
2
Air Emission Permitting
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
(PM), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM), and greenhouse gas
102.5
emissions (GHG). FHR has applied for a major amendment to its permit (Air Emissions Permit
No. 03700011-011) in order to implement its proposed CHP cogeneration facility project.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
The 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 PM, PMand greenhouse gas (GHG)from theproposed projectexceed
102.5
significant emission rate thresholds under PSD regulations. Therefore, the proposed projectis
subject to PSD reviewfor these pollutants.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota25
A major modification subject to PSD review is required to ensure that best available control
technology (BACT) is used for each pollutant for which there is a significant net emissions
increase(PM, PMand GHG for this proposed project).BACT is the maximum degree of
102.5
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 (NO) and sulfur dioxide (SO) by use of SCR,
x2
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 criteriaand hazardous air pollutants. Furthermore, the combustion turbine’s design
specifications are highly efficient, minimizing fueluse and associated emissions. As such, there
are a number of regulations that do not apply to the proposed project:
·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 itis currently
proposed, the project would not be subject to this NSPS because it would not sell its
electricity to the grid.
·The proposed project will be subject to the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for stationary 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 useof 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
wellas 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
emissions, while the oxidation catalyst will
catalytic reduction (SCR)will be used to control NO
x
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, Minnesota26
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 ratesfor 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 benefitsof cogeneration are significant, reducing emissions by 40 percent or
7
more, the use of clean fuel and efficientdesign,represent(BACT for PMand PM.It also
102.5
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 useand associated GHG emissions. CHP’s inherent higher
efficiencyand elimination of transmission and distribution losses result in reduced primary
8
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 installingvarious 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 thresholdsandfor which national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) are established. For the proposed project, PMand
10
PMmeet these criteria, and therefore an ambient air quality modeling analysis was carried out
2.5
for these pollutants.
7
EPA.“Combined Heat and Power: Frequently Asked Questions.” Available at www.epa.gov/chp/documents/faq.pdf.
8
EPA. “Combined Heat and Power: Frequently Asked Questions.” Available at www.epa.gov/chp/documents/faq.pdf.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota27
In order to facilitate the assessment of the project’s potential impacts on ambient air quality,
the EPA has established de minimisthresholds 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 contributeto exceedances of air
quality standards and no further modeling analysis is required. Under EPA’s latest guidance for
9
PMmodeling,this SIL modeling approach is only available for a NAAQS analysis for sources
2.5
that can demonstrate that existing ambient background PMconcentrations are more than one
2.5
SIL value less than the NAAQS. FHR has reviewed background PM
concentrations and as shown
2.5
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.
PM24 Hour and Annual Apple Valley Monitor Concentrations
2.5
33
24 Hour (ug/m)Annual (ug/m)
Monitor ID 470470
2013 98th %Value208.8
2012 98th %Value239.3
2011 98th %Value218.4
Average (2011-2013)21.38.8
NAAQS3512
Difference (2011-2013)13.73.2
SIL1.20.3
Greater than SILYESYES
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 PMand PMmodeled air concentrations.
102.5
As shown in the table below, using the theoretical worst-case scenario, the project’s modeled
impacts are well below the SIL for PMand PM,therefore the project does not have the
102.5
potential to cause or contribute to significant deterioration in air quality.
Pollutant NAAQS/MAAQS Project Modeled
333
(Averaging Period)(µg/m)SIL (µg/m)Impact (µg/m)Percentage of SIL
Particulate Matter 15050.5411%
<10 µm(PM)
10
(24-hr)
Particulate Matter 351.20.3731%
<2.5µm(PM)
2.5
(24-hr)
PM(annual)120.30.04214%
2.5
9
EPA May 20, 2014 “Guidance for PMPermit Modeling.” Availableat
2.5
http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/Guidance_for_PM25_Permit_Modeling.pdf
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota28
In the PMmodeling guidance referenced above, EPA also indicated that, in addition to a SILs
2.5
analysis, a permitting agency must ensure that a project subject to PSD for PMdoes not have
2.5
the potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of PSD increment levels for PM.
2.5
Increments are a part of the PSD program where emissions from a project are considered with
other relevant projects to ensure that the combined effects do not lead to a significant
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
PM
increment levels.
2.5
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 90percentof
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 mostheavily 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 thebasis fordemonstrating that the project will notadversely affectambient air
quality. As shown in the figures below, SO, NO, and CO levels at the monitor immediately east
22
of the refinery (Monitor 420) are wellbelow 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, Minnesota29
NOTE:Concentrations reported in form of the respective Standard:
th
-98percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations
NO
2
th
SO-99percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations
2
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota30
Monitor 420 -CO Calendar Year 2nd High 2010-2012
40
COCOCOCO8188----hr NAAQShr NAAQShr NAAQShr NAAQS----35ppb35ppm35ppb35ppb
35
30
25
20
15
10
COCOCOCO8111----hr NAAQShr NAAQShr NAAQShr NAAQS----9ppm9ppb9ppb9ppb
5
0
201020112012
NOTE:Concentrations reported as second high 1-hour reading for respective year. Standard allows for one
nd
exceedance per averaging period effectively making standard “2High” 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.
PM PMPMNOSOCO
102.5x2
(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)(tpy)
Combined Heat and Power Project17171728467
FHR Pine BendRefinery Limited Facility
1
Potential to Emit1033641628395337702391
2%3%3%1%0.1%3%
Project Compared to the Existing Refinery
Potential to Emit
1
The FHR Pine Bendtotal 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, Minnesota31
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
areprovided in the tables below. The first table demonstrates that the Regulatory SIL plus
ambient background is less than 90percent of the NAAQS. The second table shows that the CHP
project’s modeled impacts are less than the Regulatory SIL.
Regulatory NAAQS/M
Background Less than 90% of
3
SIL (µg/m)AAQS
Averaging Concentration Background NAAQS/MAAQS
3
33
(µg/m)
PollutantPeriod(µg/m)+ SIL (µg/m)(Y/N)?
CO1-hour37952000579540000Y
8-hour1912500241210000Y
PM24-hour44549150Y
10
Annual2412550Y
PM24-hour211.222.235Y
2.5
Annual90.39.312Y
NO1-hour637.570.5188Y
2
Annual29130100Y
SO1-hour87.915.9196Y
2
3-hour5625811300Y
24-hour459365Y
Annual11260Y
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota32
Modeled Maximum
Concentration1 Regulatory SIL Less than SIL
33
PollutantAveraging Period(µg/m)(µg/m)(Y/N)?
CO1-hour7.222000Y
8-hour4.43500Y
PM24-hour0.545Y
10
Annual0.0421Y
PM24-hour0.371.2Y
2.5
Annual0.0420.3Y
NO1-hour2.47.5Y
2
Annual0.071Y
SO1-hour0.367.9Y
2
3-hour0.3625.0Y
24-hour0.135Y
Annual0.0101Y
1
The MPCA draft guidance is intended to apply on a project-specific basis. In the cumulative potential effects analysis under
Question 19, FHR has combined this project evaluation with the Tier 3 Clean Fuels Projects (the subject of a separate EAW) 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 SO
2
modeling if the facility’s permitted SOincreases by 2.28 pounds per hour or more. The
2
potential SOair emission increase associated with the proposed CHP projectis 0.97
2
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 SOemissions from this project are included in that modeling
2
demonstration.
Health Risk Evaluation
Emissions from the project are primarily associated with natural gas combustion, although some
ammonia slip will result from the use of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) to control NO
X
emissions. As the air emissions discussion above indicates, the incremental emissions increases
due to the proposed project are less than one percentof the existing facility emissions of NO,
X
SO, and HAPs, and approximately one percentof the existing facility emissions of VOCs.
2
As shown above, modeled concentrations of NO, SO, and PMassociated with the project are
222.5
below the SILs of their respective NAAQS. For NO, the SIL represents less than two percentof
2
the MPCA acute health benchmark indicating ambient NOconcentrations resulting from
2
project-related NOemissions are well below guideline levels.
X
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
1011
concluded that potential health risks associated with the refinery are below guideline values.
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, Minnesota33
12
In addition, a source-receptor study conducted by Gradient (1996)identified that refinery
emissions contribute little to the ambient air concentrations monitored at nearby sites. Since
13
that time, refinery air emissions have decreased by greater than 50percent. The MPCA (2003;
14,15
2009)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
16
converting the modeled results to a hazard quotient, or HQ. 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
17
value).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.
18
The CHP ammonia emissions result in an HQ three orders of magnitude below one. The fact
that previousmonitored ambient air concentrations of potential health risks from the refinery
19,20
have shown risks below guideline levelsand 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, Minnesota34
•The demonstration of modeled NO, SO, PM, and PMconcentrations are below the
22102.5
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 plantwill contribute primarily to traffic on
MinnesotaHighway 55 and U.S.Highway 52which areadjacentto the refinery’s eastern
boundary. Averagedaily 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
than0.001percentbased 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, Minnesota35
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 noisesources 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 representativeof the area range from
21
45 to 76 dBA. 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 Projectsite 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 approximately12 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, Minnesota36
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 plantwill contribute primarily to traffic on
MinnesotaHighway 55 and U.S.Highway 52which areadjacentto the refinery’s eastern
boundary. Averagedaily traffic volume information available for 2012 from MnDOTindicates
that the relevant sections of MinnesotaHighway 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 andadditional 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, Minnesota37
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 airquality, 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 magnitudeand nature of these impacts.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota38
Resource/ImpactTimescaleGeographic area of impactNature/Extent of impacts
Immediate project vicinity (nearest
Short term,
Construction Noisereceptors at a distance of Minor
temporary
approximately 1/3 mile)
Immediate project vicinity (nearest Minor; managed via
Long term/
Operation Noisereceptors at a distance of implementation of noise
project life
approximately 1/3 mile)controls
Construction Short term, Minor; managed via
Immediate project vicinity
Stormwatertemporaryimplementation of BMPs
Air Quality
Short term, Minor; fugitive dust; managed
(construction-related
Immediate project vicinity
temporaryvia implementation of BMPs
impacts)
Minor; modeled concentration
Air Quality (project
below screening thresholds
Long term/Within 10 kilometers of property
operation-related
project lifeboundaryestablished in MPCA draft
impacts)
guidance
Long term/Minor; managed under existing
Water appropriationPrairie du Chien-Jordan aquifer
project lifewater-appropriations permit
Long term/Immediate project vicinity (nearby
Traffic
Minor
project lifestretches 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 withan
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 Storageand DistributionProject. The
Propylene Storage and DistributionProject required an EAW and the impacts of the #3Crude
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, Minnesota39
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 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 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 wascompleted 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, Minnesota40
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 preparedan 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 proposedTier 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 salableaqueous 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 onemile 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, Minnesota41
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 effectswith 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 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 asthe Spring 2014maintenance turnaround
and for overflow to the other contractor parking at the refinery. The lot islocated on Rich Valley
Boulevard/Blaine Avenue,approximately 3,500 feet north of Bonaire Path/132nd Street. The
parking lotencompassesapproximately 10 acres and utilizestwo existing entry/exit points onto
Rich Valley Boulevard, therefore no new ditch crossings or road entrances wasrequired.
Construction of the new parking lot wascompleted in April of 2014. Consequently, due to the
approximately onemile distance between the parking lot and the CHP project and the fact that
construction of the parking lotwas 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 Bendusedtemporary, 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 soughtto 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 weretemporary
units and are no longeronsite, 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.
Thecumulative potential effects analysis assesses the degree to which past, present, and
reasonably foreseeablefutureprojects 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, Minnesota42
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 (<2percentof
existing facility emissions). Estimated emissions from the CHP Cogeneration Project are also very
small, ranging from less than 1percentfor SO, NO, and HAPsto 4.4percentfor CO. Modeling
222e
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 90percentof 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, Minnesota43
PollutantAveraging Maximum Regulatory SIL
PeriodModeled (µg/m3)Less than SIL?
Concentration (Y/N)
(µg/m3)
CO1-hour7.242000Y
8-hour4.44500Y
PM24-hour0.545Y
10
Annual0.071Y
PM24-hour0.441.2Y
2.5
Annual0.070.3Y
NO1-hour6.447.5Y
2
Annual0.191Y
SO1-hour4.637.9Y
2
3-hour4.2225Y
24-hour1.245Y
Annual0.091Y
HS1-hour2.062.1Y
2
As the table demonstrates, the combined emissions from both projects are below applicable
levels established by the MPCA guidance to screen projects for the potential for significant
cumulative environmental effects.
Water appropriations
As described in Section 11.B.3.iii, the CHP will minimize water consumption by the utilization of
aircooled 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 ofU.S.Highway 52 and Minnesota Highway 55.
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Environmental Assessment
Cogeneration Project Worksheet
Rosemount, Minnesota44
94
694
§
¨¦
§
¨¦
RAMSEY COUNTY
494
§
¨¦
35W
§
¨¦
61
£
¤
HENNEPIN COUNTY
494
§
¨¦
WASHINGTON COUNTY
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
35E
§
¨¦
Project Area
10
£
¤
52
£
ROSEMOUNT
¤
DAKOTA COUNTY
SITE
52
£
¤
LOCATION
^_
Imagery Source: FSA, 2010.
Flint Hills Pine Bend Refinery
Figure 1
City Boundary
I
SITE LOCATION MAP
County Boundary
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
31.503
Rosemount, Minnesota
Major River
Miles
111th St
E
117th St E
E
52
£
¤
71
4765
Steam
55
Underground
Electric
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Natural
Gas
135th
St E
138th St E
Imagery: Digital Globe - 2012
Figure 2
FHR Facility Boundary
SITE PLAN
AERIAL IMAGERY
Proposed Site Features
I
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
1,20001,200
Rosemount, Minnesota
Feet
111th St
E
117th St E
E
52
£
¤
71
4765
Steam
55
Underground
Electric
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Natural
Gas
135th
St E
138th St E
Background: USGS Topographic Map (Dakota County)
Figure 3
Proposed Site Features
SITE PLAN
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
I
FHR Facility Boundary
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
1,20001,200
Rosemount, Minnesota
Feet
vrj :resU dxm.sliateD tcejorP - yregamI laireA nalP etiS - 4 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 65:31 42-30-4102 ,1.2.01 SIGcrA
:retooF rraB
2cak :resU dxm.noitpO noissimsnarT suB gniR VK511 - laireA nalP etiS - )b(4 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 13:31 51-90-4102
,1.2.01 SIGcrA :retooF rraB
2cak :resU dxm.noitpO noissimsnarT dirG lanretxE VK511 - laireA nalP etiS - )b(4 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 14:31 51-90-4102
,1.2.01 SIGcrA :retooF rraB
111th St E
71
476
5
117th St E
117th St E
52
£
¤
120th St E
h St
125t
E
55
New Distribution
Substation
Underground
Electric
Steam
115kV Tie
Natural
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Gas
1
35th St E
138th St E
52
£
¤
140th St E140th St E
Data Source: MPCA, Metropolitan Council (MetroGIS)
FHR Facility BoundaryOfficeRailway
Proposed Site FeaturesMixed Use ResidentialAirport
Land Use (2010 - Metropolitan Council)
Mixed Use IndustrialAgricultural
Figure 6
Farmstead
Mixed Use Commercial and OtherUndeveloped
Seasonal/Vacation
SITE MAP
Industrial and UtilityWater
LAND USE
Single Family Detached
Extractive
N
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
;
Manufactured Housing Park
!
Institutional
Rosemount, Minnesota
Single Family Attached
1,20001,200
Park, Recreational or Preserve
Multifamily
Golf Course
Feet
Retail and Other Commercial
Major Highway
111th St E
71
476
5
117th St E
117th St E
52
£
¤
120th St E
h St
125t
E
55
New Distribution
Substation
Underground
Electric
Steam
115kV Tie
Natural
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Gas
1
35th St E
138th St E
52
£
¤
140th St E140th St E
Data Source: MN DNR Minnesota Land Cover Classification System
MNRRA CorridorMaintained Tall Grass
FHR Facility BoundaryTree Plantation
Proposed Site FeaturesForest
Figure 7
Land Cover (MLCCS)
Wetland Forest
5-10% Impervious
Wetland Shrubs
SITE MAP
I
11-25% Impervious
Tall Grasses
LAND COVER
1,20001,200
26-50% ImperviousWetland Emergent Veg.
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
51-75% Impervious
Dry Tall Grasses
Rosemount, Minnesota
Feet
76-100% ImperviousOpen Water
Short Grasses
Wetland Open Water
Agricultural Land
71
476
5
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
117th St E
52
£
¤
RESIDENCE
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
120th St E
ROSEMOUNT
RESIDENCE
55
New Distribution
Substation
Underground
Electric
Steam
115kV Tie
Natural
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Gas
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
RESIDENCE
52
£
¤
140th St E
BUSINESS
RESIDENCE
Data Source: City of Rosemount and City of Innver Grove Heights
FHR Facility BoundaryFlood Plain
Figure 8
Proposed Site FeaturesGeneral Industrial
Parcels Owned by Flint Hills ResourcesGeneral Business
SITE MAP
ZONING
Municipal BoundaryHeavy Industrial
I
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
Zoning (2007)
Public/Institutional
1,20001,200
Rosemount, Minnesota
Agricultural
Water
Feet
Agricultural Preserve
Waste Management
2cak :resU dxm.paM gninoZ tnuomesoR fo ytiC - 9 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 55:41 51-90-4102 ,1.2.01 SIGcrA :retooF rraB
342B49B
454C
150B342B
411B342B
1816
150B
411B
1902B
411B
895B
342C
49B
41B
411A
1902B
1816279B
W
155B
41B
W
W
896E
1816
857B
1816
611D
1072
W
342B
39A
857A
1816
857A
301B
41B
411B
279B342E
39B
49B
49B
W
611D
454E
1816
98
1816
27B
155B
W
342B
611C
39B
611C
150B
250
150B
18151816
39D
155B
342C155B
411A
611C
611E
250
611C
279B
861C
1821
41B
857A
250
1029
49B
39B
454B
189
301B
155E
411A
W
454B344
250
155C
283B454C
155B
611C
454C
W
W
7B
454B454E
454C
W
W
415C
301B
465
1055
39B
39B
41A
W
7C
W
611F
39B
540
155B
7B
611C
41B
1821
454B
1815
454B
39A
49B
454E
283B
454C
301B
454B
1039
41B
895C
1029
39B2
301B
39B2
155B
283A
39B2
611D
39B
283A
857B
7B
1029
250
283A
New Distribution
611C
Substation
39B2
611E
301B
105539A
155B
Underground
283A
301B
129
Electric
39B
Steam
1039
454C
41B
98
39B2
313
250
129250
155B
41B
1039
49B454C
283A
283A
250
857B
454B
41A
454C
115kV Tie
313
39B
250
283A
250
313
39B
39B
39B2
39B
313
155C
39A155B
611C
250
301B
41B
611C
250
Natural
41B
250
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Gas
155C
41B
611C
415B39B39B415B415B
415A
611C
1029
611D
313
283A
39A611C
250
39B
611C
41B
39B
415A
611C
39C
39B2
250
411B
611C
155C415B
39B
611D
454C41B
39B
39B
415B
39A
39B
39B
301B
313
250
250
411B
41B
611D
611C
611C
611E
250
611C
39B
41B
611D
39B
611D
411A
415B41B
41B
39B
1815
415B
252
411B
411B
252
611C
611C
250
301B
611D
39B
250
415B
39D
415A41A
301B
41B
250
301B
129
27B
129
313
98
39B411B
411B
250
611C
27B
895C
39B
611C
611E
411B415B150B896E896E895C39B227A
Data Source: USDA NRCS SSURGO Database (gSSURGO)
Estherville sandy loam, 0 to 2 percentPlainfield loamy sand, 0 to 2 percentWadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes,
FHR Facility Boundary1816Kennebec variant silt loam
41A283A39B2
slopesslopeseroded
Kingsley sandy loam, 15 to 25
Estherville sandy loam, 2 to 6 percentPlainfield loamy sand, 2 to 6 percent
Proposed Site Features
342E
39CWadena loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes
283B
41B
percent slopes
slopesslopes
Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent
All areas are prime farmland
Hawick coarse sandy loam, 12 to 18
W
Water
342BQuam silt loam
344
611D
slopes
percent slopes
Soil Map Unit Name
Waukegan silt loam, 0 to 1 percent
Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent
Hawick coarse sandy loam, 6 to 12
411A
540Seelyeville muck
342C
611Cslopes
slopes
Algansee sandy loam, occasionallypercent slopes
1821
flooded
Spencer silt loam, 2 to 6 percentWaukegan silt loam, 1 to 6 percent
Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to
Hawick loamy sand, 18 to 25 percent
411B
150B
896E
611Eslopesslopes
25 percent slopes
slopes
49BAntigo silt loam, 1 to 8 percent slopes
Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer
Spillville loam, occasionally floodedZumbro loamy fine sand
Hawick loamy sand, 25 to 50 percent3131815
895B
611F
complex, 3 to 8 percent slopes
slopes
1055Aquolls and Histosols, ponded
1072Udorthents, moderately shallow
Kingsley-Mahtomedi-Spencer Figure 10
Hubbard loamy sand, 1 to 6 percent
342C
7B
complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes
189Auburndale silt loam
slopes
1039
Urban land
Lindstrom silt loam, 1 to 4 percent
Hubbard loamy sand, 6 to 12 percent
Chetek sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent301B
7C
slopes
155E
slopes SITE MAP
slopes
Urban land-Kingsley complex, 3 to 15
861C
Mahtomedi loamy sand, 15 to 25
percent slopes
Jewett silt loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes
SOILS
Chetek sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent
454E
1902B
percent slopes
155B
slopes
Urban land-Waukegan complex, 0 to
857A
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
Mahtomedi loamy sand, 3 to 8
1 percent slopes
Kalmarville sandy loam, frequently
Chetek sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent
465454B
percent slopes
155C
flooded
slopes
Rosemount, Minnesota
Urban land-Waukegan complex, 1 to
857B
Mahtomedi loamy sand, 8 to 15
8 percent slopes
Kanaranzi loam, 0 to 2 percent
415A
454C
Colo silt loam, occasionally flooded
98
percent slopes
slopes
39A
Wadena loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Kanaranzi loam, 2 to 6 percent
Marshan silty clay loam
252
415B
Cylinder loam
129
slopes
Wadena loam, 12 to 18 percent
I
39D
Otterholt silt loam, 1 to 6 percent
slopes
Dickinson sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent
Kanaranzi loam, 6 to 12 percent
279B
415C
49B
slopes
slopes 1,20001,200
slopes
Wadena loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes
39B
Dickinson sandy loam, 2 to 6 percent
1029
Pits, gravel
250Kennebec silt loam
27B
slopes
Feet
E evA
enialB
2cak :resU dxm.enilecneF yrenifeR nihtiw tnemeganaM ytilauQ retaW - 11 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 95:41 51-90-4102 ,1.2.01
SIGcrA :retooF rraB
North Fire Barn
Lenertz
Wayne
Trucking
Area
Sandblast and
Painting Area
Riprap
Northwest
Pond
B5/North
Fire Water
Butane
Lower
Basin
Basin
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Railcar
Butane
Loading Spur
Gate 2
Creek
Vegetation
Maintenance
in Swale
Stormwater Runoff
Shop 5
West Tank Farm
From This Area Is
Stormwater
Retention Basin
Detained Onsite Or
Discharged Under
The Facility NPDES
Gate 5
Waste Water Permit
Maintenance
Shop Area
Gate 6
Southwest
Stormwater/Fire Water
Basin
Contractor
Area
Gate 9/10
Southwest Basin
Fire Water And
Storm Water
Retention Basin
Vegetation
in Swale
Wetland
Area
Equipment
Inspection Area
Leased Property Solberg
(Under Solberg SWPPP)
Imagery: Digital Globe - 2012
Gate ValveWaters of the State
Figure 12
N
;
BermDetention Basin
!
STORMWATER RUNOFF
MAP
Conveyance/Structural ControlRetention Basin
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
Flow ArrowsWaters of the State Drainage Areas
Pine Bend, MN
1,00050001,000
Property BoundaryRunoff Area
Feet
2cak :resU dxm.saerA tnemeganaM etsaW cirotsiH - 31 erugiF\\WAE\\stropeR\\spaM\\tcejorP_noitarenegoC_PHC\\dneBeniP\\slliHtnilF\\tneilC\\:I :eliF 71:71 40-80-4102 ,1.2.01 SIGcrA :retooF
rraB
#
#
#
#
##
117th St E
#
#
E
52
£
¤
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
71
476
5
New Distribution
Substation
55
Underground
Electric
Steam
115kV Tie
Natural
CHP Cogeneration Plant Site
Gas
138th St E
Imagery: Digital Globe - 2012
Natural Heritage Information System Rare Features Data - Copyright 2012 State of Minnesota, Department of Natural Resources
Rare Natural Features - Points
FHR Facility Boundary
Figure 14
Vertebrate Animal
#
Proposed Site Features
Community
#
Rare Natural Features - Element Occurances*
SITE MAP
Vertebrate AnimalVascular Plant
#ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES
I
Flint Hills Pine Bend, LLC
Community
1,20001,200
Rosemount, Minnesota
Vascular Plant
Feet
* Possible Range and/or Geographic Uncertainty for Species Sighting
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 1 of16
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:39B2 - 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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 2 of16
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 3 of16
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 4 of16
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:279B - 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:283B - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 5 of16
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:301B - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 6 of16
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:411B - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 7 of16
Map Unit Description
Dakota County, Minnesota
Map unit:415B - 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:454B - 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%)
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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 8 of16
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:611D - 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:611E - 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:611F - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 9 of16
Map Unit Description
Dakota County, Minnesota
Map unit:611F - 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:857B - 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:861C - 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:895B - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 10 of16
Map Unit Description
Dakota County, Minnesota
Map unit:895B - 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
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 11 of16
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 12 of16
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:1902B - 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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 13 of16
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 14 of16
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.
Survey Area Version: 8
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 15 of16
Map Unit Description
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit
descriptions in this report, along with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified
and named according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic class there are precisely defined limits for the properties
of the soils. On the landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus,
the range of some observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class. Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if
ever, can be mapped without including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made up of the soils or miscellaneous areas
for which it is named and some minor components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
The Map Unit Description (Brief, Generated) report displays a generated description of the major soils that occur in a map unit. Descriptions of non-soil
(miscellaneous areas) and minor map unit components are not included. This description is generated from the underlying soil attribute data.
Additional information about the map units described in this report is available in other Soil Data Mart reports, which give properties of the soils and the
limitations, capabilities, and potentials for many uses. Also, the narratives that accompany the Soil Data Mart reports define some of the properties
included in the map unit descriptions.
Survey Area Version: 7
Survey Area Version Date: 07/03/2012Page 16 of16
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
Ms. Lisa Joyal
March27, 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 (jbutler@barr.com).
Sincerely,
Jessica Butler
Ecologist
Barr Engineering Company
Enclosures: Figure 1 – Project Area; Figure 2– Site Map
From:Joyal, Lisa (DNR)
To:Jessica L. Butler
Cc:Haworth, Brooke (DNR);Hoaglund, Erica (DNR)
Subject:Flint Hills Resources - Heat and Power Cogeneration Facility - Rare Resources Review
Date:Thursday, May 01, 2014 11:26:40 AM
Attachments:MDNR_Consultation Letter_FHR_CHP Cogeneration.pdf
I have reviewed your assessment of the potential for the above project to impact rare features, and
concur with your assessment. In addition, please note that associated activities (e.g., drainage)
should be carefully designed as to avoid any negative impacts to the ecologically significant areas
that are located east of the proposed project.
The reference number for this correspondence is ERDB #20140336.
Thank you for notifying us of this project, and for the opportunity to provide comments.
Sincerely,
Lisa Joyal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa Joyal
Endangered Species Review Coordinator
NHIS Data Distribution Coordinator
Division of Ecological and Water Resources
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
500 Lafayette Road, Box 25
St. Paul, MN 55155
phone: 651-259-5109
lisa.joyal@state.mn.us
www.mndnr.gov/eco
STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION
ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED
FLINT HILLS RESOURCES COMBINED HEAT AND POWER (CHP)FINDINGS OF FACT
COGENERATION PROJECTCONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DAKOTA COUNTYAND ORDER
ROSEMOUNT, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to Minn. ch. 4410, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff prepared and
distributed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Flint Hills Resources –
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project (CHPProject).Based on the MPCAstaff
environmental review, the EAW, comments and information received during the comment period, and
other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order.
CHP Project Description
1.Flint Hills Resources Pine Bend, LLC, (FHR),a refinery located in the city of Rosemount, Minnesota
proposes to construct a natural gas-based combined heatand power cogeneration facility,
generating up to a net 49.9 megawatts (MW)of electricity to reduce electricity purchases from the
grid and improve the efficiency of steam production at the refinery.
2.Currently, the refinery’s electrical load is suppliedfrom the grid and purchased from the local utility.
FHRwishes 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 Projectgenerating up to 49.9 MWof electricity to displace electricity
purchases from the grid and generating up to 290,000 pounds per hourofsteam, depending on the
operating configuration, to displace a portion of the steam production at the refinery’s existing
boilers.
3.The cogeneration plant will utilize a42.9 MW capacity General Electric LM6000-PF gas turbine that
will exhaust to a single-pressure heat-recovery steam generator (HRSG). The combination of
electricity generation from both a combustion turbine and an integrated HRSG and steam turbine is
known as combined-cycle generation.
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): 651-282-5332
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
4.The new cogeneration plant will be located within the FHR facility boundary, but south of the
existing refinery process units.
5.The facility is proposing three alternatives for distributing the power to the refinery, pending final
engineering and design:
a.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 systemor at an internal
distribution substation.
b.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) andthe steam
turbine generator (STG). The GSU’s would be located in a transformer yard lying just to the
northeast 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.
c.Alternative three also would use the same GSU configuration and designas alternative two, but
instead would tie the power feed from the GSU transformer yard to Xcel Energy’s 115 kV
Johnny CakeTransmission Line located directly to the east of the facility.
6.The combustion turbine will be fueled by natural gas.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 (NO)reduction.
X
Environmental Review of the CHPProject
7.This CHPProject will generate more than 100,000 tons per year (TPY) of greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.Therefore, Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp.15(B) requires the preparation of an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW).Because this CHPProject will be designed for or capable of
operating at a capacity of between 25 megawatts and 50 megawatts of electric power, Minn. R.
4410.4300, supb.3 also requirethe preparation of an EAW.
8.The GHGemission category designates the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as the
responsible governmental unit (RGU) for preparing the EAW, while theelectric power category
designates the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) as the RGU.Based on Minn. R. 4410.0500, subp.
5(B), and with concurrence of EQB staff, the MPCA is the RGU for the EAWunder both categories,
as the governmental unit with the greatest responsibility forsupervising orapproving the CHP
Project as a whole.
9.An EAW is a brief document designed to set outthe basic facts necessary to determine whether an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping
process for an EIS. (Minn. R. 4410.0200, subp. 24).
2
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
10.The MPCA provided public notice of the CHPProject asfollows:
a)Notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment was published in the EQB Monitoron
December 22, 2014, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.
b)The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website at
http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.
c)The MPCAprovided a news release to media, Twin Cities metro counties, and other interested
parties on Dec 22, 2014.
11.Duringthe 30-day comment period,the MPCA received comment lettersfromthe Army Corps of
Engineers, Metropolitan Council, city of Rosemount,and Dakota County.A list of the comment
letters receivedand copies of the lettersareincluded as Appendix A to these Findings.
12.The MPCA preparedwritten responsesto the comment lettersreceived during the 30-day public
comment period. The responsesto the commentsare included as Appendix Bto these findings.
Standard for Decision on the Need for an EIS
13.The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the
EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The agency
must order anEISfor projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects(Minn. R.
4410.1700, subp. 1).In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental
effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the
project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:
A.Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;
B.Cumulative potential effects.The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the
following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the
contribution from the projectis significant when viewed in connection with other contributions
to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved
mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the
efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;
C.The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public
regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that
can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the
project; and
D.The extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other
available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the projectproposer,
including other EISs.
Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects
14.TheMPCA finds that the types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the CHP
Project includeimpacts from air emissions.
3
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
15.Written comments received during the comment period raised the issue of impacts to on-site wells.
16.The MPCA makes the following findings on the extent and reversibilityof impacts that are
reasonably expected to occur from the CHPProject:
Findings on Air EmissionImpacts
17.Air emissions will be generated from the operation of the combustion turbine(EU359)and duct
burners(EU360).
18.Anair quality modeling analysis was performed on the Projectand reviewed by the MPCA during its
review of FHR’s application for an air emissions permit amendment. The proposed Project will be
governed by an air emissions permit.
19.The air emissions permit for the Project will include air emissions limits and a requirement to
operate air pollution control equipment.Add-on control equipment for the combustion turbine
includesSelective Catalytic Reduction(SCR)for nitrogen dioxide (NO)control, and a catalytic
x
oxidizer for carbon monoxide (CO)and volatile organic compound (VOC)control. Add-on control
equipment for the duct burners includes SCR forNOcontrol, and a catalytic oxidizer forCO and
x
VOC control.
20.The Refinery is an existing major source under Title V (Part 70) of the federal Clean Air Act
Amendments because the facility-wide potential to emit (PTE)iscurrently above major source
thresholds (i.e., 100 TPY) for several criteria pollutants. The air emissions from the proposed
Project, alone, would be below Title V thresholds.The proposed Project will not change the status
of the Refinery as a major source under Title V.
21.The Refinery is an existing major source under the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD)Program (40 CFR 52.21) because the facility-wide PTE is greater the PSD thresholdfor several
criteria pollutants. The air emissionsfrom the proposed Projectare above the Significant Emission
Rate (SER) threshold formajor PSD sources forPM10, PM2.5 and greenhouse gas (GHG). Therefore
the Project requires a major modification of itspermit and Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) analysis.
22.The Refinery is an existing major source of hazardous air pollutants(HAPs)under the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants(NESHAP)Program (40 CFR Part 63) because the
facility-wide PTE is greater than the NESHAP thresholds (i.e., 10 TPY of any single HAP and 25 TPY of
all HAPs combined). The air emissions from the proposed Project, alone, would be below NESHAP
thresholds. Theproposed Project will not change the status of the Refinery as a major source under
40 CFR Part 63.
23.Air dispersion modeling was conducted following an MPCA-approved protocol. The U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)preferred model, the American Meteorological
Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model Improvement Committee’s Dispersion
Model (AERMOD) was used to conduct the analysis. Worst-case hourly emissions from both the
CHP Project and theTier 3 Project were included. Also worst-case stack temperatures were input to
the model, along with actual local geography.
4
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
24.Modelingresults were compared to Significant Impact Levels (SILs), provided by the EPA. As long as
representative ambient background concentrations are more than a SIL below the NAAQS, the SIL
thresholds can be used to determine whether a source could cause or contribute to a violation of
the NAAQS, i.e. a significant deterioration of air quality. The SIL analysis was valid in this case as
representative background concentrations were more than a SIL below the NAAQS for all
pollutants. The results of the air quality modeling demonstrate that the total ambient pollutant
concentrations of the CHP Project and Tier 3 Project combined are below the EPA Significant Impact
Levels (SILs) for each criteria pollutant.
25.Detailed screening conducted by MPCA also showed the CHP project would not cause or contribute
to an exceedance of PM2.5 increment levels. These results show the combined projects are not
expected to produce a significant deterioration of air quality. If any of the analysis conducted as
part of this project modeled a pollutant concentration greater than the SILs, the MPCA would have
requested additional refined analysis.
26.With respect to the reversibility of air quality impactsthat are reasonably expected to occur from
the Project,air emissions from theCHP Projectwill continue whiletheCHP Projectremains in
operation, and would cease only if the CHP Project were to be temporarily or permanently closed.
While in operation, the CHP Project is expected to meet applicable air quality standards and criteria.
If excessive air emissions or violations of the ambient air standards were to occur, air quality
impacts are likely to be temporary in nature and corrective measures could be implemented. Such
measures could include the initiation of a complaint investigation by the MPCA and requiring the
Project Proposer to make operation and maintenance changes.
27.The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record areadequate to address the concerns related to airemissions. The impacts on air
emissionsthat are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed CHP Projecthave been
considered during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be
required to prevent significant adverse impacts.
28.The MPCA finds that the CHP Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air
emissions that are reasonably expected to occur from theCHPProject.
Findings on Public Comments on Impacts to on-site wells.
29.There may be a public water supply wellnear the CHP Project site.A third party contractor will
investigate the potential well, working with Dakota County. If thewell is found, it will be properly
sealed by a licensed well contractor, brought back into use,or obtain coverage under an annual
Unused Well Permit.
30.The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental
review record is adequate to address the concerns related to impacts to on-site wells.The impacts
to on-site wellsthat are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed CHPProjecthave been
considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have
been developed.
5
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
31.The MPCA finds that the CHPProject, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant
environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to on-site wells
that are reasonably expected to occurfrom the CHPProject.
Cumulative Potential Effects
32.The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential
for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this
determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant;
whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other
contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with
approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and
the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” Minn. R. 4410.1700
subp.7.b. The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
33.The MPCA considered the cumulative potential effects for the proposed CHP Project on air quality.
This analysis included consideration of background concentrations for the area and the impacts
from both the proposed CHP Project and another proposed project by FHR known as the Clean
Fuels Project, described in Paragraph 34. The EAW makes the following findings on the cumulative
potential effects for the proposed CHP Projecton air quality.
34.FHR is also proposing, in addition to the CHP Project, to make Refinery changes to meet the
requirements of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 3 gasoline sulfur standard,
install a process to convert recovered gas containing sulfur and nitrogen into a salable aqueous
liquid fertilizer (ammonium thiosulfate), improve the Refinery’s sour water skimming and storage,
and lastly switching to a more efficient amine solution.All of these projects are collectively called
the Clean Fuels Projects, whichwill be occurring on a similar time frame as the CHP Project;
therefore their air emissions impacts are considered cumulatively.
35.Thecumulative potential effects on air quality from this project were evaluated by considering
background concentrations for the areaand the impacts from both the CHP Project and the Tier 3
Clean Fuels Projects.The combined modeled impacts of both projects were equal or less than the
applicable SIL and when added to background values were below the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard(NAAQS).ThisProject willnot contribute significantly to adverse cumulative potential
effects on air quality.
36.Basedoninformation on the proposed CHP Projectobtained from air modeling, permit application
processes, a site visit by MPCA staff,information presented inthe EAW, and in consideration of
potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA findsnopotential for
significant cumulative effects from theCHP Project.
The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public
Regulatory Authority
`
37.The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for
significant environmental effects is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subjectto
mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures
6
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources –Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified
environmental impacts of the project." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C.The MPCA findings with
respect to this criterion are set forth below.
38.The following permits or approvals will be required for the CHPProject:
Unit of GovernmentPermit or Approval Required
MPCAAir Emission Permit
MPCANational Pollutant DischargeElimination System
(NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS)IndustrialStormwater
Multi-Sector GeneralPermit
MPCAConstruction Stormwater NPDES/SDS Permit
Rosemount Fire MarshalPlan Review and Approval
City of RosemountBuilding Permit; Excavation andGrading Permit; Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment; Site Plan Review.
Minnesota Public UtilitiesRoute Permit
Commission (MPUC)*
MidcontinentTransmission Study
Independent System
Operator (MISO)*
*Only required if transmission alternatives 2 or 3 are selected.
39.MPCA Air Emissions Permit Amendment. An Air Emissions Permit Amendmentto FHR–Pine Bend’s
existing Federal Part 70 permit must be issued before construction can begin. The Air Emission
Permit willcontain operational and emission limits, includingrequirements for use of control
equipment, that willhelp prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.
40.MPCA NPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater General Permit.Flint Hills has a NPDES/SDS Industrial
Stormwater General Permit.TheNPDES/SDS Industrial Stormwater Permit requires that specific
conditions be adhered to for the operation of the Project, and for overall compliance with water
quality requirements. Flint Hills will need to update itsStormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)to include the new CHP Project.
41.MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit. An NPDES/SDS Construction
Stormwater General Permit is required. A General NPDES Construction Stormwater Permit is
required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of best management
practices (BMPs) such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded
sediment from leaving the construction site. Flint Hillsmust have a SWPPP detailingthe BMPs to be
implementedandthat will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment;
inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control
measures will be implemented. The general permit also requires adequate stormwater treatment
capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the Project is
constructed.
42.Rosemount Fire Marshal.The Rosemount Fire Marshal will need to review and approve the Project
plan.
7
On the Need for an Environmental Impact StatementFindings of Fact
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration ProjectConclusions of Law
Rosemount, MinnesotaAnd Order
43.City of Rosemount.A Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit,Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment, andSite Plan Reviewwill be required. These permits or approvals will ensure
compliance with local ordinances, zoning, environmental, regulatory, and other requirements that
are needed toavoid adverse effects on adjacent land uses.
44.Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC).A Route Permit will be required if FHR decides to
build transmission alternatives 2 or 3.
45.Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO). A TransmissionStudy will be required if FHR
decides to build transmission alternatives 2 or 3.
46.The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental
effects of the CHPProject. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the CHPProjectare
subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.
The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other
Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including
Other EISs
47.The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can
be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by
public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs,” Minn.R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. D. The
MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.
48.The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the environmental impact
analysis for the proposed CHPProject:
·data presented in the EAW
·FHR’s airpermit application
·airdispersion modeling report
49.This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the
projectproposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staffexperience, and other available
information obtained by staff.
50.The environmental effects of the CHP Project have been addressed by the design and permit
development processes, and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans.There are no
elements of the CHP Projectthat pose the potential for significant environmental effects.
51.Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studiesby public agencies or the
project proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the
environmental effects of the CHPProjectthat are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated
and controlled.
52.The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix B) as the
basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.
8
APPENDIX A
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
1.Ryan Malterud, Army Corps of Engineers.Letterreceived 1/05/2015.
2.LisaBeth Barajas, Metropolitan Council. Letter received 1/20/15.
3.William H. Droste, City of Rosemount. Electronic communication received 1/21/2015.
4.Steve Mielke, Dakota County. Electronic communication received on 1/21/2015.
APPENDIX B
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Flint Hills Resources – Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Cogeneration Project
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW
1.Comments by Ryan Malterud, Army Corps of Engineers.Letter received on 1/05/2015.
Comment 1-1:The Army Corps of Engineers commented that based on available information, a
Department of Army (DA) permit will not be required.
Response: The comment is noted.
2.Comments by LisaBeth Barajas, Metropolitan Council. Letter received on1/20/15.
Comment 2-1:Commenter stated that the EAW was adequate.
Response:The comment is noted.
3.Comments by William H. Droste,City of Rosemount.Electronic communication received on
1/21/2015.
Comment 3-1:The city of Rosemount commented that the EAW states that the project will generate
up to 49.9 MW of electricity, however if the total capacity of all equipment are calculatedand no
controls were put in place, the capacity would be 54.9 MW. The commenter stated that if FHR wants to
generate greater than 49.9 MW, then FHR should seek review and approval from the Public Utilities
Commission (PUC).
Response:The comment is noted.
Comment 3-2:The city of Rosemount commented that the EAW left out two City permits or approvals
required.
Response: Flint Hills hasbeen made aware of these requirements.The CHP EAW for the permanent
record, available on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) website and in the MPCA
Environmental Review file, has been modified with the additional City permits or approvals.
Comment 3-3: The city of Rosemount commented that currently a combined heat and power project is
not allowed under the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning district. An ordinance amendment and site plan
review will be required before the project can move forward.
Response:Flint Hills has been made aware of this requirement.
Flint Hills Resources –
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)CogenerationProjectResponses to Comments on the
Rosemount, MinnesotaEnvironmental Assessment Worksheet
Comment 3-4:The city of Rosemount pointed out that EAW incorrectly identified that sanitary
wastewater will be sent to the city of Rosemount’s publiclyowned treatment works (POTW). The correct
treatment plant is the Empire Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by the Metropolitan Council.
Response:The comment is noted.The CHP EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA
websiteand in the MPCA Environmental Review file, liststhe correct wastewater treatment plant.
Comment 3-5:The city of Rosemount commented that buildings within the HI: Heavy Industrial zoning
district facing a public right-of-way must be constructed with 100% of the façade of masonry and that all
other facades must be at least 40% masonry.
Response:Flint Hills has been made aware of theserequirements.
Comment 3-6:The city of Rosemount pointed out that the cumulative air quality effectsofthe
combinedCHP and the Tier 3 projects listed in the CHP EAW(page 44)did not match the Tier 3 EAW
(page 43).
Response:The discrepanciesbetween the EAWs are a mistake. The correct combined CHP and Tier 3
modeling results are given in the Tier 3 EAW andalso shown in the table below.
3
PollutantAveragingPeriodSIL(g/m)LessthanSIL?
MaximumModeled
3
Concentration(g/m)(Y/N)
CO1-hour6.972000Y
8-hour4.33500Y
24-hour0.545Y
PM
10
Annual0.071.0Y
24-hour0.441.2Y
PM
2.5
Annual0.070.3Y
1-hour6.437.52Y
NO
2
Annual0.181.0Y
1-hour4.637.83Y
SO
2
3-hour4.2225Y
24-hour1.245Y
Annual0.121Y
1-hour2.082.1Y
HS
2
In addition, the CHP maximum modeled concentrations given in the CHP EAW (page 33)werealso
incorrect. See the table below for the corrected results.
3
PollutantAveragingPeriodSIL(g/m)LessthanSIL?
MaximumModeled
3
Concentration(g/m)(Y/N)
CO1-hour2000Y
6.95
8-hour500Y
4.33
24-hour5Y
PM.54
10
Annual1.0Y
.041
24-hour1.2Y
PM
.376
2.5
Annual0.3Y
.041
2
Flint Hills Resources –
Combined Heat and Power (CHP)CogenerationProjectResponses to Comments on the
Rosemount, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet
1-hour7.52Y
NO2.27
2
Annual.0661.0Y
1-hour.3497.83Y
SO
2
3-hour25Y
.355
24-hour5Y
.132
Annual1Y
.010
Modeling results given inthe CHP EAW were preliminary. During the EAW process, modeling was
updated using the latestversionsofthe modeling software and meteorological processing software as
recommended by MPCA’sdispersion modeling guidance. These adjustments resulted in slight changes
to the predicted modeled concentrations. The CHP EAW tables werenot updated to show these slight
changes. The conclusions of the cumulative effects remainthe same.
The CHP EAW for the permanent record, available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental
Review file, has been modified with the corrected tables.
4.Comments bySteve Mielke, Dakota County.Electronic communication received on 1/21/2015.
Comment 4-1:Dakota County commented that the table of wells listedand Figure 11 in the EAW are
inadequate.
Response: Leaving out thementioned wells was amistake. The CHPEAW for the permanent record,
available on the MPCA website and in the MPCA Environmental Review file, has beenmodified to
correctly list all of the well sitesand anupdated Figure 11.
Comment 4-2:Dakota County commented that near the CHP site location there may be a public water
supply well. Research into this well must be conducted to ensure it is not in use,then it must either be
properly sealed by a licensed well contractor, brought back into use or obtain coverage under an annual
Unused Well Permit.
Response:Flint Hills has agreed to hire a third party contractor to identify and manage the potential
well. Flint Hills will work with the County as a part of this process.
3