STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

Transcription

1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED MINNESOTA SOYBEAN PROCESSORS COOPERATIVE OILSEED PROCESSING FACILITY, BREWSTER, NOBLES COUNTY, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed soybean processing facility project. Based on the MPCA environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following,, and Order: FACILITY HISTORY Overview Minnesota Soybean Processors (MnSP) proposes to construct a soybean oil extraction facility (facility) located in Brewster, Minnesota (City). The proposed facility would receive raw soybeans and process them, extracting crude soybean oil from the beans. By-products of the oil processing are soy meal and hulls, which are sold for animal feed. Previous Environmental Review There have been no previous EAWs for this facility. Permitting History The proposed permits would be the initial permits for the facility. Compliance/Enforcement History There are no past compliance actions as the proposed project is a new facility. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed Project MnSP proposes to construct a soybean oil extraction facility located in Brewster, Minnesota. The proposed project site is a triangular property in the northeast portion of the City. The proposed capacity of the facility would be 3,000 tons per day. The proposed facility would receive raw soybeans and process them, extracting crude soybean oil from the beans. By-products of the oil processing are soy meal and hulls, which are sold for animal feed. Wastewater from the soybean processing would be discharged to the City s wastewater treatment plant and pretreated there in an aerated pond. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

2 Environmental Concerns The environmental concerns from the proposed facility include air emissions, the potential for odors, noise and dust, erosion and sedimentation during construction, and water quality impacts. Permitting Requirements Required permits are listed in Paragraph 28 below. Construction for the proposed facility will not start until permits are issued. These permits will mandate that the facility operates in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R subp. 15.A., an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed facility. Pursuant to Minn. R (1999), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on August 30, 2002, and is hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to interested parties on August 28, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on September 2, The EAW was available for review on the MPCA Web site at on August 30, The public comment period for the EAW began on September 2, 2002, and ended on October 2, The MPCA received a total of 5 comment letters. Comment letters were received from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Heron Lake Watershed District, and the Heron Lake Watershed Restoration Association during the 30-day public comment period. One comment letter, from the Minnesota Historical Society, was received after the comment period. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all EAW comments received during the 30-day public comment period, as well as for the comment received after the 30-day public comment period. Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R , subp. 1 (1999), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. 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 , subp. 7 (1999). These criteria are: 2

3 A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority; 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 project proposer, including other EISs. THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 6. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R , subp. 7.A (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below. 7. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality: A. Air Emissions; B. Odor; C. Noise; D. Dust; and E. Traffic. 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Air Emissions An analysis of the potential increases in the emission of air pollutants has been performed in conjunction with MnSP s application for an air permit amendment. Preliminary estimates of air emissions that were submitted to the MPCA by MnSP indicate that the plant would be a major source for Federal Part 70 air permitting and Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations. The volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions are primarily hexane, which is classified as a Hazardous Air Pollutant (HAP). After startup and shakedown of the facility, the plant should recover better than 99.9 percent of the commercial hexane and re-use it in the extractor. Most of the process equipment that would generate particulates (dust) would be controlled with fabric filters. Fabric filters represent Best Available Control Technology (BACT). Certain other sources of dust, primarily those with a high moisture content in the exhaust stream, would have cyclones instead. The total facility controlled emissions are proposed to be as follows. These emissions represent the maximum emissions for the initial year of operation. Following a 6-month shakedown period, 3

4 more stringent emission limits will apply under the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Vegetable Oil Extraction. Therefore, subsequent years VOC and HAPs emissions will be lower than the totals listed below. The HAPs emissions are primarily n-hexane. Less than one ton per year of HAPs would be from combustion byproducts. Pollutant Amount (tons per year) Particulate matter (PM) 244 PM less than 10 um in size (PM 10 ) 136 Sulfur oxides 22 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 69 VOC 1085 Carbon Monoxide 66 HAPs 949 Air dispersion modeling of the MnSP facility was performed for PM, PM10, NOx and hexane. Emissions from the proposed facility were added to background concentrations except for hexane. Background concentrations represent the amount of the pollutants already in the air. Those amounts were taken from monitoring data from other parts of the state. The model also considered the impacts from truck exhaust and fugitive dust emissions from traffic. The air modeling results show whether the predicted concentrations in the air of these compounds would meet state and federal air quality requirements. These requirements include: 1) federal Potentially Significant Deterioration (PSD) increment standards; 2) National Ambient Air Quality Standards; 3) Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards; and 4) the Minnesota Department of Health s n-hexane Health Risk Value. PSD increment standards are regulations that are designed to limit degradation of air quality in areas that currently have clean air. The modeling indicated that the concentrations of PM, PM 10, NOx and n-hexane were below the applicable standard or health risk value. No significant impacts on health or welfare would therefore be expected from these four pollutants. B. Odor A noticeable toasted soybean meal odor is commonly associated with crushing and extraction plants. Prevailing winds tend to be from the west and southwest, meaning soybean meal odors would normally be carried away from the City. There may also be an exhaust smell in the immediate area from idling diesel trucks in the truck staging area. The proposed facility is in an area that is zoned industrial. Adjacent property is zoned either industrial or agricultural. The nearby terrain is fairly flat. Therefore, the area does not appear prone to temperature inversions that could cause odors to settle. Although odors may be present, a significant impact is not anticipated. C. Noise Noise would be produced during construction activities. Acoustic silencers would be installed on exhaust stacks and fans as needed during the construction phase of the facility. Any potential construction noise impacts would be temporary. Noisy process equipment, such as rotating and reciprocating equipment, would be housed in the buildings. The proposed buildings would be located primarily in the center of the parcel, and away from property boundaries. The facility would be required to comply with the state daytime and 4

5 nighttime noise level limits. These limits are based on the land use of the receiving property. Significant impacts from process noise are therefore not expected. Higher traffic levels would result in increased local traffic noise. To minimize idling noise, an onsite truck holding area would be used so that trucks would not have to wait off-site (such as on nearby roads) to unload. Noise may also be generated from switching rail cars on or off the MnSP rail spur. D. Dust Dust would be generated as part of the facility s construction, including construction traffic. Dust from traffic generated by the facility operation would be minimized because access roads, on-site roads, and parking areas would be paved. Dust from grain handling and processing would be controlled according to federal BACT requirements. Significant impacts from dust are therefore not expected. E. Traffic The facility would result in a large amount of additional truck traffic on the roads. A probable range of 200 to 400 trucks per day are expected to make a round trip to and from the facility. Air emissions from diesel trucks were considered in the modeling discussed above. The MnDOT comment letter identified a number of recommended roadway improvements; however, these primarily concerned safety and load capacity rather than air quality concerns. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur would be reversible. Any air emissions or noise that are released to the atmosphere would not be recovered. However, as discussed above, there is no record evidence indicating that this facility is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality. 10. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed facility have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. 11. The MPCA finds that the facility, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions. 5

6 12. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this facility to water quality: A. Water Use and Ground Water Supplies; B. Wastewater; C. Surface Water Runoff; and D. Heron Lake. 13. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Water Use and Ground Water Supplies The proposer estimates the water requirements for the facility at approximately 600,000 gallons per day, at a rate up to 600 gallons per minute (gpm). The use of a Minimum Waste Water Discharge System, that would reuse wastewater in the plant processes, has been considered in the water allocation. This system would save approximately 35 gpm. The cooling tower will recycle water approximately three times before that water would need to be discharged. Water use would be for the soybean processing season or approximately 310 days per year. It appears likely that the source may be the city of Heron Lake; however, the specific source of the proposed water supply has not been confirmed. B. Wastewater Four wastewater streams would be discharged to the City s sewer. They are the facility washdown, boiler blowdown, extraction process water with non-contact cooling tower water, and bathroom/showers. Flow rates are expected to be 144 gpm as an average. Phosphorous and sulfate loads are expected to be similar to domestic wastewater levels. No significant amount of ammonia is expected from the proposed facility. No chromium is used in the cooling tower or other processes. Chemicals used in the boilers include ph balancers, anti-scalants, and sodium bisulfate to treat chlorine in the water. The wastewater would be pretreated at the City s wastewater treatment facility. The composition of the process wastewater is expected to be as follows. Biological Oxygen Demand: 1200 milligrams per Liter (mg/l) Total Suspended Solids: 14 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids: 1070 mg/l Fat, Oil and Grease: 6.5 mg/l The City proposes to add wastewater treatment capacity to accept the soybean facility s discharge. The City proposes to direct the soybean plant s wastewater to an aerated pretreatment pond. The aerated pond would handle only MnSP wastewater. After the MnSP wastewater is treated, it would be combined with the City s domestic wastewater. No significant impacts are therefore anticipated due to the facility s wastewater discharge. 6

7 C. Storm Water Runoff The facility site is relatively level, with a difference in elevation throughout of about 10 feet. Steep slopes or highly erodible soils are not present. The building pad areas would be leveled. However, the remainder of the site is not anticipated to require extensive grading. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be employed during construction to minimize or prevent erosion or sedimentation. BMPs may include surface water runoff controls, such as silt fencing and hay bales. If 10 or more acres are disturbed by construction, and all drain to a discernible discharge point, a temporary detention pond may be required. A storm water detention pond will be used for sedimentation control. About 30 acres of new impervious surfaces would be added (pavement, gravel or buildings). Vegetation would be established on the remaining 30 acres as soon as practical. MnSP plans to have the 30 acres of new impervious surfaces surrounded by bands of managed perennial cover grasses that would act as a filter strip for runoff. The chemical storage area at the site would have secondary containment. With the implementation of the storm water control pond, no significant change is expected in the quality of the runoff from the overall facility. D. Heron Lake As noted above, the discharge from the proposed facility would be directed to the City s wastewater treatment facility. Phosphorus levels are of concern since the receiving stream for the City s treatment facility flows into Heron Lake. Heron Lake is impaired due to excess nutrients and algae growth. The proposed permit for the City s wastewater treatment facility would include a phosphorus limit of 1 mg/l. A concern was raised in the comments that the additional flow from the facility could cause an adverse impact at Heron Lake. The proposer provided an analysis of the city s wastewater treatment facility discharge, which includes the facility s wastewater. The impact to the 40-foot weir at the outlet of the lake is estimated to be a bounce of approximately one-half inch. Potential impacts from a one-half inch change in lake level are not expected to be significant. 14. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this facility would be reversible. Though not expected to occur, impacts from a release will be of finite duration and the environment will ultimately be expected to return to current conditions. There is no reason to believe that this facility is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality. 15. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 7

8 16. The MPCA finds that the facility as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. 17. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this facility to natural resources: A. Prairie Remnants 18. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Prairie Remnants The DNR Natural Heritage database review found three known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within approximately one mile of the facility site. Several prairie remnants ranked as very good were found just outside the facility limits and along the railroad. Impacts on the prairie remnants are not expected from the proposed facility because no rare features are along the railroad right-of-way that is adjacent to the proposed facility. The project proposer has indicated that only work related to the construction of the rail spur would be in the railroad right-ofway along the facility boundary. No materials storage or construction vehicles are expected in the rights-of-way during construction of the buildings or tanks. 19. The reversibility of any potential effects on natural resources that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that there is no reason to believe that this facility is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on natural resources. 20. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to natural resources that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed. 21. The MPCA finds that the facility as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant environmental effects on natural resources based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 22. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects." Minn. R , subp. 7.B. (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 8

9 23. The City has proposed to expand its wastewater treatment facility to accommodate the entire discharge from the proposed soybean processing facility. The City s proposal was reviewed in an EAW. The for the wastewater treatment facility project, making a negative declaration on the need for an EIS, were signed on September 23, The EAW, public comments, and MPCA evaluation did not disclose any other related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this facility in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur. 25. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the facility, including the EAW, the air emission permit application, and information presented by the commentors, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this facility. 26. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this facility will not be significant. The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject To Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 27. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R , subp. 7.C (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 28. The following permits or approvals will be required for the facility: Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) Spill Prevention, control and countermeasure plan In preparation Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number To be submitted B. MPCA Air Emission Permit Drafted Above ground storage tank registration over 110 gallons To be submitted Sanitary Sewer Permit To be submitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction Storm Water General Permit NPDES/State Disposal System (SDS) Industrial storm water discharge permit Spill response plan To be obtained prior to construction To be obtained prior to operation In process Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status 9

10 B. MPCA (continued) Very small quantity hazardous waste generator license To be submitted C. Heron Lake Watershed District Permit In preparation D. City Grading and Building Permits To be obtained prior to construction Wastewater Discharge Permit To be obtained prior to operation Utilities Permit In process E. Fire Marshall Plan Approval To be determined F. Rural Development Authority Financing In place 29. A. US EPA Spill Prevention, control and countermeasure plan (SPCCP) Certain facilities that store oil and that could affect a navigable water or adjoining shoreline must prepare the SPCCP. Elements include secondary containment, facility layout and drainage pattern, and cleanup procedures, among other requirements. Hazardous Waste Generator Identification Number The US EPA assigns this number for use by local authorities in hazardous waste licensing programs. B. MPCA Air Emission Permit The facility is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of air impacts through the MPCA process associated with the issuance of an Air Emission Permit for the facility. Operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, in the permit would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects. The draft air permit was available for a 30-day public comment period starting September 3, Above ground storage tank registration over 110 gallons The facility is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of impacts through the MPCA process associated with the issuance of an Above Ground Storage Tank Permit for the facility. Operational limits and construction requirements in the permit would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects. Sanitary Sewer Permit This permit authorizes the extension of a trunk sewer. Extension of the sewer collection system increases the overall capacity of the wastewater collection system. NPDES Construction Storm Water General Permit A general NPDES construction storm-water permit is required when a project disturbs five or more acres, and requires appropriate management of sedimentation, erosion, and storm-water runoff. NDPES/SDS Industrial Storm Water Permit and Spill Response Plan 10

11 The NPDES/SDS Industrial Storm Water Permit requires that specific conditions be adhered to for construction and operation of the facility, and for overall compliance with water quality requirements. The facility will need to prepare a Spill Response Plan. Very small quantity hazardous waste generator license The hazardous waste generator license requires evaluation of wastes, emergency planning, and personnel training. Additional requirements include the proper storage, transport, manifesting, shipping and disposal of wastes, and related record keeping. C. Heron Lake Watershed District Permit The facility is subject to regulatory control through the review requirements of the watershed district, including permits and inspections. The watershed s permit regulates surface paving and grading. The permit assures that the facility will be constructed or installed in accordance with the watershed district s rules. D. City Grading and Building Permits The facility is subject to regulatory control through the review requirements of the City, including building permits and inspections. The permits assure that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with ordinances and codes. Wastewater Discharge Permit The facility is subject to regulatory control through the review requirements of the City to allow a new industrial discharge to the City s wastewater treatment facility. Utilities Permit The facility is subject to regulatory control through the review requirements of the City, including utility permits and inspections. The permit assures that the utilities will be constructed or installed in accordance with ordinances and codes. E. Fire Marshal Plan Approval The facility may be subject to regulatory control and mitigation of air impacts through the Fire Marshal s review of the construction plans for proposed storage tanks for compliance with setbacks and other fire-safety requirements. F. Rural Development Authority and Small Cities Development Grant Funding The facility is subject to control through the application review requirements of the funding authority, which may include design review or construction monitoring requirements. 30. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur. 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. 11

12 31. 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 , subp. 7.D (1999). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 32. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed MnSP facility. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information. EAW data; and Air Emission Permit application, related application submittals, and draft permits. 33. There are no elements of the facility that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans. 34. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and the MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the facility that can reasonably be expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled. 12

13 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 35. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the permit development process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the MnSP Facility EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this facility. 36. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the facility design and permits. The facility is expected to comply with all MPCA standards. 37. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R (1999), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the facility. 38. An EIS is not required. 39. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such. ORDER The MPCA determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Minnesota Soybean Processors Cooperative Oilseed Processing Facility project and that there is no need for an EIS. IT IS SO ORDERED Karen A. Studders, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date 13

14 APPENDIX B Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Minnesota Soybean Processors Cooperative Oilseed Processing Facility (MnSP) Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW 1. Lawrence Filter, Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Comment 1-1. Mn/DOT will not be changing the configuration of Trunk Highway 60, nor will it provide funding. There are changes that the proposer should make to accommodate turning movements at Zeh Avenue (see Appendix A for the letter and complete list). Mn/DOT has spoken with the proposer about these improvements. Response 1-1. The comment is noted. The project proposers and the project engineer are aware of these recommendations. MnSP has said in a letter to the MPCA, dated June 19, 2002 that they will support the improvements suggested by Mn/DOT. Comment 1-2. It was indicated to Mn/DOT that the primary access would be from Zeh Avenue off TH 60. Item 21 indicated that truck traffic would be routed to TH 60 or County Road 1. Similar improvements to those listed for TH 60 would be required for County Road 1 if County Road 1 were the primary access route. Response 1-2. The primary access to MnSP would be Trunk Highway (TH) 60 to Zeh Avenue. MnSP has indicated that it will encourage drivers to use that route and avoid driving through the city of Brewster (City). As the proposer cannot guarantee, however, that no trucks would travel on County Road 1, the potential access route was noted in the EAW and accounted for in the air emission modeling. Comment 1-3. Mn/DOT supports deliveries by local farmers or elevators by semi-trailer trucks rather than by farm tractor-and-trailers, which are not as safe. Response 1-3. The comment is noted. Comment 1-4. Mn/DOT would not want the steam from the plant to cause reduced visibility on TH 60. Response 1-4. Visibility impacts from steam are not expected from building downwash, as the exhaust outlets and stack heights would be from 90 to 120 feet above grade. 2. Diane Anderson, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Comment 2-1. From a natural resources management perspective, the proposed project does not appear to have the potential for significant environmental effects. Response 2-1. The comment is noted.

15 Brewster Township Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet Comment 2-2. A separate EAW was prepared for the soybean facility and Brewster municipal wastewater treatment facility. Item 29 in each EAW does not include a discussion of potential cumulative effects. The DNR assumes the effects described in the WWTF EAW represent all potential effluentrelated effects from the soybean processing facility, and that there are no additional cumulative effects from either proposal. Response 2-2. As noted in Items 6 and 18 of the EAW for the Brewster Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF) Expansion, all the wastewater flow from the soybean plant was included in the WWTF review. A limited discussion of the City s proposed treatment was included in Item 18 of the MnSP EAW. No additional cumulative effects are expected. Comment 2-3. There is a disparity in understanding when the municipal and industrial wastewater streams would be combined at the WWTF. The DNR s principal interest is that phosphorus monitoring be conducted at a point that is representative of the total combined concentration of the two waste streams. Response 2-3. The MPCA regrets the confusion on this issue. MPCA staff have re-reviewed the preliminary drawings. Final plans and specifications for the WWTF have not yet been submitted. The preliminary drawings indicate that only the industrial wastewater will be directed to the new aerated pond for pretreatment, as noted previously. The pretreated industrial wastewater and domestic wastewater will both flow into the new primary treatment pond. After primary treatment, the combined wastewater will flow into the secondary cells. The secondary treatment cells would consist of one new cell plus the existing cells. The existing primary cell will be converted to secondary treatment. Phosphorus monitoring at the discharge, therefore, will be in the combined streams after they have jointly passed through both primary and secondary treatment. Comment 2-4. The DNR supports the phosphorus limit of 1.0 milligram per liter for the WWTF expansion. The DNR is concerned, however, with the large increase in design flow, which is more than four times the current flow. Response 2-4. Another commentor raised a concern over the increased quantity of flow, see Response 4-1. Comment 2-5. The DNR requests that copies of any subsequent NPDES materials be sent to Steve Colvin of the Ecological Services Division. Response 2-5. This request has been forwarded to Lisa McCormick, who has recently been assigned the permit for the Brewster WWTF. 3. Larry Eike, Heron Lake Watershed District Comment 3-1. The board of managers believes MnSP will comply with the erosion control and storm water runoff criteria set forth in the rules and regulations. The board continues to support economic growth in the watershed. Response 3-1. The comments are noted.

16 Brewster Township Nobles County, Minnesota Responses to Comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet 4. Chuck Wolff, Heron Lake Watershed Restoration Association (HLWRA) Comment 4-1. The HLWRA remains concerned with the cumulative effects of increasing amounts of water discharged into the Heron Lake watershed with no increases in the outlet capacity of the Heron Lake state dam. Response 4-1. The discharge from the MnSP will be directed to the City s WWTF. The WWTF is a pond system. This means that the wastewater is held in treatment ponds and discharged in the spring and fall. Recently, discharges have occurred in May and November. The project proposer provided an analysis of the expected additional flow compared to existing conditions and an estimate of the projected change in elevation of the lake. It appears that an average stream flow of 1400 cubic feet per second (cfs) occurs in Okabena Creek during the discharge window. The maximum discharge permitted from a stabilization pond system is typically 6 inches per day. The new secondary pond, the last pond prior to discharge, has a mean area of 4.53 acres. A discharge of 6 inches per day would be approximately 1.14 cfs during the 60-day discharge period. This is approximately 0.1 percent of the total flow in the creek during the discharge window. The impact to the 40-foot weir at the outlet of the lake is estimated to be a bounce of approximately one-half inch. Potential impacts from a one-half inch change in lake level are not expected to be significant. Comment 4-2. Heron Lake, which was recently added to the Minnesota Impaired Waters List, still remains in a hypereutrophic state. The HLWRA remains committed to restore, preserve, and protect water quality and vegetative habitat within Heron Lake and its watershed. Response 4-2. The City s wastewater treatment facility will have a phosphorus discharge limit of 1 milligram per liter. This proposed limit is intended to protect downstream resources from further degradation. 5. Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) Comment 5-1. Based on the MHS review of the project information, there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Response 5-1. The comment is noted.