STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY FINDINGS OF FACT

Transcription

1

2 ATTACHMENT 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 POET BIOREFINING-GLENVILLE WEST ETHANOL FACILITY FREEBORN COUNTY FREEMAN TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R (2007), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed POET Biorefining - Glenville West Ethanol Facility (Project/Facility). Based on the MPCA staff 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. PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction POET Biorefining - Glenville West (Glenville West) proposes to construct a dry mill ethanol production facility near the city of Glenville, Minnesota, in Freeborn County. Ethanol will be produced by fermenting corn. The basic steps in ethanol production include feedstock, fermentation, distillation, alcohol recovery, and recovering residual materials. The Facility will process approximately 24.4 million bushels of corn (683,280 tons) per year to produce approximately 65.7 million gallons per year (MMGPY) of undenatured ethanol (69 MMGPY denatured). In addition to fuel grade ethanol, the Facility will produce 200,000 tons per year (TPY) of Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS). DDGS is a co-product of ethanol production generated from spent grain. DDGS will be sold as animal feed. The Facility may also generate up to 30,000 TPY of wetcake. Wetcake is spent grain that has not been dried and is also sold as animal feed. Glenville West proposes to pump ground water at an average rate of 400 gallons per minute (gpm) and a maximum rate of 650 gpm from two ground-water wells with an annual total appropriation expected at 342 MMGPY. The Facility will not discharge any process or non-process utility wastewater. All process and non-process utility wastewater will be recycled for reuse within the Facility. Sanitary wastewater for Glenville West will be discharged to the city of Albert Lea s publiclyowned treatment works. The Facility will burn natural gas for steam generation. Corn and ethanol will be transported by trucks and rail. Permitting requirements are listed in Finding 37. These permits will mandate that the proposed Facility operate in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements. The Facility will be located to the northwest of the city of Glenville on a 235-acre parcel, generally bound by 160th Street (Township Road Number T-51) to the north and by 780th Avenue to the east. The Facility would typically operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with periodic maintenance shutdowns scheduled throughout the year. TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

3 The existing POET Biorefining - Glenville East (Glenville East) facility, formerly known as EXOL, is located southeast of the proposed Project (EAW Figure 1). Glenville East is also a fuel ethanol plant with the capability of producing 50 MMGPY of ethanol. Glenville East and Glenville West are independent facilities and will not share local management, operating staff, utilities, process equipment, grain receiving, or storage systems. However, both plants will be franchised under the POET Biorefining name and operated by POET Plant Management. SoyMor is a biodiesel fuel production facility that is located just south of Glenville East. SoyMor is an independent facility with its own local management. However, SoyMor purchases its process water from the Glenville East facility. SoyMor supplies no materials to Glenville East or Glenville West, and receives nothing from Glenville West. Environmental Concerns Typical environmental concerns for ethanol production facilities include the potential for air emissions, odors, noise, water usage impacts, and surface-water discharge impacts. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters The MPCA received three comment letters. The first letter was received from two citizens in one joint letter. Two commenters, in one joint letter, requested that the MPCA Citizens Board require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The concerns identified in the EIS request letter related to water availability, traffic, and wastewater discharge. No other comment letters contained a request for an EIS. The other two comment letters came from governmental entities. The two additional comment letters identified concerns about traffic and the review process for possible threatened or endangered species. The MPCA must make a decision on the need for an EIS based on the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules found in Minn. R. ch and which are listed in item 5 below. The MPCA s findings on the four EIS criteria are given in Findings 6 through 42. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Pursuant to Minn. R , subp. 5B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the proposed Project. Pursuant to Minn. R (2007), the EAW was distributed to the EQB mailing list and other interested parties on November 16, The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to Freeborn, Steele, Dodge, Waseca, and Faribault counties, and other interested parties, on December 6, In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on November 19, 2007, and was available for review on the MPCA Web site at on November 19, The public comment period for the EAW began on November 19, 2007, and ended on December 19, During the 30-day comment period, the MPCA received two comment letters from government agencies and received one joint comment letter from two citizens. The joint comment letter from the two citizens included a request for an EIS. 4. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during 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 received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings. 2

4 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5. Under Minn. R (2007), the MPCA must order an 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 (2007). These criteria are: A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. potential cumulative 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. 7A (2007). 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. Odors C. Noise D. Climate Change 8. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Air Emissions An analysis of the potential air emissions of air pollutants has been performed in conjunction with the proposer s application for an Air Permit. Part 70 The Facility will employ air pollution control equipment (e.g., thermal oxidizer, wet scrubber, baghouses) and be governed by permit limits to be a non-major (synthetic minor) source with respect to the Part 70 federal air emission permit program. The Air Permit will limit production to 65.7 MMGPY of undenatured ethanol, or 69 MMGPY of denatured ethanol. 3

5 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) PSD applicability regulations require grouping of all of the pollutant-emitting activities that: (1) belong to the same industrial grouping (i.e., share the same major group two-digit SIC code); (2) are located on contiguous or adjacent property; and (3) are under common control (40 C.F.R (b) (5) and (b) (6)). Since the proposed Project and Glenville East meet these criteria, they are considered as a single stationary source for evaluating PSD applicability. This means that the potential emissions from the facilities are added together to determine if PSD regulations apply to the construction of the proposed Glenville West Facility. The PSD threshold for a fuel ethanol plant is 250 TPY for all criteria pollutants. The combined emissions from the proposed Project (Glenville West) and the existing Glenville East facility do not exceed the 250 TPY major source threshold for PSD regulations. Additionally, Glenville West will limit the emissions of criteria pollutants from its Facility through the installation and operation of pollution control devices and by accepting federally enforceable emission limits. The permit limits for the existing Glenville East facility are currently less than 100 TPY and Glenville East has demonstrated compliance through performance testing, monitoring and recordkeeping. See Table 23-1 on page 26 of the EAW. Therefore, the construction of the Glenville West Facility is not subject to PSD requirements. Air Dispersion Modeling Air dispersion modeling was performed for criteria pollutants to demonstrate compliance with the NAAQS and the Minnesota Ambient Air Quality Standards (MAAQS). The modeling took into consideration the emissions from the Glenville West Facility, nearby existing facilities and the background pollutant level. Based on the air dispersion modeling, the potential increase in air emissions from the proposed Glenville West Facility and nearby existing industrial sources, mobile sources, and existing natural conditions are predicted to meet ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Although no potential significant environmental impact is anticipated with regard to the NAAQS or MAAQS from the proposed Project, the Project s air emission permit will require compliance with limits to insure that all ambient air quality standards are met for criteria pollutants. In addition, the Facility s air emission permit will also require monitoring and recordkeeping by the proposed Glenville West facility. Air Emissions Risk Analysis (AERA) The MPCA has developed the AERA risk analysis tool to evaluate human health risks from a facility s air emissions. The AERA process provides for: (1) a streamlined review of facility air emissions; (2) a consistent format for presenting the quantitative risk estimates, along with qualitative information to provide context to these risk estimates; and (3) flexibility in the manner in which the quantitative risks are calculated (the input parameters may be more or less accurate such that the risk estimates may fall along a continuum between a more conservative upper bound assessment (screening) vs. a more precise (refined) assessment of the risks). In the AERA guidance, the MPCA uses the term risk to refer to estimated additional lifetime cancer risks and the potential noncancer health effects. Potential health effects from individual noncancer chemicals are expressed as a hazard quotient. Potential health effects from all noncancer chemicals, when added together, are expressed as a hazard index. 4

6 Risk analyses assume that some level of risk is acceptable because no human activity is without risk. In general, the risk goal deemed to be acceptable for emissions from an individual facility for the risks of all carcinogenic chemicals added together is less than 1 chance in 100,000 of additional lifetime cancers based on Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidance. Cumulative cancer risks calculated from ambient monitoring data (background ambient air, not as the result at any specific facilities) are above this cancer goal across Minnesota. Throughout Minnesota, in rural areas such as Glenville, the background number is 2.5. The risk deemed to be acceptable for all noncarcinogenic chemicals added together is a hazard index of 1.0. Glenville West has completed an AERA in accordance with MPCA guidance. The AERA was performed based on a modeling protocol developed by the project proposer and accepted by the MPCA in August This modeling protocol requires the use of the state-of-science AERMOD dispersion model developed and distributed by the EPA. The AERA analysis was done for the risk from the proposed Project (Glenville West) Facility alone (individual risk); and the risk from the proposed Project, Glenville East, SoyMor and background sources added together (cumulative risk). The following describes the calculated risks for both situations. Glenville West Individually Glenville West modeled the potential impacts of its proposed Project alone. The modeled risk levels from the proposed Project only were below health risk thresholds for all risk types (i.e. the acute (.61), chronic noncancer (.23) and cancer risks (.08) for this Project alone, were all below 1.0). (Table 23-5 of EAW). The maximum modeled risk levels drop off very quickly as the distance from the Facility increases. The modeled risk is less than 0.5 at the nearest residence (400 meters or a little over one-third mile northeast) and 0.1 or lower within the city of Glenville (< one mile east). The MPCA finds that the proposed Project alone does not pose a potential for significant environmental effects. In addition, Glenville West, based on the modeling, did raise stack heights and relocated the emergency generator to minimize off-site acute impacts. Cumulative Analysis Since the proposed Project is located near two other facilities, all three (the existing Glenville East facility, SoyMor, and the proposed Project) facilities combined risks were included in a cumulative analysis accounting in addition to the estimated background health risk. The modeled cumulative acute risk was at the health risk threshold of one (1.0). The modeled cumulative chronic and cancer risks exceeded health risk thresholds (i.e. 2.0 and 3.0 respectively). The maximum modeled cumulative risk for both chronic and cancer risk thresholds (see the following paragraphs for details) occurs on 780th Avenue to the east of the proposed Project (i.e. directly between the proposed Glenville West and existing Glenville East facilities) and on the property of the existing Glenville East facility. This road is not a traffic route for the public but rather an access road for the industries. Glenville West property covers on the northern portion of this access route and Glenville East property contains both sides of 780 th Avenue south and east of Glenville West. SoyMor is on the most southern portion of this access road. See Figure 1 of the EAW. The combined cancer risk from the proposed Glenville West Facility (.08), Glenville East (~.22), and SoyMor (negligible) equal 0.3 (i.e., below thresholds). Most of the risk (~2.5) is from background sources (ambient air concentrations of air toxics) generated by monitoring 5

7 rural Minnesota locations. To arrive at the background source estimates, ambient monitoring data collected from at rural locations throughout the state were averaged. This data was generated from a study used to establish baseline ambient air toxics for locations across the state (rural, urban and suburban). The rural baseline (~2.5) was used for this project evaluation. On average across the state, 57 percent of the air toxic emissions are from mobile sources, 30 percent are from area sources, and 13 percent are from point sources. As indicated above, background values for cancer risks are elevated for all locations throughout the state and are not unique to the Glenville area. Cancer risks are elevated statewide largely because of background pollutants. The background values are due to heritage pollutants or those that are everywhere in the environment and have persisted for a long time, and not the potential emissions from any of the facilities evaluated in this analysis. For instance, in , carbon tetrachloride and formaldehyde were monitored across the state at levels above risk thresholds for cancer. Since that time, levels of carbon tetrachloride have been decreasing due to production being phase out in Current carbon tetrachloride levels are expected to be below benchmark values. Background levels, as noted change over time, and are not designed to address specific geographic area impacts, but a general understanding of baseline conditions in specific setting (rural, urban, and suburban). For the proposed Project, the nearby facilities, (Glenville West, Glenville East and SoyMor), were evaluated for the new Project s individual impact and the cumulative impacts of these facilities on the local geographic area. After considering the cumulative risk scenarios, the MPCA finds that the proposed Project does not have the potential for a significant environmental impact. The combined chronic (noncancer) risk from the proposed Glenville West Facility (.23), Glenville East (~1.17), and SoyMor (negligible) with the background (.6) was modeled to be 2. Of the facility contributors in all cumulative risk exposure scenarios examined, the existing Glenville East facility appears to be the primary contributor. This is due largely to the proximity of the emission sources at Glenville East to its property boundary, resulting in elevated risks at or beyond the property boundary. The elevated risk is not attributable to the proposed Poet Glenville West facility. Though the total cumulative risks are elevated above thresholds, there are numerous factors to consider along with the results of this analysis. One key point is that these risks are predicted to occur at a single point of maximum impact (i.e. 780th Avenue). There are no residences at this location. The risks dissipate with distance from the sources of emissions at modeled facilities. The modeling done for this project indicates a predicted risk of around 0.2 to 0.3 at the nearest residences, about 400 meters or about one-third mile to the northeast, and 0.1 in the city of Glenville (less than one mile east). The MPCA staff finds that the potential increase in air emissions from the proposed Project are not projected to exceed ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants. Based on the analyses completed for air toxics, the MPCA finds that the proposed Project will not have a potential for significant environmental effects. B. Odors The fermentation system, distillation system, and DDGS dryer emissions are the primary odor sources at an ethanol facility. The Facility will use a thermal oxidizer, which will destroy at least 98 percent of the organic compounds responsible for the potential odor emitted at the Facility. With this level of control, it is expected that the Project will not result in a significant impact from odor emissions. 6

8 C. Noise Noise modeling was done to determine if the Facility will meet noise standards. The modeling determined that the Facility will not exceed any noise standards in Minn. R. ch Based on the modeling, the level of noise generated by the proposed Project will not result in a significant impact. D. Climate Change Minnesota s 2007 Next Generation Energy Act, Chapter 136, Article 5 (Session Laws 2007) requires the Commissioner of Commerce, in consultation with other state agency commissioners, to develop a comprehensive plan to reduce Minnesota s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This plan will be presented to Governor Pawlenty by February 1, 2008, and contain a comprehensive set of specific policy recommendations and associated analyses to reduce GHG emissions and enhance energy and economic policy in Minnesota by 2020 and beyond. Glenville West will be required to comply with any applicable rules or standards established as the result of this effort. 9. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. Once emissions are released to the air, they cannot be recovered, but the release can be stopped. If air quality were to be impacted, there are measures that can be implemented to minimize impacts. For example, the MPCA could initiate a complaint investigation and require the Project proposer to make operational and maintenance changes. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality. 10. No comments were received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality. 11. 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 Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed. 12. The MPCA finds that the Project, 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. 13. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to water resources: A. Ground-water supplies B. Surface-water discharges 7

9 14. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Ground-water Supplies The source of water for the proposed Facility will be ground water from two new process-water wells (PW1 and PW2) and one existing potable well. The existing potable well is identified as Minnesota Unique Well (MUW) # and is located at a former farmhouse on the proposed Facility property. PW1 is identified as MUW #51006 and is located in the northwest corner of the property. PW2 is identified as MUW # and is located in the southwest corner of the property. See EAW Figure 7 for the location of PW1, PW2, and the potable well (labeled as 8 on the figure). The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) requires a Water Appropriation Permit for all water users withdrawing more than 10,000 gallons per day, or 1 MMGPY. Glenville West proposes to pump ground water at an average rate of 400 gpm, and a maximum rate of 650 gpm from two ground-water sources (two process water wells), with an annual total appropriation expected at 342 MMGPY. Glenville West has designed the make-up water system to supply 650 gpm from either processwater well. Only one process-water well will be used at a time, and will be limited to such by the Water Appropriation Permit. The second process-water well will be used as a backup when the primary process-water well is undergoing maintenance procedures. The two new process water wells were installed according to the proposed 2007 Minnesota Department of Health potable water well rules. Based on its proposed level of water use, Glenville West must apply for and obtain a Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR. The permit application will request authorization to appropriate a maximum of 650 gpm and a total annual appropriation of 342 MMGPY. There will be no connections or changes to any public water supply due to this Project. The MPCA finds that there is sufficient water to meet the needs of Glenville West s proposed Project and other users in the area. See Hydrogeology and Aquifer Test. Hydrogeology The area is underlain by less than 100 feet of Quaternary deposits that consist of till layers, lenses of sand, and gravel alluvium. In general, two distinct clay units of significant thickness are present across the Project area that may protect the underlying aquifers from surface contamination, prevent direct recharge to the aquifer during testing, and separate surface water features and wetlands from the underlying aquifers. Ground water in sand and gravel lenses at shallow depths is used by domestic and farmsteads within the area. The primary source of ground water for the area is the Upper Cedar Valley aquifer, which is approximately 100 feet thick and composed of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. The Upper Cedar Valley aquifer is separated from the Lower Cedar Valley aquifer by the Chickasaw shale formation. The Lower Cedar Valley aquifer is underlain by the Spillville Formation, which is also composed of dolomite and dolomitic limestone. Figure 8 of the EAW contains a representative cross-section of the hydrogeology of the Project area. The cross-section was obtained from the Mower County Geologic Atlas, Part B and Part C County Geologic Atlas Series C-11. While the Project area is located in Freeborn County, the bedrock geology is similar to that presented in the Mower County Geologic Atlas. 8

10 The two new process-water wells at the proposed Facility will each be approximately 300 feet deep and will draw water from the Devonian Upper Cedar Valley, Lower Cedar Valley, and the Spillville aquifers, known as the Cedar Valley Aquifer. Glenville West completed site-specific studies to evaluate the underlying aquifers and the impact of operating the process water well. This evaluation consisted of the completion of an existing well inventory, an aquifer test, and data analysis. The MPCA finds that these sitespecific studies, with the geologic mapping completed for the Cedar Valley Aquifer, provide sufficient information and indicate that no potential for significant environmental effect will occur from this Project. Area Wells Prior to initiation of the aquifer test, an inventory of water supply wells was completed to determine the use, location, and depth of all wells within a 1.5-mile radius of each of the Facility s production wells. Sources used to complete the inventory included the County Well Index, aerial photography, previous aquifer testing reports, field reconnaissance, and discussions with local residents. This research indicated that 59 residential wells and 3 processwater wells (Glenville East) were present within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed Facility (EAW Figure 5). In addition, two municipal wells for the city of Glenville lie just outside the 1.5-mile search radius. The Glenville East and city of Glenville wells were the only large appropriators of ground water located in the Project vicinity. The Glenville East wells are regulated under Water Appropriation Permit No and the city of Glenville wells are regulated under Water Appropriations Permit No The SoyMor facility does not have its own process-water well. SoyMor purchases its process water from the Glenville East facility. The results of the inventory indicated that of the residential wells identified within the 1.5-mile radius, 30 withdraw ground water from the Upper and Lower Cedar Valley Aquifers and 4 withdraw ground water from the Quaternary deposits. The aquifer of the remaining wells could not be determined due to lack of published information, the well owner denying access, or the structural condition of the well. The three wells operated by Glenville East and the two wells operated by the city of Glenville withdraw ground water from the Upper Cedar Valley, Lower Cedar Valley, and Spillville Aquifers. Aquifer Test The DNR required the completion of an aquifer test to evaluate water availability. An aquifer test may take 7 to 30 days to complete, depending on whether equilibrium is reached. The aquifer test determines potential impacts on the source aquifer, surrounding water supply wells, and any nearby surface-water features. The aquifer test for the Project was completed from June 26 to July 13, 2007, including the drawdown and recovery period, and followed DNR protocols. The DNR required that 14 of the wells identified as part of the water supply well inventory be observed for aquifer drawdown during the aquifer test. To be conservative and ensure that the aquifer can produce the requested water appropriation on a sustained basis, the aquifer test was performed by pumping PW2 at 800 gpm until the DNR was satisfied that the aquifer drawdown at PW2 had stabilized. Equilibrium (no further reduction in pressure head) was reached in seven days (June 26 July 3, 2007). Water levels were recorded continuously at PW2 and the 14 observation wells throughout the pumping to evaluate the amount of 9

11 drawdown across the area. The drawdown of available pressure head ranged from 0 to 1.88 feet. Glenville West modified its appropriation request from 800 gpm to 650 gpm after MPCA staff indicated that the planned surface-water discharge would not meet required standards. Considering its options, Glenville West elected to employ technologies such that no discharge would be needed (see item B. below). No discharge technologies reduce the need of fresh water as the non-process water is recycled back into the ethanol production process. Due to the technology change, Glenville West reduced the amount of its appropriation request. DNR staff concluded, after review of the aquifer test and the modeling results that, adequate groundwater supply exists for the Project. Based on the results of the 800 gpm pump test, the MPCA finds that the 650 gpm request will not have the potential for significant environmental impact. After the PW2 pump was shut off on July 3, 2007, water level data was collected for an additional nine days to monitor the recovery of hydraulic head across the area. The data indicate that water levels recovered in approximately five days and that regional hydraulic head had declined approximately one foot. The confined nature of the aquifers is apparent as water level changes attributed to pumps turning on and off were observed at distances over one mile. Although the production wells influence the pressure head across the area, the magnitude of the head decrease is relatively small ( feet). The expected drawdown for 650 gpm would be less than these levels recorded during the aquifer test, as that test was conducted using 800 gpm. The measured aquifer drawdown attributable to pumping during the aquifer test was significantly less than the amount of water above the pump intake in each of the observation wells that were influenced by the test. Therefore, the withdrawal at a maximum of 650 gpm from the process water wells at the Facility will not cause well interference. Based on the analysis of drawdown data, the confined nature of the source aquifers, the depth of the aquifers, and the presence of clay layers above the aquifers, the MPCA finds that no adverse impacts are anticipated to nearby surface water features, including wetlands, as a result of the pumping at this site. The aquifer was stressed to a steady state condition during the test. Modeling showed the aquifer having sufficient capacity for present and future uses. The MPCA finds that the Cedar Valley aquifer is capable of supporting the multiple uses in the area, including the proposed Glenville West ethanol plant, the city of Glenville, the Glenville East ethanol plant, and domestic/farmstead use. Safe Yield Evaluation The DNR Division of Waters uses a two-tiered aquifer threshold to manage water use and protect confined aquifers. The first threshold, at an elevation representing 50 percent of the prepumping available head, acts as a warning light to the appropriator. If the water level in the aquifer drops to the 50 percent threshold, the appropriator is required to start such actions as increasing the frequency of water level monitoring, investigating bringing an additional water source online, and planning to cut back the appropriation rate. The second threshold identifies the water elevation at which only 25 percent of the pre-pumping available head remains. If the water levels drops to 25 percent threshold level, pumping must cease from the appropriate 10

12 production well. Appropriation from the aquifer could not recommence until the static water level has returned to above the 50 percent threshold. Modeling based on the aquifer test showed that the safe yield thresholds will not be approached. Based on the aquifer test, modeling conducted, well inventory, and recovery rate, the MPCA finds that the safe yield will not be approached by the proposed Project. Water Use Priority Well interference is not anticipated as the result of the proposed Project. However, if there were ever an issue with well interference, Minn. Stat. 103G.261 establishes that domestic water supply use is the highest priority for water use when water supplies are limited. In the event a landowner feels that well interference has occurred, a procedure exists in Minnesota rules (Minn. R ) for resolving the problem. The procedure can be found at the following DNR Web site: appropriations/interference.html. The rules indicate that the Project proposer is responsible for mitigating any well interference caused by the Facility. Mitigation could include lowering the pumps in any affected wells or replacing the well, if necessary. B. Surface-water Discharge The Facility will not discharge any process or non-process utility wastewater. All process and non-process wastewater will be recycled for reuse within the Facility. Surface-water discharge is not an issue with this Project. Therefore, the MPCA finds that there is not a potential for significant environmental effect. 15. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that there is not a potential for significant environmental water quality effects from this Project and, although none are expected to occur, the MPCA finds that any potential effect that might be reasonably expected to occur from this Project would be reversible. The 2007 aquifer test showed recovery of the aquifer when pumping is stopped. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water resources. 16. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: The MPCA received one joint comment letter from two citizens who expressed concern that their well could go dry due to pumping of the proposed Facility s wells. The commenters also asked what could be done if this occurred. As discussed in Findings 14 and 15, the analysis indicates that the potential for the commenters well to go dry is unlikely as the aquifer test, conducted at a higher rate (800 gpm) than the level to be permitted (650 gpm), created a maximum 1.88-pressure head drop. This pressure drop was above all pump intake levels. Therefore, the MPCA finds that well interference is unlikely. 17. 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 Project have been considered during the review process, and no mitigation or special permits are required because of no surface-water discharge and the low demand on the Cedar Valley aquifer created by the proposed Project. 11

13 18. The MPCA finds that the Project, 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. 19. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to traffic: A. Truck/Car B. Rail 20. The extent of any potential traffic effects that are reasonably expected to occur: A. Truck/Car The proposed project is expected to result in 200 average daily vehicle trips, mostly between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. The percentage of increased traffic using County Road 13 due to the Project would be approximately ten percent. The percentage of increased traffic due to the Project would be approximately six percent along State Highway 65. Glenville West will work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT), Freeborn County, and Freeman Township to complete any road upgrades that may be necessary to address the increase in traffic. B. Rail Glenville West plans to obtain rail service by constructing a new rail spur corridor parallel to the rail spur currently used by the nearby Glenville East and SoyMor facilities. The rail spur does not currently cross any public roads and the proposed construction will not result in the rail spur crossing any public roads. It is not anticipated that the rail spur expansion will directly impact vehicle traffic. The rail siding is connected to an existing Union Pacific (UP) railroad line that runs parallel to Highway 65 and is currently used by an average of 11 trains per day. Facility construction will add approximately one train per day. This train traffic will be eliminated after construction is complete. However, approximately trains per year from Facility operation will occur (less than one train per day). The MPCA finds that this increase will not cause any significant congestion where the UP railroad crosses County Road 13 near its intersection with State Highway 65. Additionally, Glenville West has indicated that it will work with Freeborn County, Freeborn Township, and the UP railroad to determine if any upgrades will be needed as a result of increased rail traffic in the area. No upgrade is expected at the present time. 21. The reversibility of any potential traffic effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this Project would be reversible. As discussed in Finding 20 above, the expected effects from traffic are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect from traffic. 22. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects from traffic: One comment letter was received from the public regarding concern about increased traffic on County Road 13 and State Highway 65 due to the proposed Facility, as well as increased train traffic. 12

14 One comment letter was received from MNDOT regarding a number of access and traffic movement issues that might need to be addressed by the Facility. MNDOT indicated that, depending on the site of the proposed Facility s employee access road, a right turn lane may be needed on State Highway 65. There also was concern expressed about the possibility of trucks occasionally stacking onto or near the railroad tracks on County Road 13. MNDOT indicated that the intersection may need to be monitored. Additional warning signs may be needed and additional improvement may be necessary. The MPCA finds that, based on the access route described in the EAW, the issues raised by MNDOT are not of significant concern. However, the comment has been forwarded to Glenville West for their consideration. 23. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: The potential impacts from traffic that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed Project were considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts exists. The Facility will be required to meet all traffic related requirements. 24. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects from traffic based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. 25. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this Project to threatened or endangered species: 26. The extent of any potential threatened or endangered species effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program completed a database analysis of the site for the potential presence of rare plant communities, threatened, or endangered species, or species of concern at the project site, rail spur corridor, and 780th Avenue extension corridor. In a letter dated April 6, 2007 (Exhibit 1), the DNR identified two plant species, Sullivant s Milkweed (Asclepias sullivantii) and Valerian (Valeriana edulis ssp. Ciliate) as having been observed on prairie remnants within the right-of-way of the UP railroad. The UP railroad right-ofway is located along the south side of State Highway 65 and joins the northeast section of the site, shown in EAW Figure The reversibility of any potential threatened or endangered species effects that are reasonably expected to occur: Glenville West completed surveys of the site, along the UP railroad track right-of way, along the proposed rail spur corridor, and 780th Avenue extension corridor for these two plant species. Neither species was observed on the site, along the railroad track right-of way, along the proposed rail spur corridor, or along the 780th Avenue extension corridor. Based on land use and history, no threatened or endangered species or species of concern are expected to be on the Project site. The MPCA finds that there is no reason to believe that this Project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect from threatened or endangered species. Since no threatened or endangered species are expected to be on the Project site, reversibility is not an issue. 13

15 28. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to threatened or endangered species: One comment letter received from the DNR. The DNR clarified that it did a database review for rare plants, threatened, or endangered species only for the Project site itself, and it did not include the new rail spur corridor and the 780th Avenue extension corridor. The DNR further clarified that its Natural Heritage and Nongame Research Program (NHNRP) response letter indicated that a botanical survey would be required if the MPCA determined that there will be a potential impact to the existing railroad right-of-way near the Project, and that the Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator should be contacted if this is the case. The DNR letter states that it appears from the EAW maps that the proposed rail spur will impact the existing railroad right-of-way. MPCA finds in Item 29 below that the proposed Project will not impact the existing right-of-way and a botanical survey is not required. 29. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: Glenville West submitted a request for a Natural Heritage Inventory database review to the NHNRP. The NHNRP responded to Glenville West in a letter dated April 6, 2007 (Exhibit 1 of EAW). The response letter states that two potential rare plant or animal species or other significant natural features were identified within a one-mile radius of the proposed Project site. The database printout attached to the response letter indicates that T101N, R21W, Sections 1 and 2 of Freeborn County provided known information in this area. The DNR also indicated in its letter that if the Project were to impact the UP right-of-way that a botanical survey would need to be conducted. All rail construction associated with this project will be completed outside the UP right-of-way. No dirt work or construction activities will be completed in the UP right-of-way. Therefore, impacts to possible prairie remnants located inside the UP corridor will not occur. Glenville West did not contact the Endangered Species Environmental Review Coordinator per the advice given in the NHNRP response letter. However, the MPCA will forward this reminder to Glenville West. Based on this information, the MPCA finds the EAW to be complete and accurate. 30. The MPCA finds that the Project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects from threatened or endangered species based on the type, and extent of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur. Potential Cumulative Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 31. 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 "potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects," Minn. R , subp. 7B (2007). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below. 32. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation disclosed related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. 14

16 A. Cumulative Effects Analysis on Air Emissions A cumulative effects analysis of potential air emissions for the proposed Project was performed using the AERA process. The cumulative analysis took into consideration the potential emissions from the proposed Facility and the nearby Glenville East and SoyMor facilities. Other regional/background sources, including mobile sources, were also added to the cumulative effects analysis. Since the proposed Project is located near two other facilities, all three (the existing Glenville East facility, SoyMor, and the proposed Project) facilities combined risks were included in a cumulative analysis accounting in addition to the estimated background health risk. The modeled cumulative acute risk was at the health risk threshold of one (1.0). The modeled cumulative chronic and cancer risks exceeded health risk thresholds (i.e. 2.0 and 3.0 respectively). The maximum modeled cumulative risk for both chronic and cancer risk thresholds (see the following paragraphs for details) occurs on 780th Avenue to the east of the proposed Project (i.e. directly between the proposed Glenville West and existing Glenville East facilities) and on the property of the existing Glenville East facility. This road is not a traffic route for the public but rather an access road for the industries. Glenville West property covers on the northern portion of this access route and Glenville East property contains both sides of 780 th Avenue south and east of Glenville West. SoyMor is on the most southern portion of this access road. See Figure 1 of the EAW. The combined cancer risk from the proposed Glenville West Facility (.08), Glenville East (~.22), and SoyMor (negligible) equal 0.3 (i.e., below thresholds). Most of the risk (~2.5) is from background sources (ambient air concentrations of air toxics) generated by monitoring rural Minnesota locations. To arrive at the background source estimates, ambient monitoring data collected from at rural locations throughout the state were averaged. This data was generated from a study used to establish baseline ambient air toxics for locations across the state (rural, urban and suburban). The rural baseline (~2.5) was used for this project evaluation. On average across the state, 57 percent of the air toxic emissions are from mobile sources, 30 percent are from area sources, and 13 percent are from point sources. As indicated above, background values for cancer risks are elevated for all locations throughout the state and are not unique to the Glenville area. Cancer risks are elevated statewide largely because of background pollutants. The background values are due to heritage pollutants or those that are everywhere in the environment and have persisted for a long time, and not the potential emissions from any of the facilities evaluated in this analysis. For instance, in , carbon tetrachloride and formaldehyde were monitored across the state at levels above risk thresholds for cancer. Since that time, levels of carbon tetrachloride have been decreasing due to production being phase out in Current carbon tetrachloride levels are expected to be below benchmark values. Background levels, as noted change over time, and are not designed to address specific geographic area impacts, but a general understanding of baseline conditions in specific setting (rural, urban, and suburban). For the proposed Project, the nearby facilities, (Glenville West, Glenville East and SoyMor), were evaluated for the new Project s individual impact and the cumulative impacts of these facilities on the local geographic area. After considering the cumulative risk scenarios, the MPCA finds that the proposed Project does not have the potential for a significant environmental impact. The combined chronic (noncancer) risk from the proposed Glenville West Facility (.23), Glenville East (~1.17), and SoyMor (negligible) with the background (.6) was modeled to be 2. Of the facility contributors in all cumulative risk exposure scenarios examined, the existing Glenville East facility appears to be the primary contributor. This is due largely to the 15

17 proximity of the emission sources at Glenville East to its property boundary, resulting in elevated risks at or beyond the property boundary. The elevated risk is not attributable to the proposed Poet Glenville West facility. Though the total cumulative risks are elevated above thresholds, there are numerous factors to consider along with the results of this analysis. One key point is that these risks are predicted to occur at a single point of maximum impact (i.e. 780th Avenue). There are no residences at this location. The risks dissipate with distance from the sources of emissions at modeled facilities. The modeling done for this project indicates a predicted risk of around 0.2 to 0.3 at the nearest residences, about 400 meters or about one-third mile to the northeast, and 0.1 in the city of Glenville (less than one mile east). Based on the information presented in Finding 8 and the cumulative effects analysis, the MPCA finds that the Project does not have the potential for significant cumulative effects from air emissions. B. Cumulative Effects Analysis on Ground-water Appropriation The aquifer test protocol required by the DNR includes an evaluation of all existing water appropriations from the same or connected aquifers. In addition to including all existing sources in the evaluation, Glenville West consulted local units of government to determine if there are any future projects being proposed. To the MPCA s knowledge, there are no future projects currently proposed now or in the foreseeable future for the area. The DNR s permit application process is used to determine if the Project creates well interference or water conflict issues with other users, impacts nearby surface-water bodies, or damages long-term aquifer sustainability. Based on the analysis completed by Glenville West, under the direction of the DNR, none of these effects are expected to occur. Additionally, the aquifer test included evaluation of the recovery of the aquifer after pumping ceased and recovery was complete in five days. The DNR has a process for protecting other users of the aquifer, including the use of an interference management process, yield restrictions in the DNR Water Appropriation Permit, and curtailed production, if necessary. Based on this information, the Project does not have the potential for significant cumulative effects from the proposed ground-water appropriation. C. Cumulative Effects Analysis on Surface-water Discharges This item is not applicable since the Facility will not have any surface water discharge. 33. Public comments concerning cumulative effects: The MPCA did not receive any comments regarding cumulative effects. 34. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the Project, and information presented by the commentors, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this Project. 35. In considering the potential cumulative effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA finds that the reasonably expected effects from this Project will not be significant. The Extent to which the Environmental Effects are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 16