Granite Falls Ethanol

August 15, 2003 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Enclosed is the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC, Chippewa County. The EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and is being distributed for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. The comment period will begin the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor, which will likely occur in the August 18, 2003, issue. Comments received on the EAW will be used by the MPCA in evaluating the potential for significant environmental effects from this project and deciding on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Commissioner after the end of the comment period. If a request for an EIS is received during the comment period, or if the Commissioner recommends the preparation of an EIS, the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) will make the final decision. The final EIS need decision will also be made by the Board if so requested by the project proposer, other interested parties or MPCA staff and if this request is agreed to by one or more members of the Board or the MPCA Commissioner. The Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items. A listing of Board members is available on request by calling (651) 296-7306. Please note that comment letters submitted to the MPCA do become public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project. If you have any questions on the EAW, please contact Lynne Kolze of my staff at (651) 282-5992. Sincerely, Beth G. Lockwood Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division BGL:gs Enclosure ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Note to reviewers: The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. This EAW was prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), acting as the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU), to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should be prepared. The project proposer supplied reasonably accessible data for, but did not complete the final worksheet. Comments on the EAW must be submitted to the MPCA during the 30-day comment period which begins with notice of the availability of the EAW in the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. Comments on the EAW should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that are reasonably expected to occur that warrant further investigation, and the need for an EIS. A copy of the EAW may be obtained from the MPCA by calling (651) 296-7398. An electronic version of the completed EAW is available at the MPCA Web site http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html#open-eaw. 1. 2. Project Title: Proposer: Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Construction 3. RGU: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Robin Spaude Contact Person and Title Address Contact Person and Title Address Lynne Kolze Project Coordinator 2448 - 540th Street, Suite 1 PO Box 216, Project Manager 520 Lafayette Road North Granite Falls, Minnesota 56241-0216 Phone Fax 4. Reason for EAW Preparation: EIS Scoping Mandatory EAW X Citizen Petition St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 Phone Fax RGU Discretion (320) 564-3100 (651) 282-5992 (651) 296-7782 Proposer Volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and name: 5. Project Location: NE 1/4 NE 1/4 County Section 1 Chippewa Township City/Twp 115N Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 5B Granite Falls Range 39W Attachments to EAW: Figure 1 General location map Figure 2 Site location map Figure 3 Facility site plan Figure 4 Aerial photograph of proposed site Figure 5 Water intake/discharge structure locations Figure 6 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Natural Heritage Database letter Figure 7 Prairie remnants map Figure 8 Well locations map TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332 Printed on recycled paper containing 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers Figure 9 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12 Figure 13 National wetlands inventory map Map of domestic wells in vicinity of facility Soils map Air modeling results Minnesota Historical Society letter 6. Description: a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant (GFCEP), LLC, proposes to construct a dry mill 200-proof ethanol production facility in Chippewa County, with a maximum capacity of 45 million gallons per year (MGY). The facility would produce 157,745 tons per year of distiller’s dry grains with soluables (DDGS) that would be used as animal feed. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that would cause physical manipulation of the environment or would produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Process Description: The GFCEP would construct a dry mill ethanol production process in Chippewa County, consisting of four basic steps, which are described as follows (Figures 1-4): Starch Conversion. This process breaks down all starch available in the corn, converting it to sugar. Milled corn is blended with water backset (re-used process water) and alpha-amylase enzyme. Steam is injected into the mash flow to cook and sterilize the mash. The mash is then diluted and cooled for fermentation. Starch conversion is a continuous flow process. The plant would process approximately 17.3 million bushels (approximately 484,400 tons) of corn per year. Batch Fermentation. Fermentation involves the conversion of sugars (dextrins) in the mash to ethanol. The process begins by adding yeast and gluco-amylase enzyme to the mash and transferring it to one of seven fermentation tanks. The enzyme breaks the dextrins down into glucose, a simple sugar, which is converted by the yeast to ethanol and carbon dioxide (CO2). The CO2 flows to a scrubber, which captures the entrained ethanol and then is vented to the atmosphere. After approximately 48 hours, all sugars are consumed and the entire contents of the fermenter are pumped to the beerwell. The ethanol concentration at this stage is between 11 and 14 percent by volume. The empty fermentation tank is then rinsed and cleaned for the next batch. The proposed facility would use three fermentation vessels of 730,000-gallon capacity each and one 985,000-gallon beerwell. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 2 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Distillation/Dehydration. In this process, the ethanol is separated from the beer and purified to 200proof (anhydrous ethanol). Beer is pumped continuously from the beerwell to the top of the stripper column. Steam is injected at the bottom of the stripper and ethanol travels up the column as a vapor. Water and remaining corn solids travel down and out of the stripper as a liquid. The ethanol vaporizes and reaches 186-proof at the top of the stripper. The 186-proof ethanol is pumped through a vaporizer/superheater and the resulting vapor flows through molecular sieve beds. The sieve material in the bed absorbs the remainder of the water and 200-proof ethanol vapor flows out of the bottom. The 200-proof ethanol is condensed and pumped through a cooler to a storage tank. The flow of 186-proof alternates from one bed to the other every eight minutes. The bed not in use is regenerated by a vacuum process. The product resulting from regeneration is 130-proof ethanol, which is condensed and pumped back to the rectifying section of the stripper column. The project would include a beer stripper, side stripper, molecular sieve bed, and one rectifier column. By-product Processing. Stillage, a by-product of distillation, consists of the remaining solids and water coming off the bottom of the stripper column. The stillage is dried for storage and shipping. The stillage is centrifuged to yield thin stillage and solids fractions. The thin stillage becomes backset water for the cooking (starch conversion) system and feed to the evaporator. The evaporator removes water from the thin stillage to create a 32 percent dry matter syrup. Syrup is pumped to the mixing auger to be combined with the wet distillers grains (solids coming off the centrifuge). The mixture is conveyed into drum dryers. The particle emissions are controlled by cyclone separators. Fifty percent of the exhaust is recycled to the dryer inlet and the balance is vented to the atmosphere. The resulting DDGS exits the cyclone via an air lock divided by two screw conveyors. The first recycles two-thirds to three-fourths of the product back to the mixing auger and the second conveys the remainder to storage. Two multiple cyclone dryers and a thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler would be used at the facility. The dryers and thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler would exhaust into a common stack that would be 66 inches in diameter and 125 feet above grade. A cooling cyclone would be installed. The cooling cyclone would discharge through a 32-inch diameter stack 30 feet above grade. Additional Facilities Proposed: a. Boilers: A 125 million British Thermal Unit (BTU) per hour gas-fired thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler would provide steam for cooking, distilling, evaporating, and other plant uses. b. Wastewater Treatment: All process water used in producing ethanol will be treated and recycled in the plant. An on-site anaerobic bio-system wastewater treatment system allows the facility to recycle process waters and minimize the discharge of waste. No wastewater would be discharged to the city of Granite Falls (City). Cooling tower blowdown, reverse osmosis reject water, water softeners and iron filter backwash would be treated and discharged to Hawk Creek, via piping, and ultimately would discharge to the Minnesota River. Nonprocess waters discharged to the Minnesota River would be regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program, which is administered by the MPCA. c. Storage/Corn Processing Facility: Corn would be received via a dust-controlled dump into metal grain bins. Storage would consist of three 250,000-bushel bins. From these storage bins, corn is moved into a 4,000-bushel surge bin before grinding. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 3 Environmental Assessment Worksheet d. Hammermills: The facility would include two hammermills as part of the proposed project. A dust filtration system would be used to serve the mill. The stack diameter would be 14 inches and the stack height would be 15 feet above grade. A grain conveyor, a DDGS dump pit/auger and an elevator would be added as part of the proposed project. e. Storage Tanks: Five storage tanks, including two 750,000-gallon denatured ethanol storage tanks, a 100,000-gallon shift tank, a 100,000-gallon 190-proof tank, a 100,000-gallon denaturant tank, and a 2,300-gallon corrosion inhibitor tank would be located in the facility tank farm. The tank farm would be lined and provide secondary containment structures to protect ground and surface waters in the event of an accidental release. All tanks, except the corrosion inhibitor tank, would be fitted with internal floating roofs to control emissions. f. Water Intake and Outfall Pipelines: GFCEP plans to build two pipelines between the facility and Hawk Creek, located 1.5 miles to the east (Figure 5). One pipe will discharge treated wastewater to Hawk Creek. The other will withdraw water from Hawk Creek and deliver it to the ethanol plant for production purposes. A pipeline trench would be constructed just north of 840th Avenue. The pipelines would both be installed in a 1.5 mile, 7-foot deep, 18-inch wide trench. In some areas, rather than trenching, the GFCEP plans to use directional or horizontal boring underground to install the pipe. Horizontal drilling would not disturb the ground surface and can be advantageous when used in sensitive areas. GFCEP would use horizontal drilling under the TC&W Railroad tracks and in five other places along the route: 1) under 150th Street, 2) under the road on the Chippewa/Renville County line, 3) under Renville County Road 37 near the ground-water well, 4) under 840th Avenue, 500 feet from the Minnesota Falls grain elevator, and 5) in the road right-of-way above the ravine several hundred feet from Hawk Creek. The water intake pipe would be six inches in diameter. A Ranney well intake structure would be constructed at the end of the pipe in Hawk Creek to withdraw water from underneath the creek’s streambed. The intake structure would be located upstream of the facility’s wastewater outfall. A four-inch pipe would be constructed within the same trench for discharging cooling tower blowdown, reverse osmosis reject water, iron filter backwash and water softeners. The pipeline would outlet to the ravine of an intermittent stream adjacent to the township road. The ravine is lined with grass and rip rap, which should prevent stream bank erosion. Treated wastewater would travel within the ravine for 750 feet, where it would then enter Hawk Creek. Summary of Construction Activities: The following equipment would be used at the new facility: Equipment Location Grain dump pits/augers Truck/Rail load spout Grain bins Surge bin DDGS dump pit/auger Grain Elevators Conveyor Unloading/Loading baghouse Three fermenters Inside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Outside Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 4 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Equipment CO2 Fermentation scrubber Rectifier Column Beerwell Beer Stripper Side stripper Two DDGS dryers Thermal Oxidizer/Heat Recovery Boiler Cook water tank Hammermills Hammermill baghouse Cooling cyclone Methanator Molecular Sieve Yeast tank Slurry tank Mixer Location Inside Inside Outside Inside Inside Inside Inside Inside Outside Outside Outside Outside Inside Inside Inside Inside c. Explain the project purpose; if the project would be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of the project is to begin ethanol production, while increasing economic development in the Granite Falls area. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? Yes No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. The GFCEP has no plans to expand the facility in the near future. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? Yes No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. No ethanol production has ever occurred at this site. 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 36 acres ethanol plant and pipeline trench or Length (miles) 1.5 miles (pipelines only) Number of Residential Units: Unattached N/A Attached N/A maximum units per building Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space): total square feet 60,880 Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 5 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office 3,100 Manufacturing 32,805 Retail Other Industrial Energy center 11,680 Warehouse Institutional Other industrial 21,475 DDGS Storage Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Storage tanks and cooling tower 38,000 Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings. The dryer/thermal oxidizer stack would be 125 feet above grade. The process building roof peak would be 41 feet above grade, with a maximum tank height of 54 feet above grade. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals 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. Unit of Government MPCA MPCA MPCA MPCA State Fire Marshall Chippewa County/ City of Granite Falls Chippewa County GFCEP/Farmers Cooperative Elevator DNR DNR Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) MnDOT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 9. Type of Application Air Emission Permit NPDES – Wastewater Permit Construction Storm Water Permit Above Ground Storage Tank Permit Above Ground Storage Tank Permit Building Permit On-Site Septic System Permit Water Use Agreement Water Appropriations (3 permits) Public Waters Permit Utility Permit Entrance Permit Nationwide Permit Status Submitted Submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted Two applications submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The GFCEP is located northeast of the Minnesota River and west of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 23, approximately 1.5 miles east of the City in Chippewa County. The site of the ethanol plant has been used for agricultural purposes for many years. Approximately 30 acres of the site would remain agricultural after the ethanol facility is constructed. There are no known environmental hazards due to past site uses. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 6 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Ethanol plant site only Types 1-8 wetlands Wooded/forest Brush/grassland Cropland Before 0 0 0 52 After 0 0 0 30 Before After Lawn/landscaping 0 4.5 Impervious Surfaces 0 7.5 Other (describe) 0 10 (commercial, process, storage, office buildings, storm water detention, and water retention ponds) 52 52 TOTAL 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. The DNR’s Natural Heritage Database has reviewed the proposed project to determine whether or not any rare or endangered species would be affected. The DNR stated that there are 36 known occurrences of rare species or natural communities within a one-mile vicinity of the proposed ethanol plant (Figure 6). However, the DNR staff believes that based on the nature and location of the proposed plant, the project should not impact these rare species or features. b. Are any state (endangered or threatened) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial water bird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? Yes No If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number. ERDB 20010914-0002 20010914-003 Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Special Concern, Endangered and Threatened Species: According to the DNR’s Natural Heritage Database, the following rare, endangered, or special concern species have been found within a one-mile vicinity of the project and proposed pipeline. Species Actinonaias ligamentia (Mucket Mussel) Alasmidonta marginata (Elktoe Mussel) Astragalus missouriensis (Missouri Milk Vetch) Elliptio dilatata (Spike Mussel) Lampsilis Teres (Yellow Sandshell Mussel) Ligumia Recta (Black Sandshell Mussel) Lasmigona costata (Fluted-shell Mussel) Pleurobema Coccineum (Round Pigtoe Mussel) Simpsonaias ambigua (Salamander Mussel) Tritogonia Verrucosa (Pistolgrip Mussel) Polydon Spathula (Paddlefish) Opuntia macrorhiza (Plains Prickly Pear) Buellia Nigra (Lichen) Venustaconcha ellipsiformis (Ellipse mussel) Acipenser fulvescens (Lake Sturgeon) Status Threatened Threatened Special Concern Special Concern Endangered Special Concern Special Concern Threatened Threatened Threatened Threatened Special Concern Endangered Threatened Special Concern Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 7 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Several freshwater mussel species have been documented in Hawk Creek in the vicinity of the proposed discharge location in conjunction with surveys conducted for a pipeline crossing of the creek during the 1990s. Freshwater mussels are declining nationwide and have been described as one of North America’s most imperiled groups of animals. In Minnesota, 25 of our state’s native mussel species are listed as either endangered, threatened, or of special concern. It should be noted that all of the mussel species found during field surveys conducted over the past 15 years were not living specimens, but empty shells. It is not known whether Hawk Creek can sustain a viable community of mussels. Given water quality and substrate conditions in lower Hawk Creek, it is possible, though unlikely. Hawk Creek’s upper watershed has been heavily ditched and drained, conditions which are detrimental to mussel species. The lower portion of the creek might have suitable conditions, though no live mussels have been found there in recent years. The ethanol facility is not expected to cause conditions that would limit viability of the creek for mussel populations. The facility will not have to meet stricter than normal effluent limitations to protect any potential mussel species. Water quality regulations impose stricter effluent restrictions on facilities that might impact federally endangered species, of which there are none in the lower Hawk Creek watershed. The proposed effluent limits are designed to protect beneficial uses of the stream, which includes propagation of fish and wildlife. Sensitive Habitats: The DNR has notified the proposer that there is a native prairie remnant which is located in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline route in the right-of way between 850th Avenue and the Railroad (between T116N R38W Section 31 and T115N R38W Section 6). This remnant, which has been classified as mesic prairie, is in good condition and extends throughout Section 31 and slightly into Section 32 T116N R38W (Figure 7). Because more than 99 percent of the prairie that was present in the state before settlement has been destroyed, and more than one-third of Minnesota’s endangered, threatened, and special concern species are now dependent on the small fragments of Minnesota prairie ecosystem, the DNR urges protection of all prairie remnants. To protect this area, the proposer must not trench, grade, drive on, park vehicles, or stockpile equipment in prairie areas. The proposer has committed to the delineation of the prairie prior to the initiation of any construction activities in the area. Construction runoff from the project area to the prairie would be prevented. Immediately following construction, disturbed soil adjacent to prairie areas would be planted with prairie species native to Minnesota, or some other non-invasive cover, to decrease the opportunity for exotic species to invade the area. If at any time it becomes apparent that complete avoidance of the prairie is not feasible, the DNR recommends that directional boring methods are utilized to install the pipeline, so that impacts to this rare natural community are prevented. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 8 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Would the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. The proposed project would involve some physical impacts on water resources, though the impacts are temporary in nature. Specifically, the project would involve construction of water intake and outfall structures in or near Hawk Creek, as well as the installation of two underground pipes through a wetland to the east of the facility. Construction of Water Intake and Outfall Structures: Construction of a water intake structure, as well as the outfall structure, would require a DNR Public Waters Permit. DNR requires that such structures be designed and constructed such that they: 1) prevent stream bank erosion and scour, 2) are screened from view from Hawk Creek, 3) in the case of the intake structure, prevent the uptake of fish (including juveniles), and 4) prevent sediment from reaching the creek. In addition, the Corps would have review authority for the intake and outfall structures under the nationwide permitting process. Construction of Pipelines: During construction of the underground pipes that would carry surface water from Hawk Creek to the plant and wastewater from the plant to Hawk Creek, GFCEP would cut an approximately 1.5 mile, 18inch wide trench from the facility east to Hawk Creek (Figure 8). A portion of this trench may cross a wetland. Up to .18 acres of wetland could be impacted temporarily. Based on information obtained from the National Wetland Inventory, the wetland is a palustrine emergent seasonally flooded area (Figure 8). The wetland is estimated to be approximately 5.6 acres in size. Typically, standing water is not found in this wetland except during very wet conditions, such as after heavy rains or when snowmelt has occurred. The pipeline would not be constructed until the after the spring runoff period is over. During construction of the trench and the laying of pipe, a 16-foot wide construction zone would be disturbed for the entire length of the pipe. The trench would not be opened all at once, but instead would be excavated in segments, to reduce the possibility of erosion and sedimentation in the wetland and elsewhere. When excavating the trench, topsoil would be removed and stockpiled in the road right-ofway for later use during restoration. All other excavated material would be temporarily stockpiled on the other side of the trench if possible. The proposer would be required to utilize silt fencing, hay bales, and mulching to prevent erosion of the stockpiled materials. If ground-water levels in the trench are high enough to make construction difficult, the trench may be temporarily dewatered by pumps. After construction is complete, the wetland would be restored to the pre-construction conditions by backfilling the trench, bringing the disturbed portion to its pre-construction elevation, reapplying the stockpiled topsoil and by seeding with native wetland plant species. Groundwater levels would then be allowed to return to preconstruction levels. To prevent silt-laden storm-water runoff from entering the wetland during the construction process, best management practices (BMPs), such as silt curtains and straw bales would be implemented. In addition, Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 9 Environmental Assessment Worksheet the wetland would be staked and delineated to prevent any inadvertent damage to the area from stockpiling soil or the storing of equipment in the wetland. Restoration would be conducted in such a way that there would be no net loss of wetlands resulting from the project. A Corps permit would be required if the GFCEP decides to cross the wetland with a trench. The GFCEP may opt to use directional boring equipment to excavate the trench under the wetland. This would prevent impacts to the wetland vegetation and hydrology. No permits would be required for directional drilling under this wetland. Another wetland is located in the floodplain of Hawk Creek, near the proposed intake structure. This is an approximately 1.5 acre, perched, Type IV wetland. This wetland’s water source is believed to be an aquifer which is separate from the aquifer which feeds Hawk Creek. During construction of the intake structure, the DNR will require the proposer to determine the source of water for the wetland. This will be done to ensure that the water levels in the wetland are not negatively affected by the drawdown of water from Hawk Creek. If there proves to be a hydraulic connection between the wetland and Hawk Creek, DNR will require the proposer to conduct long-term monitoring of the wetland to determine whether impacts are occurring. If impacts occur, the proposer will have to mitigate through the Chippewa County’s Wetland Conservation Act Program. 13. Water Use. Would the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. The GFCEP plans to use a combination of ground and surface water to produce ethanol. The facility would incorporate the latest design technologies for achieving maximum water conservation. The production process is “closed-loop”; therefore, there would be zero wastewater discharged from the production process. Because GFCEP would withdraw surface and ground water at rates that would exceed one million gallons each year, the company would be required to obtain DNR Water Appropriations Permits. DNR would require GFCEP to obtain three Water Appropriations Permits - one for surface-water appropriations and two for ground-water appropriations. After reviewing the water appropriations permit applications, the DNR would issue the permits based on the actual production needs of the facility. During the first year of operations, the GFCEP has requested a total annual appropriation of 200 million gallons of ground water to run the facility. Production would begin relying solely on ground-water sources. Once a Ranney well has been constructed in Hawk Creek, the proposer is planning to request an additional appropriation of 34 MGY, for a total annual appropriation of 234 MGY from all sources. Once DNR has issued all water appropriation permits, the proposer would use a combination of ground and surface waters to run the facility. During some periods, production would rely more heavily on ground water and at other times, it would rely mostly on surface water. This approach would provide the proposer with the greatest flexibility in meeting the water needs of the facility. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 10 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Surface Water Use: The GFCEP plans to use surface water to supplement ground-water sources. The source of surface water GFCEP would rely upon would be Hawk Creek, located approximately 1.5 miles from the proposed facility. Pumping rates from Hawk Creek would be dependent on flow. Flow data has been gathered for Hawk Creek for approximately four years by the Hawk Creek Watershed Project. In addition, DNR has long-term flow data on the Yellow Medicine River, which is located in the same watershed. Based on this data, DNR has determined that Hawk Creek is a viable source of surface water that can be used to augment groundwater sources. The majority (70 percent) of the Hawk Creek water appropriated would be used for non-contact cooling processes. Water drawn from the Creek would be treated with reverse osmosis equipment and chlorinated prior to its use in the facility. During periods of high stream flow, the majority of the water needs in the facility could be supplied by Hawk Creek, giving the aquifers time to recharge. The water intake structure would be located underneath the streambed of Hawk Creek. This type of intake design is referred to as a Ranney well. In an effort to ensure that water withdrawal does not threaten the fish and wildlife in Hawk Creek, the DNR’s water appropriation permit will stipulate that GFCEP must stop pumping from Hawk Creek whenever flows in the Yellow Medicine River reaches a Q90 of 2.4 cfs. At that point, GFCEP would be required to rely solely on ground water from its two wells. A Q90 is the stream discharge that is statistically exceeded 90 percent of the time. It represents a low flow condition. The Q90 is sufficient to provide a minimum instream flow for fish, wildlife, and other instream uses. The DNR is currently exploring the use of the Hawk Creek Watershed gage, located near the mouth of Hawk Creek, for establishing a protected flow for Hawk Creek specifically. The ethanol plant may be responsible for maintaining this gage site in the future, if the Hawk Creek Watershed Project discontinues its use. FLOW (cubic feet/sec) 1999-2002 Maximum 2088.83 Minimum 1.05 Average 129.53 Q90* 11.80 *Q90 is the stream discharge that is statistically exceeded 90 percent of the time. During periods of high flow in Hawk Creek, GFCEP plans to pump water from the creek and to retain it in a large storage pond on the project site. The pond dimensions would be 700 by 100 feet. The pond would have interior sides that have a slope of 3:1 and a volume of 3,575,440 gallons. The storm-water detention pond that would be constructed on the site would be designed so that its contents could be pumped to the holding pond to supplement water levels, in the event pumping from Hawk Creek is prohibited. The water holding pond would allow the facility to have a more consistent and reliable surface-water source year-round. The storage pond would be kept full in the event that the Q90 is reached. If GFCEP is required to stop pumping water from Hawk Creek, the GFCEP would use water either from the holding pond or a combination of water from the pond and well water. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 11 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Ground Water: GFCEP has requested a ground-water appropriation of 200 MGY for production processes. Ground water would be pumped from the two wells at a maximum combined rate of 380 gallons per minute (gpm) 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Once pumped to the surface, the water would be treated by a reverse osmosis water treatment system, then utilized in processing ethanol in the plant. The facility would blend water from two wells, TW-1 and TW-2, each located in a separate aquifer. The facility would start production using ground water alone, but would have an alternate surface water source, Hawk Creek, available within a year of start-up. One well, TW-2 (unique well #667428) is located on the GFCEP site and has been determined to be located in Aquifer C. TW-2 is finished at a depth of 201 feet and screened in a 33 foot thick buried sand deposit within the glacial drift (elevation 898-865). The static water level is 66.5 feet. The City also has two wells located in Aquifer C. The static water levels in this aquifer and in the City wells, has shown a lowering trend since the City started pumping approximately eight years ago. The City wells are located approximately 3.25 miles north of TW-2. The offsite well, TW-1, (unique well #667426) appears to be in Aquifer K. This well is finished at a depth of 284 feet and screened in 24-foot thick buried sand deposits within the glacial drift (elevation 765-741). A seven-day DNR-approved pump test was completed during April and May 2002. TW-1 and TW-2 were each pumped at a rate of 250 gpm. Measurable drawdowns were observed in several neighboring domestic wells. The proposer’s consultant concluded that the aquifers intercepted by test wells TW-1 and TW-2 are capable of producing large volumes of water over a prolonged period of time. However, the slow recovery and limited areal extent of these aquifers suggests that ground water may not be available in sufficient quantities to provide the total water needs of the proposed ethanol facility over the long term. Potential Impacts of Ground Water Pumping on Domestic Wells in the Area: There are approximately 45 domestic wells within a 1.5 mile radius of the proposed facility (Figure 10). Preliminary results from ground water pumping tests indicate that water levels in at least 6-12 local wells may be impacted once production at the GFCEP begins. Due to the fact that pumping tests resulted in drawdown of some domestic wells, a well resolution contingency action plan would need to be developed by GFCEP. Domestic water use would be given the highest priority, ensuring that residents are not negatively impacted by this facility. Potential well interference problems must be addressed by GFCEP before the DNR will issue a Water Appropriations Permit. The DNR would require GFCEP to ensure a continuous supply of water to the impacted residents over the life of the ethanol facility. This would likely be accomplished by the company by making modifications to some domestic wells and/or providing an alternative source of water to residences. In addition, the DNR would establish thresholds for drawdown in each of GFCEP’s wells, which the proposer would not be allowed to exceed. The DNR has established preliminary drawdown thresholds for wells TW-1 and TW-2 at 151’ and 106.4’, respectively. 14. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. N/A Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 12 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 15. Water Surface Use. Would the project change the number or type of watercraft on any water body? Yes No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres; 5,600 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils 11 and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Construction of the Ethanol plant: Based on the Chippewa County Soil Survey and field observations, the majority of the project area is relatively flat, with slopes not exceeding six percent. Given that construction of the proposed facility and pipelines would require disturbance of more than one acre of soil, the proposer would need to obtain a NPDES General Storm Water Permit for Construction. The proposer would be required to employ a variety of BMPs on the construction site, including silt fences and straw bales to reduce surface runoff as the facility is being built. Surface waters should not be impacted if BMPs are properly implemented. Construction of Pipeline Trench: Water intake and water discharge pipes would need to be constructed as part of the project. The pipes would be four to six inches in diameter, buried seven feet deep and would each be as long as 7,700 feet long. The two pipes would be buried in the same trench. The pipe would be located between the ethanol plant and Hawk Creek, along 840th Avenue, in the road’s right-of-way. Slope breakers would be constructed, where necessary, across the pipeline right-of-way to slow the velocity of runoff and divert water from the right-of-way. Temporary slope breakers would be installed during construction to shorten slope lengths along the right-of-way and to prevent soil from entering streams and wetlands. Temporary slope breakers would consist of hay or straw bales, silt fence, and /or earth berms, and would be installed across the full construction right-of-way. Temporary sediment barriers would be maintained and would not be removed until permanent revegetation measures have been judged successful or the potential for sediment release has been minimized. A wetland is located in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline trench. The proposer may choose to use horizontal drilling methods to avoid having to cross the wetland. If this approach is selected, the wetland would not be impacted. See Item 12. However, should the proposer choose to construct a trench through the wetland, BMPs would be implemented to prevent sediment from impacting the wetland during construction of the pipeline. After construction activities are completed, all disturbed areas of the wetland would be backfilled, seeded, and restored to preconstruction conditions. No long-term impacts to wetlands are expected if BMPs are implemented according to permit requirements. 16. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 13 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 17. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any storm water pollution prevention plans. Construction of the Ethanol Plant: There are no steep slopes, nor is there Highly Erodible Land on the GFCEP property. Runoff moves from east to west across the property. The GFCEP property is currently being used for row crop agriculture, so it is likely that some overland flow and runoff is already occurring. The majority of the site would remain in agricultural production, so runoff from that part of the property would not change significantly as a result of the project. Any runoff leaving the grounds of the new ethanol facility would first be routed to a storm-water pond for treatment prior to its release to surface waters. Consequently, creating new impervious surfaces on the site is not expected to negatively impact water quality downstream of the property. The GFCEP proposes to capture and use storm water to supplement existing water sources and to minimize storm-water runoff from the facility. The storm-water detention pond would have a total volume of 194,847 cubic feet and would be designed to have two functions. The primary function would be to store storm water. The second function is to collect water to supplement the Hawk Creek water storage pond. The storm-water pond would be sized to hold a 1.25 inches, 24-hour storm event from an 11-acre area on the site. If needed, storm water in the pond could be tested, then pumped to the water holding pond on site. The storm-water pond would have a six-inch discharge line with no slope containing a gate valve, discharging into the holding pond. In the event the water holding pond is full, water in the stormwater pond would be allowed to evaporate into the atmosphere or infiltrate to ground water. Construction of the Pipeline Trench: The quantity and quality of water leaving the trench area would not change after the project is completed. This is because the area that was disturbed would be restored to pre-construction conditions. The trench would be backfilled, the topsoil would be replaced and the area reseeded. Once permanent vegetation is reestablished, the majority of runoff in this area would infiltrate into the soil or remain on site in low areas. The quality of runoff would not change significantly given that vegetation would be reestablished and much of the precipitation would infiltrate to ground water. NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permit: In addition to obtaining a NPDES Storm Water Permit for Construction, the proposer must also obtain an individual NPDES Industrial Storm Water Permit. This permit must be renewed every five years. Permitted facilities must develop and implement a storm-water management plan that includes a site evaluation, description of appropriate BMPs and a self-evaluation, monitoring and reporting plan. The GFCEP would prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SW3P). The SW3P would require the facility to identify sources of possible storm water contamination on the site. After sources are identified, the facility must implement and maintain BMPs to minimize the potential for contamination. The SW3P would also establish schedules and criteria for routine inspections. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 14 Environmental Assessment Worksheet The potential exists for storm water to come in contact with fuels, finished materials, and waste products at the GFCEP facility. However, because material handling and manufacturing process equipment would be enclosed within buildings, there is a limited potential for storm water to come in contact with significant materials. In most cases, contact would only be possible in the event of a spill, leak or equipment failure. Fuel could be present to contaminate storm water in the event of a mishap in fueling vehicles in the plant yard or in the event of a spill or leak of liquid ethanol or denaturant gasoline. Any spill or leak of fuel or finished material in the tank farm area would be captured within the containment dikes. Grain fines or dust materials accumulated near loading areas or near the cyclone used for airborne particulate removal could also contaminate storm-water runoff. In the event of an equipment or material handling failure, and if product was spilled or released, any resulting waste residues could contaminate runoff. Lubricating oils or hydraulic fluids leaking from outdoor motors, gearboxes, bearings, or other mechanical equipment can also result in contaminated runoff. As long as the processes and equipment are properly operated and maintained, the likelihood of contamination from these sources is limited. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. The project site is approximately 52 acres in size. Thirty acres would remain in row crop production. The remaining acres would be used for constructing the ethanol plant, driveways, parking areas, etc. Infiltration of storm water and snowmelt would be reduced to some degree as a result of the impervious nature of the facility’s infrastructure and paved areas. Although runoff would increase over the grounds of the ethanol plant, it would be captured and treated in the facility’s storm-water detention pond located on the northeast corner of the site. Approximately 60 to 70 percent of pollutants would be removed from the storm water as a result of its treatment in the detention ponds. The main receiving water for runoff from the pond would be a ditch near the railroad track. This ditch eventually discharges to the Minnesota River. The discharge of treated storm water is not expected to impact water quality in the Minnesota River. 18. Water Quality – Wastewater. a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. Process Wastewater: The GFCEP plans to treat all process waters in order that water can be recycled within the plant and reused. This would help to reduce the amount of ground and surface water used and eliminates the production of wastewater at the plant. An on-site anaerobic (no oxygen) bio-system treats any process water for reuse by removing biochemical oxygen-demanding substances. Non-process Wastewater Treatment: Non-process water discharged from the facility would include cooling tower blow down, reverse osmosis reject water, iron filter backwash and softeners. Approximately 190,000 gallons per day (or 69.8 MGY) of non-process wastewater would be discharged through a 7,700 foot underground pipe to Hawk Creek, averaging 80-85 degrees Fahrenheit (F). Based on the MPCA’s experience with other ethanol facilities, it is expected that GFCEP will have to treat wastewater prior to its discharge Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 15 Environmental Assessment Worksheet to surface water. A NPDES/SDS Permit would be required for this type of facility which would set specific effluent limits for the discharge (see item 18b). The raw non-process water discharge characteristics are summarized in the following table: Wastewater Discharge Sources and Composition GFCEP, LLC Biochemical Oxygen Demand Max. Volume (mg/L) (lbs/day) (GPD) 55,000 95,000 5,000 35,000 190,000 1 32 1 1 18* 1 25 1 1 28* Source RO Reject Cooling Tower Blowdown Water Softeners Iron Filter Backwash TOTAL NPDES LOAD gallons per day (GPD) milligrams per liter (mg/L) pounds per day (lbs/day) * BOD concentration levels from multiple sources of process wastewater cannot be added together. The total is a weighted value. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. The point of discharge for non-process wastewater would be Hawk Creek. Hawk Creek has a use classification of 2B and 2C. The quality of Class 2B surface waters must be maintained such that they would allow the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters must be suitable for boating, and aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing. The quality of Class 3B waters of the state must permit their use for general industrial processes, except for food processing, with only a moderate degree of treatment. Non-process Wastewater Treatment: The reverse osmosis reject water, cooling tower blowdown, and iron filter backwash would be treated, then directed via underground piping to Hawk Creek. The Minnesota River is the ultimate receiving water for GFCEP’s treated wastewater. The NPDES/SDS Permit would include the following effluent limits: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand Total Suspended Solids pH Temperature Chlorides Between 5 mg/L and 25 mg/L, pending further review 30 mg/L (calendar month average) 6 - 9 Standard Units 86˚F Between 100 and 240 mg/L In an effort to reduce the potential for stream bank erosion, the discharge would be directed first to a ravine which then empties into Hawk Creek. Any construction work in the streambed would require a DNR Public Waters Permit. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet 16 Process Wastewater Treatment: The GFCEP would treat process wastewater, consisting mainly of evaporator distillate, with an onsite anaerobic bio-treatment package plant. The treated wastewater would then be reused within the facility. Anaerobic Bio-Treatment provides the mechanism by which dissolved organic carbon, represented by COD (Carbon Oxygen Demand) or BOD5 (5-day Biological Oxygen Demand), can be converted to methane and carbon dioxide and fixed in insoluble biomass. COD/BOD5 is removed from wastewater as gaseous products. Some carbon and nitrogen are fixed or used by anaerobic microbial cultures to grow a relatively small amount of new cell mass (approximately two percent (2%) of COD fed), which results in a very significant reduction in sludge generation compared to treatment in aerobic systems. The microbes utilized in this treatment system would include hydrolytic, acetogenic, and methanogenic bacteria, along with a lesser amount of sulfate-reducing and hydrogen-transferring bacteria. These microbes, which grow as a pellet or granule up to one quarter inch in diameter, act in unison to convert complex organic molecules to methane and carbon dioxide. Expanded-bed anaerobic pre-treatment will reduce high COD in wastewater by approximately ninety percent (90%), with very low energy and maintenance requirements. This will significantly increase the capacity of existing aeration systems while reducing sludge generation by as much as ninety percent (90%). The ICM/Phoenix Bio-Methanator is a high-rate, high-density treatment system, requiring very little operator attention and maintenance. On-site Sewage Treatment System: GFCEP would be required to obtain a permit from Chippewa County for the installation of an approved on-site sewage treatment system for treatment of domestic wastewater. The system would be sized to treat wastewater generated by approximately 20 people on a daily basis and 35 people on an intermittent basis. The GFCEP must be able to identify two suitable drainfields on the property to ensure that wastewater can successfully be treated over the long term. Waste from a Potential Plant Upset: In the event of a plant process upset, if the alcohol content of the product is low, the facility can recycle the product at numerous stages within the process to adjust the alcohol content. The GFCEP proposes to recycle product whenever possible. In the rare event that the feedstock becomes “sour”, the materials would be sold to local livestock farmers to be used as animal feed. c. If wastes would be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility’s ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. N/A Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 17 Environmental Assessment Worksheet d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. N/A 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. a. Approximate depth (in feet) to Ground water: 40-68 minimum; <40 average. Bedrock: 250-350 minimum; <200 average. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Bedrock beneath the site is composed of granite and fractured, weathered granite. Neither of these would present any geologic site hazards that would affect this project. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. The Soil Survey of Chippewa County indicates that the soils at the site are primarily silt loams and silty clay loams (Figure 11). They have been identified as Seaforth Silt Loam, Canisteo Silty Clay Loam, Doland Silt Loam (two to six percent slopes), Doland-SwanLake Complex (three to six slopes), Udorthents (loamy) and Spicer-Quam Silty Clay Loam (Figure 11). Soils do not pose any limitations with respect to construction of the facility. No soil analyses have been completed for the on-site septic system proposed for this facility. GFCEP is currently working with the county to identify suitable sites for the system. The facility would have a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, storage tank containment structures to prevent spills, as well as other safeguards that should prevent contamination of soil and ground water around the facility. 20. Solid Wastes, Hazardous Wastes, Storage Tanks. a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project would be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. Generation of construction debris is expected and would be properly disposed of at an approved demolition landfill or licensed solid waste landfill. b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials would lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. Hazardous wastes would be generated by GFCEP. The majority of this waste would be solvents that are used for washing parts and lubricating oils. The wastes would be temporarily stored in steel barrels and transported to a commercial waste recycler. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 18 Environmental Assessment Worksheet c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. The following tanks would be constructed on the GFCEP property: Tanks for the GFCEP Plant Tank Fermenter #1 (EU014) Fermenter #2 (EU015) Fermenter #3 (EU016) Beerwell (EU017) Yeast Tank (EU024) Slurry Tank (EU019) 190-Proof Tank (TK001) 200-Proof Tank (TK002) Denaturant Tank (TK003) Denatured Ethanol Tank (TK004) Denatured Ethanol Tank (TK005) Corrosion Inhibitor Tank (TK006) Description/Contents Fermenter/beer Fermenter/beer Fermenter/beer Beer Yeast Mash 190-Proof Ethanol 200-Proof Ethanol Natural Gasoline Denatured Ethanol Denatured Ethanol Corrosion Inhibitor Construction carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel carbon steel Capacity (gallons) 730,000 730,000 730,000 985,000 6,000 10,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 750,000 750,000 2,300 All exterior above ground storage tanks (ASTs) would be surrounded with a diked secondary containment structure that would hold the entire contents of each tank, as well as runoff from a significant 25-year storm. Underground piping would be designed to prevent leaks and would include a leak detection system. Product transfer areas would be located on impervious surfaces and diked to contain potential releases at the tank connection and at the transfer vehicles. Storage tanks located within buildings at the plant would be designed and managed according to AST regulations. The facility would be required to have a spill prevention and emergency response plan which includes: a description of the facility, tank capacities, spill prevention, and secondary containment measures at the facility, and the maximum potential discharge that could occur at the facility; documentation that adequate personnel and equipment would be available to respond to a discharge, along with evidence that prearrangements for such response have been made; a description of the training employees at the facility receive in handling hazardous materials and in emergency response information; and a description of the action that would be taken by the facility owner or operator in response to a spill. The response plan must be retained on file at the facility at all times. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 19 Environmental Assessment Worksheet 21. Existing spaces (if project involves expansion): Traffic. Parking spaces added: 25 Estimated total average daily traffic generated: 120 vehicles Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and its timing: 90 percent at 8:00 am to 5:00 pm Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. CSAH 23 and U.S. TH 212 would be the primary transportation routes used by trucks arriving at/leaving the facility. A MnDOT Form 1721 Entrance Permit would be obtained by GFCEP so that they could create a direct access from CSAH 23 to the facility. To help reduce the possibility of noise impacts to neighboring residences, the following road improvements would be investigated: 1) elimination of rumble strips adjacent to turn lanes, and 2) discouraging the use of “Jake” brakes along both CSAH 23 and TH 212. 22. Vehicle-related Air Emissions. Estimate the effect of the project’s traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. Air emissions from vehicles would not be significant due to low traffic volumes at the facility and in the surrounding area. 23. Stationary Source Air Emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing), any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides), and ozone-depleting chemicals (chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. Sources of Air Emissions and Pollution Control Equipment: The following is a summary of air emission sources at the facility and the emission control equipment. Grain Receiving and Handling. The current proposal is to receive corn from the Farmers Cooperative Elevator Company, which plans to build an elevator facility adjacent to the proposed GFCEP plant site. Grain would be received via truck and/or rail cars. The grain would then be transferred through an outside conveyor/elevator/storage bin system to a surge bin from which metered amounts of grain are discharged into a hammermill system. Fugitive particulate emissions from the unloading building, conveyors, elevators, and bins are exhausted through a negative pressure ventilation system which continuously pulls air from these sources through a baghouse. Grain Milling and Handling. Grain from the surge bin is fed to a hammermill located outside. A blower is used to force the milled grain from the hammermill into a cyclone that discharges into the blender. The blender mixes the milled grain with water to start the ethanol production process. The air exiting the top of the cyclone is routed into a baghouse. Batch Fermentation. Fermentation of sugar produces ethanol and also Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as a major by-product. Fermentation occurs in three batch fermentation tanks. The vents of the fermenters, as well as the vents from other atmospheric vessels in the fermentation and mash cooling areas, are all tied into Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet 20 the inlet of one direct contact water scrubber. The gas coming off the fermenters and other vessels flows up through a bed of nylon packing. Water flows down through the bed. A continuous blow-down of this water flows back into the process stream. CO2 and other non-condensing gases leaving the scrubber are vented to the atmosphere. Distillation/Dehydration. The beer resulting from the fermentation runs through a continuous vacuum distillation system to remove and rectify the ethanol. The vapor outlet of the distillation column is piped directly to a set of condensers that discharge liquid ethanol to the 190-proof reservoir. Any CO2 and other non-condensable gases which are contained in the beer, end up in the 190-proof reservoir and must be expelled to maintain a vacuum in the system. The gases are exhausted to a thermal oxidizer prior to venting to the atmosphere. Dried Distillers Grain Drying and Handling. Distillers grain is dried in a rotary dryer system in which wet material is moved pneumatically through the dryer. The current system features recycling of 50 percent of the exhaust gases to the dryer inlet to partially replace the air input and to recover energy. This process results in an inlet air temperature of 200 to 300 degrees F lower than a standard high-excess air dryer system. The forced air and solids exiting the dryer are conveyed to cyclones used to separate the dried grain. Exhaust gases not recycled to the dryer inlet are vented. Dried distillers grain is loaded into trucks in the same building and uses the same system as grain receiving and handling. Ethanol Storage Tanks. The product is pumped daily from the 100,000-gallon 190-proof tank to the 100,000-gallon 200-proof shift tank. Each time ethanol is transferred from shift to storage, a smaller amount of unleaded or natural gasoline is pumped from a 100,000-gallon denaturant storage tank to the 750,000-gallon denatured ethanol storage tank involved. This amount is equal to five percent of the amount of ethanol transferred. All storage tanks would be located above ground in a lined diked area. Each tank has a fire valve, a level gauge, overfill protection, an emergency vent, and a pressure vacuum vent. Product is bottom loaded into tanker trucks and rail cars. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) emissions from these tanks are included in the facility emission total. Thermal Oxidizer/ Heat Recovery Boiler. The proposed site would also have a natural gas-fired thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler with a maximum fuel consumption rate of 125 million BTU/hour at the facility. Combustion gases from the thermal oxidizer would be vented to the heat recovery boiler. Thermal Oxidizers are state-of-the-art pollution control equipment that can be used to control air emissions and are effective at reducing odors emitted from ethanol production processes. Air Emissions from the Facility: An analysis of the potential emissions of air pollutants has been performed in conjunction with GFCEP’s application for an air permit. Preliminary estimates of air emissions that were submitted to the MPCA by GFCEP indicate that the plant would be a minor source with respect to both the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and the Title V air permitting process. GFCEP would be considered a minor source of air pollution because the plant would not emit 100 or more tons per year (TPY) of any Title V air pollutant. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 21 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Emissions for criteria air pollutants are predicted to be as follows: Total Potential Facility Emissions GFCEP, LLC Pollutant Proposed Emissions (TPY) Carbon Monoxide (CO) 80.36 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 91.35 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 0.55 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 94.39 Total Particulate Matter (PM) 87.45 Particulate Matter less than ten microns (PM10) 65.53 GFCEP has applied for an air emissions permit with the MPCA. The air emission permit for the facility would contain specific operational and performance standards for each emissions unit. Modeling Approach To assess the potential adverse health effects resulting from inhalation in the vicinity of the new facility, air dispersion modeling was performed for the three major emission sources, the thermal oxidizer stack, the fermentation scrubber exit, and the cooling cyclone exit. Dispersion modeling predicts the ambient impacts (concentration) of the modeled pollutant in the air surrounding the facility, due to the facility’s operation. Both criteria and hazardous air pollutants were modeled. Criteria pollutants are pollutants for which an ambient air quality standard (maximum acceptable concentration), has been set in regulation. No official standards exist for hazardous air pollutants, but the Minnesota Department of Health and some other groups (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); State of California, for example) have developed “health benchmarks.” Health benchmarks are the maximum concentration that “at or below which the chemical or defined mixture of chemicals is unlikely to cause an adverse health effect to the general public” (Minn. R. 4717.8050). Where the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) had not developed suggested benchmark values, staff used other sources such as EPA and California recommended values for comparison. The dispersion modeling showed that no criteria pollutant ambient air quality standards would be violated by the facility’s operation. The dispersion modeling also showed that for hazardous air pollutants, no health benchmarks would be exceeded. The results of the model were obtained using The EPA screening model, SCREEN3. The results from each emission source in the facility and for each hazardous air pollutant were added together to get a total Hazard Index (HI) for the ethanol facility. The maximum impacts were analyzed at 500 feet (approximately 150 m) since that is the location of the nearest residence. The next closest resident is located about 2,500 feet from the proposed facility. The dispersion modeling results are attached in Figure 12. Results from the Screen3 Model were compared to inhalation Health Benchmark Values (IHBVs). The comparison is made by taking the ratio of the modeled concentration to the IHBV. Generally, if a chemical is the only one emitted from the source, and the ratio of that chemical’s air concentration to its IHBV is less than or equal to one, then that chemical is considered unlikely to cause an adverse health effect on the general public. To account for the possible cumulative affects of many pollutants, the MPCA adds together the modeling results from all pollutants and sources at an individual facility. If the sum of ratios is less than one from an individual facility, the facility it not believed to pose significant health impacts to neighboring residents, regardless of background concentrations. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 22 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Hourly maximum ambient air concentrations were compared to acute IHBVs. Annual concentrations were compared to chronic cancer IHBVs and chronic non-cancer IHBVs. Cancer risks are more commonly expressed in terms of the excess lifetime cancer risk that could potentially occur as a result of exposure to the chemical concentrations evaluated. An excess lifetime risk of 1E-05 (one in 100,000) is used by the MDH as the benchmark for mixtures of carcinogenic chemicals from a given facility below which cancer risk is typically considered acceptable by the MPCA. MPCA Modeling Results (See Figure 12 for more detailed findings): Fermentation Stack 50 percent of Detection Limit (DL) used Cooling Cyclone 50 percent of DL used Thermal Oxidizer 100 percent of DL used Sum Acute HI 0.386 Cancer HI 0.0732 Chronic HI 0.334 Acute HI 0.360 Acute HI 0.002 0.748 Cancer HI 0.006 Cancer HI 0.00 0.158 Chronic HI 0.276 Chronic HI 0.001 0.611 Notes: 1. Due to the limits of technology in detecting some pollutants, the EPA/MPCA assumes that the pollutant is found at 50 percent of the detection limit. 2. Only two of the nine test runs on fermentation scrubbers were above detection limits for acrolein. 3. The Cancer HI for the fermentation stack is mainly due to acetaldehyde. 4. Only two of the ten test runs on cooling cyclones showed results above detection limits for acrolein. Summary of Findings As can be seen from the above results, none of the acute, cancer, or chronic non-cancer hazard indices sum to one or greater. Also, none of the criteria pollutant ambient standards were exceeded. The particulate matter (PM10) ambient concentration from the cooling cyclone operation was approximately 3 percent of the standard; the carbon monoxide ambient concentration from the thermal oxidizer was 7.5 percent of the standard, and the PM10 concentration from the thermal oxidizer was 4.8 percent of the ambient standard. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Would the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 23 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Odors: The fermentation tanks and the DDGS Dryer are typically the main contributors to odor problems at ethanol facilities. Granite Falls Community Ethanol is proposing to use a thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler to control odors from the facility. The proposed thermal oxidizer would destroy at least 95 percent of the organic compounds believed to cause odors from the facility. With this level of control, the only people that may potentially be impacted by odors would be the neighbors immediately surrounding the facility. Fugitive odors from process buildings would likely be greater in the summer when housing doors may be open. However, odor impacts to local residences are expected to be minimal due to the prevailing wind direction near the facility in the summer (south/southwest). At this point in time, thermal oxidization is a state-of-the-art technology used to control odors at ethanol facilities. Although odors at the facility are not expected to be significant, GFCEF would investigate other odor reducing technologies if odor complaints are received. Noise: Noise levels at existing ethanol facilities in Minnesota have been reviewed. Drawing on that information, the proposer has determined that no noise source at the facility would exceed 80 decibels at the property line. This would meet the state noise standard. The distance between the GFCEP property line and neighboring homes would also provide an additional buffer that would dissipate noise levels further. No significant impacts to neighboring residents are expected. Some additional noise would be generated by increased truck traffic to and from the facility once it is constructed and operating. See Item 21. In the shorter term, there may be an increase in noise generated by construction equipment. Heavy equipment would be operated during daylight hours; however, given the distance between the new facility and nearby residents, noise impacts should be minimal and temporary in nature. Dust: Dust would be generated during the construction process; however, impacts due to dust should be minimal due to the relatively small area that would be disturbed. Construction related dust would be managed as needed through the use of water trucks on the site. As dust becomes airborne, the construction area would be wetted down with water. Dust caused by truck traffic to and from the site would be monitored. If needed, truck haul routes would also be wetted to keep dust in check. Once the facility is constructed, dust should return to preexisting levels. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? a. b. c. d. e. Archaeological, historical, or architectural resources? Yes No Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? Yes Designated parks, recreation areas, or trails? Yes No Scenic views and vistas? Yes No Other unique resources? Yes No No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resources. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. The Minnesota Historical Society has reviewed the project and determined that there are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places and no known or suspected archeological properties in the area that will be affected by the project (Figure 13). Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 24 Environmental Assessment Worksheet Based in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, the GFCEP property is considered prime farmland. After the ethanol facility is completed, the majority of the property, approximately 20 acres would remain prime farmland. 26. Visual impacts. Would the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? Yes No If yes, explain. The exhausts from the distillers grain drying system and the thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler would be emitted from a 125-foot stack. The stack’s water vapor plume would be visible from varying distances, depending upon weather conditions. Higher stack heights reduce the potential for odor problems or other health impacts associated with the facility. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? Yes No If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts would be resolved. If no, explain. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Would new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? Yes No If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) Electric and natural gas utilities would need to be expanded to allow for service in this undeveloped area. In addition, the existing township road adjoining the north edge of the property line, which eventually runs into the Chippewa County Road 38/CSAH 23 intersection would need to be upgraded from a gravel road to a ten-ton capacity asphalt road surface. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minn. R. 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. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). There are no future projects related to this facility that are anticipated at this time. 30. Other Potential Environmental Impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. None. 31. Summary of issues. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. None. 28. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 25 Environmental Assessment Worksheet RGU CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minn. R. 4410.0200, subps. 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Name and Title of Signer: Beth G. Lockwood, Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division Date: The format of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or at their Web site http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 26 Environmental Assessment Worksheet February 13, 2004 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES RE: Extension of the Comment Period for the Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant Environmental Assessment Worksheet Enclosed are revised portions of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant (GFCEP) in Chippewa County. The initial EAW was published by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on August 18, 2003, and distributed for a 30-day review and comment period pursuant to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) rules. Since that time, the GFCEP has proposed some changes in their plans for appropriating water for ethanol production. The comment period for the revised EAW will begin the day the EAW availability notice is published in the EQB Monitor, which will likely occur in the February 16, 2004 issue. Comments received on the first EAW published on August 18, 2003, and those from this comment period will be used by the MPCA in evaluating the potential for significant environmental effects from this project and deciding on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). A final decision on the need for an EIS will be made by the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board). No date has been set for the Board to hear this case. Once the meeting date has been established, interested parties will be notified. The Board meets once a month, usually the fourth Tuesday of each month, at the MPCA office in St. Paul. Meetings are open to the public and interested persons may offer testimony on Board agenda items. A listing of Board members is available on request by calling (651) 296-7306. Please note that comment letters submitted to the MPCA do become public documents and will be part of the official public record for this project. Copies of the original EAW published on August 18, 2003, can be obtained by calling Gail Skowronek at (651) 296-7398 or on the MPCA Web site at: http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html. If you have any questions on the EAW, please contact Lynne Kolze of my staff at (651) 282-5992. Sincerely, Beth G. Lockwood Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division BGL:gs Enclosure REVISED (February 16, 2003) Proposed Changes to Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant (GFCEP) ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Attachments: • Figure 1 • Figure 2 6. Description: a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monitor. The general project description has not changed. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that would cause physical manipulation of the environment or would produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. A few minor changes have been proposed in the facility design since the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was initially published in August of 2003. Specifically, the following changes have been proposed. Water Intake and Outfall Pipelines: GFCEP plans to build three pipelines in two separate trenches -- two water intake pipelines and one wastewater discharge pipeline. One of the intake pipelines will originate at the well, TR-2, located offsite, to the east of the facility. Water will be pumped from the well to the facility for use in processing ethanol. The second water intake pipeline will carry water from the Minnesota River to the facility for use in ethanol production, as well as to provide water for the cooling towers (For more information, see Item 13). The third pipeline will carry wastewater, including cooling tower blowdown, reverse osmosis reject water, and iron filter backwash to Hawk Creek, where it will be discharged through an outfall. The location of this outfall has not changed from that described in the EAW published in 2003. Similar to that which was previously proposed, a pipeline trench would be constructed just north of 840th Avenue, which would include two pipes. One would carry water from well TR-2 to the plant and one which would discharge water to Hawk Creek. The size of the water intake pipe and wastewater pipeline would remain unchanged at six inches and four inches in diameter, respectively. A second pipeline trench would be installed between the GFCEP and the Minnesota River, constructed through private property (where easement agreements have been developed) and through highway rights-of-ways. The pipeline would be placed in a trench 7-feet deep and 18inches wide. Water Intake Location Map Intake Structure at Minnesota River Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 1 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet In some areas, rather than trenching, the GFCEP plans to use directional or horizontal boring underground to install the pipe. Horizontal drilling would not disturb the ground surface and can be advantageous when used in sensitive areas. The GFCEP would use horizontal drilling under the TC&W Railroad tracks and in five other places along the route: 1) under 150th Street; 2) under the road on the Chippewa/Renville County line; 3) under Renville County Road 37 near the ground-water well; 4) under 840th Avenue, 500 feet from the Minnesota Falls grain elevator; and 5) in the road right-of-way above the ravine several hundred feet from Hawk Creek. In addition, horizontal boring would be used during construction of the Minnesota River water intake pipeline, where boring would be used to install pipeline under Highway 212 and the Williams Petroleum Pipeline, located enroute to the river. 7. Project Magnitude Data Total Project Area (acres) 38.2 acres ethanol plant and pipeline trenches or Length (miles) ~2.5 miles (pipelines only) Number of Residential Units: Unattached N/A Attached N/A maximum units per building Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Building Area (gross floor space): total square feet 60,880 Indicate area of specific uses (in square feet): Office 3,100 Manufacturing 32,805 Retail Other Industrial Energy center 11,680 Warehouse Institutional Other industrial 21,475 DDGS Storage Light Industrial Agricultural Other Commercial (specify) Storage tanks and cooling tower 38,000 Building height If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings. The dryer/thermal oxidizer stack would be 125 feet above grade. The process building roof peak would be 41 feet above grade, with a maximum tank height of 54 feet above grade. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals 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. Unit of Government Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) MPCA MPCA MPCA State Fire Marshall Chippewa County/ City of Granite Falls (City) Chippewa County Chippewa County GFCEP/Farmers Cooperative Elevator Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) DNR Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota Type of Application Air Emission Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) – Wastewater Permit Construction Stormwater Permit Above Ground Storage Tank Permit Above Ground Storage Tank Permit Building Permit On-Site Septic System Permit Conditional Use Permit Water Use Agreement Water Appropriations (3 permits) Public Waters Permit 2 Status Submitted Submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted Two applications submitted To be submitted Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet New New Unit of Government Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) MnDOT U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Type of Application Utility Permit - Trunk Highway Right-of-Way Entrance Permit Nationwide Permit Status To be submitted To be submitted To be submitted 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The proposed project, including recent changes, will not cause any new conflicts with existing land uses. 10. Cover Types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Ethanol plant site only Types 1-8 wetlands Wooded/forest Brush/grassland Cropland Before 0 0 0 52 After 0 0 0 30 Before After Lawn/landscaping 0 4.5 Impervious Surfaces 0 7.5 Other (describe) 0 10 (commercial, process, storage, office buildings, storm water detention, and water retention ponds) 52 52 TOTAL Cover types will remain the same under the new proposal. 11. Fish, Wildlife, and Ecologically Sensitive Resources. a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. No additional fish and wildlife resources were identified and no concerns were raised by the Department of Natural Resources as a result of the proposed project changes. No additional impacts to habitats or wildlife species are expected. 12. Physical Impacts on Water Resources. Would the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? Yes No If yes, identify water resource affected. Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. Give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory (PWI) number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI. Proposed changes to the project would involve additional impacts to water resources, though the impacts are temporary in nature. Water will no longer be appropriated from Hawk Creek, as was originally envisioned. Instead, GFCEP plans to construct a water intake structure in the Minnesota River and a pipeline that would carry the untreated river water to the ethanol plant. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 3 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet Construction of the Raw Water Intake Pipeline: The GFCEP’s initial proposal for appropriating water involved the withdrawal of water from Hawk Creek, approximately 1.5 miles east of the GFCEP for use in production purposes. Since then, additional analysis of stream flow data for Hawk Creek has been conducted by the DNR. This analysis has led the DNR staff to conclude that Hawk Creek may not be a long-term viable source of water for the facility. Consequently, the proposer has developed an alternate proposal for appropriating water for the facility. The GFCEP proposes to construct a water intake structure and a 6,000-foot pipeline that would carry water from the Minnesota River to the GFCEP for use in the production process. A water intake pipeline would be constructed, beginning at the GFCEP’s western property boundary, then traveling south within a right-of-way easement secured from a private property owner, until it approaches Highway 212. The pipeline would be horizontally bored under Highway 212. The trench would then travel west of the Highway 212 boring location, parallel to the Highway 212 right-of-way, until it reaches the William Brothers petroleum pipeline. The pipeline would be horizontally bored under the petroleum pipeline and continue west within the highway right-of-way until it approaches a ravine approximately 3,200 feet from the Highway 212 crossing. The trench would then travel southwest along the ravine towards Pete’s Point Road. Once at the road, the pipeline would be horizontally bored under Pete’s Point Road and continue southwest through private property until it reaches the pump house. An easement agreement would be secured with the private property owner to accomplish these crossings. The proposed location of the new trench from the plant to the Minnesota River is shown in Figure 1. Construction of the intake pipeline would not involve the crossing of any wetlands or other water features along its entire length. However, construction of the pipeline, intake structure, and pump house in the vicinity of the Minnesota River would be subject to special restoration requirements due to its location within a designated Wild and Scenic River District. In accordance with those requirements, the disturbed area would be completely restored to its original condition, using vegetation which is native to Minnesota. Dogwoods and/or cedar trees and other native shrubs would be planted around any structures and buildings to provide a screen for the proposed water intake structures. In addition, an effort would be made to avoid disturbing any of the existing vegetation in the area where the pump house would be located. All restoration plans for the area must be approved by the DNR prior to construction. Best Management Practices (BMP), including silt fences, earth berms and/or straw bales, would be utilized to slow the velocity of runoff and prevent the movement of sediment into the river during construction of the water pipeline. The water intake structure, located in the Minnesota River would include a pump house, enclosing a six-foot wet well, and pumps which would be located above the Minnesota River’s 500-year watermark. A 24-inch intake pipe would extend underground from the wet well to the river. The intake pipeline would be horizontally bored from the wet well to the river and would include a fourfoot riser pipe with appropriate screening to protect the system from plugging with vegetation and aquatic life. The river bed should not be disturbed in any way during construction. The river bank would be disturbed only where the 24-inch intake pipe is horizontally drilled. The water intake pipeline would be six to eight inches in diameter. The GFCEP is proposing to pump water from the river at an average rate of 400 to 600 gallons per minute (gpm), with a maximum pumping rate of 700 gpm. Once pumped to the GFCEP, water would be stored in a 50,000-gallon above-ground storage tank prior to its use in the production process. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 4 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet DNR requires that intake and outfall structures be designed and constructed so that they: 1) prevent stream bank erosion and scour; 2) are screened from view from recreational users of the waterbody; 3) prevent the uptake of fish (including juveniles); and 4) prevent sediment from reaching the creek. The Corps would also have review authority for the intake and outfall structures under the nationwide permitting process. 13. Water Use. Would the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? Yes No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. Under the new proposal, the GFCEP will retain their current plan to use a combination of ground and surface water to produce ethanol. However, the sources and amounts of ground and surface water will change. During the first year of operations, the GFCEP has requested a total annual appropriation of 200-million gallons of ground water to run the facility. Production would begin relying solely on ground-water sources. Once an intake structure has been constructed in the Minnesota River, the proposer is planning to request an additional appropriation of 34 million gallons per year (MGY), for a total annual appropriation of 234 MGY from all sources. Once DNR has issued all water appropriation permits, the proposer would use a combination of ground and surface waters to run the facility. During some periods, production would rely more heavily on ground water and at other times, it would rely mostly on surface water. This approach would provide the proposer with the greatest flexibility in meeting the water needs of the facility. Surface Water Use: The GFCEP will continue to use surface water to supplement ground-water sources. However, rather than use water from Hawk Creek, as they had originally planned, the GFCEP is now proposing to appropriate water from the Minnesota River, located approximately one mile from the proposed facility. Pumping rates from the Minnesota River would be dependent on stream flow and water needs at the facility. During periods of normal or high stream flow, the majority of the water needs in the facility could be supplied by the Minnesota River, giving the aquifers time to recharge. Long-term flow data has been gathered for the Minnesota River by the U.S. Geological Survey at Montevideo, Minnesota. Based on this data, DNR has determined that the Minnesota River has a Q90 (low flow) of 36 cubic feet per second, making the Minnesota River a viable source of water for the GFCEP. Withdrawal of 200 MGY from the river would represent approximately 2.75 percent of the Minnesota River’s flow during low flow conditions. The majority (70 percent) of the water appropriated from the Minnesota River would be used for non-contact cooling purposes. Water drawn from the river could be treated in one or two ways. If the river water was to be used for the cooling towers, the majority of the water would be used raw (without treatment). If the water was used for ethanol production, it would be filtered and stored for later use. Stored water not used in the production process would be further filtered with reverse osmosis equipment and stored for later use. The majority of this water would be softened for use in the boilers. A minor portion will remain unsoftened and subsequently used for operation of the cooling towers. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 5 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet Ground Water: The GFCEP has requested a ground-water appropriation of 200 MGY for production processes during the first year of operations. Ground water would be pumped from two wells at a maximum combined rate of 380 gpm, 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Once pumped to the surface, the water would be treated by a reverse osmosis water treatment system, and then utilized in processing ethanol in the GFCEP. The facility would blend water from two wells, TW-1 and TW-2, each located in a separate aquifer. The facility would start production using ground water alone, but would later use Minnesota River water in combination with ground water, for a total appropriation of 234 MGY. One well, TW-2 (unique well #667428) is located on the GFCEP site and has been determined to be located in Aquifer C. TW-2 is finished at a depth of 201 feet and screened in a 33-foot thick buried sand deposit within the glacial drift (elevation 898-865). The static water elevation is 982 (63 feet below land surface). The City also has two wells located in Aquifer C. The static water levels in this aquifer and in the City wells, has shown a lowering trend since the City started pumping approximately eight years ago. The City wells are located approximately 3.25 miles north of TW-2. The offsite well, TW-1, (unique well #667426) appears to be in Aquifer K. This well is finished at a depth of 284 feet and screened in 24-foot thick buried sand deposits within the glacial drift (elevation 766-742). The static water elevation is 986 (39 feet below land surface). A seven-day DNR-defined pump test was completed during April and May 2002. TW-1 and TW-2 were each pumped at a rate of 250 gpm. Measurable drawdowns were observed in several neighboring domestic wells. The proposer’s consultant concluded that the aquifers intercepted by test wells TW-1 and TW-2 are capable of producing large volumes of water over a prolonged period of time. However, the slow recovery and limited areal extent of these aquifers suggests that ground water may not be available in sufficient quantities to provide for the total water needs of the proposed ethanol facility. Upon review of the pump test data, the DNR recommended that the proposer identify and develop one or more additional water supplies to meet the long-term water needs of the proposed plant. By now relying upon the Minnesota River to supplement ground water, the plant should be able to run effectively over the long term and reduce possible impacts to the aquifers in the area. As part of the appropriation permit process, the DNR would establish thresholds for drawdown in each of GFCEP’s wells, which the proposer would not be allowed to exceed. These thresholds will be meant to protect the long-term sustainability of the aquifers. The DNR has developed a preliminary threshold elevation of 821 (205 feet below land surface) for TW-1 and 919 (126 feet below land surface) for TW-2. The proposer will be required to drill one or more piezometers near the production wells to monitor water levels in the source aquifers. DNR will then require that water levels be recorded in the production wells and the piezometers. The proposer would then be required to report these water level data to the DNR on a regular basis. Potential Impacts of Ground-water Pumping on Domestic Wells in the Area: There are approximately 45 domestic wells within a 1.5 mile radius of the proposed facility. Preliminary results from ground-water pumping tests indicate that water levels in at least 6-12 local wells may be impacted once production at the GFCEP begins. Due to the fact that pumping tests resulted in drawdown of some domestic wells, a well resolution contingency action plan would Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 6 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet need to be developed by GFCEP. Domestic water use would be given the highest priority, ensuring that residents are not negatively impacted by this facility. Potential well interference problems must be addressed by GFCEP before the DNR will issue a Water Appropriations Permit. The DNR would require GFCEP to ensure a continuous supply of water to the impacted residents over the life of the GFCEP. This would likely be accomplished by the company by making modifications to some domestic wells and/or providing an alternative source of water to residences. In addition, the DNR would establish thresholds for drawdown in each of GFCEP’s wells, which the proposer would not be allowed to exceed. The DNR has established preliminary drawdown thresholds for wells TW-1 and TW-2 at 151 feet and 106.4 feet, respectively. 14. Water-related land use management districts. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? Yes No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. The GFCEP plant’s water intake structure would be located within a Wild and Scenic River District. As a result, the project is subject to certain requirements related to construction and restoration of the plant’s water intake infrastructure in the river valley. These requirements are described in Item 12. The impact of constructing the water intake structure and underground pipeline are not expected to cause major visual or other impairments within the scenic river valley. The proposer will meet DNR’s requirements governing landscaping and screening of the intake structure so that it is visually unobtrusive. Consequently, the intake structure is not expected to cause aesthetic impacts. 16. Erosion and Sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: acres; 7933 cubic yards. Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils 13.2 and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Construction of Pipeline Trenches: As mentioned in Item 12, a new water intake structure and pipeline would need to be constructed as part of the project. The pipes would be six to eight inches in diameter, buried seven-feet deep. A 16-foot wide construction zone would be disturbed for the entire length of the pipeline trench. The water intake pipeline would be approximately 6,000-feet long. Slope breakers would be constructed, where necessary, across the pipeline trenches’ rights-of-ways to slow the velocity of runoff and divert water from the right-of-way. Temporary slope breakers would be installed during construction to shorten slope lengths along the right-of-way and to prevent soil from entering the Minnesota River. Temporary slope breakers would consist of hay or straw bales, silt fence, and/or earth berms, and would be installed across the full construction rightof-way. Temporary sediment barriers would be maintained and would not be removed until the site has established a permanent vegetation cover or the potential for the release of sediment has been minimized. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 7 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet 17. Water Quality - Surface Water Runoff. a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Construction of the Ethanol Plant: There are no steep slopes, nor is there Highly Erodible Land on the GFCEP property. Runoff moves from east to west across the property. The original plan was to build one stormwater pond on the site. The new proposal includes a plan to build two ponds on the site. The ponds will discharge to surface water. There are no longer any plans to pump stormwater from the ponds to a holding pond. One of the ponds will be located in the northwest corner of the site, and another in the southwest corner of the site. The northwest pond would discharge to the south side of the township road ditch and would then drain naturally to the west and ultimately flow to the Minnesota River. The southwest pond would drain to the ditch on the north side of Highway 212 and flow west along and under the highway through an existing culvert to a natural drainage ravine which flows into the Minnesota River. The stormwater ponds would be sized to hold a 1.25 inches, 24-hour storm event from an 11acre area on the site. Given that the ponds would eventually drain to the Minnesota River, an Outstanding Resource Value Water, the GFCEP would be required to meet specific effluent limits established by the MPCA. These limits are designed such that water quality in the Minnesota River will not be degraded. Construction of the Minnesota River Water Intake Pipeline Trench: The quantity and quality of stormwater in the vicinity of the water intake pipeline trench would not change substantially after the project is completed. This is due to the fact that the areas that would be disturbed would be restored to pre-construction conditions. The trenches would be backfilled, the topsoil would be replaced and the areas reseeded. Once permanent vegetation is reestablished, the majority of runoff in this area would infiltrate into the soil or remain on site in low areas. The quality of runoff would not change significantly given that vegetation would be reestablished and much of the precipitation would infiltrate into the ground. 18. Water Quality – Wastewater. a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. The sources, composition, and quantities of all wastewater sources have not been changed. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 8 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. The point of discharge for wastewater would continue to be Hawk Creek. Hawk Creek has a use classification of 2B and 3B. The quality of Class 2B surface waters must be maintained such that they would allow the propagation and maintenance of a healthy community of sport or commercial fish and associated aquatic life, and their habitats. These waters must be suitable for boating, and aquatic recreation of all kinds, including bathing. The quality of Class 3B waters of the state must permit their use for general industrial processes, except for food processing, with only a moderate degree of treatment. Wastewater Treatment: The reverse osmosis reject water, cooling tower blowdown, and iron filter backwash would be treated, then directed via underground piping to Hawk Creek. The Minnesota River is the ultimate receiving water for GFCEP’s treated wastewater. The Lower Minnesota River (22 miles from the city of Jordan to the mouth of the Mississippi River in St. Paul), is considered an impaired water due to low dissolved oxygen concentrations during low flow conditions. The MPCA has conducted studies which have shown that the dissolved oxygen impairment is caused, in part, by phosphorus discharges upstream of the impaired area. As of yet, a total maximum daily load (TMDL), which will allocate acceptable phosphorus loadings to the river upstream of the impaired reach, has not been completed. Absent a TMDL, the proposer must meet the requirements of Minnesota Rules, which require that the facility not cause a net increase in phosphorus loading to the Minnesota River. Permit limits will be established to reflect this requirement. The NPDES/SDS Permit would include the following effluent limits: Carbonaceous Biochemical Oxygen Demand Total Suspended Solids pH Temperature Chlorides Phosphorus 5 mg/L 30 mg/L (calendar month average) 6 - 9 Standard Units 86˚F 280 mg/L No net increase in phosphorus discharged to the Minnesota River 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions. a. Ground water: 40-68 minimum; <40 average. Bedrock: 250-350 minimum; <200 average. Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. No new information has been provided as a result of the proposed changes in the project. Approximate depth (in feet) to Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 9 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet b. Describe the soils on the site, giving SCS classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Minnesota River Water Intake Pipeline Trench The following soils can be found in the area where the Minnesota River water intake pipeline trench would be located. Soil Symbol 423 444 597 1802 421B 591B 595F 891B 94B Soil Name Seaforth Silt Loam Canisteo silty clay loam Tara silty clay loam Spicer-Quam silty clay loams Ves loam; 2-6% slopes Doland silt loam; 2-6% slopes Swanlake loam; 25-40% slopes Doland-Swanlake complex; 3-6% slopes. Eroded Terril loam; 2-6% The soils in the vicinity of the water intake pipeline trench do not pose any potential risks or limitations for construction. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Would the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? Yes No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Odors Additional consideration has been given to prevent odor problems at the facility. The fermentation tanks and the Distillers Dry Grains and Soluables (DDGS) Dryer are typically the main contributors to odor problems at ethanol facilities. The GFCEP is proposing to use a thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler to control odors from the facility. The proposed thermal oxidizer is expected to destroy 95 percent of the chemical compounds believed to cause odors. The people that may potentially be impacted by odors would be the neighbors immediately surrounding the facility. At this point in time, thermal oxidization is a state-of-the-art technology used to control odors at ethanol facilities. Fugitive odors from process buildings could cause impacts to neighbors during the summer when the facility’s doors are typically open. To reduce the potential for odors, the GFCEP has agreed to do the following: Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 10 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet 1. Restrict the production of wet-cake distillers dry grains (a potentially odorous process) to those times when they have breakdowns or plant upsets. This production restriction will be a condition of the permit. When wet-cake by-product is produced, it will be stored for no more than 72 hours unless the outside temperature is less than 55˚F. The facility will sell wet cake as soon as possible or transport the wet cake offsite for land application or agricultural bagging. 2. The company will develop a Best Management Practices Plan (Plan) that will describe the ways in which they will operate their plant on a day-to-day basis, as well as during a shutdown/breakdown so that odors are minimized. This Plan must be approved by MPCA and will be included as an attachment to the company’s Air Permit. 3. The company is working with the MPCA to develop an odor complaint process so that citizen complaints can be handled quickly and effectively. In addition, the City has ongoing regulatory authorities in the form of a public nuisance law, to address odor problems at the local level, if they should arise. RGU CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The initial EAW published on August 18, 2003, together with these revised sections describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in these documents, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minn. R. 4410.0200, subps. 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this revised EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Name and Title of Signer: Beth G. Lockwood, Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division Date: The format of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet was prepared by the staff of the Environmental Quality Board at Minnesota Planning. For additional information, worksheets or for EAW Guidelines, contact: Environmental Quality Board, 658 Cedar St., St. Paul, MN 55155, 651-296-8253, or at their Web site http://www.mnplan.state.mn.us. Granite Falls Community Ethanol Plant, LLC Granite Falls, Minnesota 11 Revised Environmental Assessment Worksheet