TO INTERESTED PARTIES - Minnesota Pollution … through a vaporizer/superheater and the resulting...

TO INTERESTED PARTIES: RE: Bushmills Ethanol Plant The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has approved the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for a Negative Declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposed Bushmills Ethanol Plant, Kandiyohi County. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order document concludes that this project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The decision for a Negative Declaration completes the state environmental review process under the revised Environmental Quality Board rules, Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. This project can now proceed to permitting. We want to express our appreciation to those of you who submitted comments on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. Your comments and responses to them have been incorporated into the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order and will assist MPCA staff in drafting permits for the proposed project. Sincerely, Beth G. Lockwood Supervisor, Environmental Review Unit Operations and Environmental Review Section Regional Environmental Management Division BGL:mln Enclosure

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED BUSHMILLS ETHANOL PLANT GENNESSEE TOWNSHIP,KANDIYOHI COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600 (2003), the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed project. Based on the MPCA staff environmental review, comments, and information received during the comment period, and other information in the record of the MPCA, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order:

PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION Proposed New Construction

Bushmills Ethanol Plant (Bushmills) is proposing to construct a 49 million gallon per year dry-mill, 200-proof ethanol production facility in Kandiyohi County. The Facility will be located approximately one mile west of the city of Atwater (City), on the south side of Trunk Highway 12. The proposed Facility would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days per year, with periodic maintenance shutdowns. Ethanol is an alcohol that is used as a fuel additive or extender. In the E85 fuel blend, it constitutes 85 percent of the fuel mixture. Ethanol would be produced by fermenting corn. The basic steps in ethanol production are preparing the feedstock, fermentation, distillation, recovery of the alcohol, and recovery of residual materials. The proposed Facility would process 17.86 million bushels (approximately 500,000 tons) of corn per year. The proposed maximum capacity is 49.9 million gallons per year. The Facility would also produce 175,112 tons per year of solid residues distillers dry grains and soluables (DDGS) and may produce up to 1000,000 tons per year of wetcake, which would both be used as animal feed. The Facility will control odor sources using a scrubber system and a TO that will have a minimum of a 95 percent destruction efficiency. Process Description: Storage/Corn Processing Facility: Corn will be received via a dust-controlled dump into metal grain bins. Storage will consist of three 250,000-bushel bins. From these storage bins, corn would be moved by enclosed mechanical conveyors into a 4,000-bushel surge bin before grinding.

TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (651) 282-5332

Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% fibers from paper recycled by consumers

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Findings of Fact Atwater, Minnesota Conclusions of Law And Order

Hammermills: The Facility will include two hammermills as part of the proposed project. A dust filtration system will be used to serve the mill. The stack diameter is 20 inches and the stack height would be 30 feet above grade. A grain conveyor, a DDGS dump pit/auger and an elevator will be installed as part of the proposed project. 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 in the cook water tanks. 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 will process approximately 17.86 million bushels (approximately 500,000 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 several 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 in place (CIP) for the next batch. Rinsate from the fermentation tank and the beerwell is piped to the CIP waste tank and then piped to the cook water tanks. The proposed Facility would use three fermentation vessels of 730,000-gallon capacity each and one 985,000-gallon beerwell. Distillation/Dehydration: In this process, the ethanol is separated from the beer and purified to 200-proof (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 would be dried for storage and shipping. The stillage would first be centrifuged to yield thin stillage and solids fractions. The thin stillage would become feed to the evaporator and backset water for the cooking (starch conversion) system. The evaporator would remove water from the thin stillage to create a 32 percent dry-matter syrup. Syrup would be pumped to the mixing auger to be combined with the wet distillers grains (solids coming off the centrifuge). The mixture would be conveyed into drum dryers. The particle emissions from the drum dryers would be controlled by cyclone separators.

2


Fifty percent of the exhaust from the cyclone separators would be recycled to the dryer inlet and the balance would be vented to the atmosphere. The resulting DDGS would exit the cyclone via an air lock divided by two screw conveyors. The first would recycle 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 72 inches in diameter and 125 feet above grade. A cooling cyclone would be installed. The cooling cyclone would discharge through a 48-inch diameter stack 50 feet above grade. Bushmills has asked to be permitted to produce wetcake and modified wetcake as a part of normal operations. Wetcake production will be allowed provided the conditions listed for Emissions Unit 061 (EU061) in the Draft Air Quality Permit are met. The Draft Air Quality Permit contains language that indicates that the Permittee shall not produce wet cake except under conditions of shutdown or breakdown of the dryers or the associated air pollution control equipment if the Permittee does not fulfill the requirements of EU061 to determine a wetcake emission factor. Boilers: A 125 million British Thermal Unit per hour gas-fired thermal oxidizer/heat-recovery boiler would provide steam for cooking, distilling, evaporating, and other plant uses. The TO is expected to achieve a minimum of 95 percent destruction efficiency of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and Hazardous Air Pollutants generated by the drying system. 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 called a biomethanator allows the Facility to recycle process waters and minimize the discharge of waste. No direct contact process wastewater will be discharged to the local publicly owned treatment works or drainage ways. Wastewater treatment is discussed in detail in Item 18 of the EAW. Water Discharges: Cooling tower blowdown, reverse osmosis reject water, water softeners regenerate wastewater, and iron filter backwash would be treated and discharged to either the Middle Fork Crow River via an agricultural ditch or used to irrigate the adjacent City golf course. Under the MPCA guidelines, this approach qualifies as a beneficial use of ground water in comparison to merely “pumping and releasing.” Any non-contact process wastewater discharged will be regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/State Disposal System (SDS) Permit Program, which is administered by the MPCA. Excess non-contact water would overflow the irrigation pond and flow through the Atwater Storm Sewer System to Judicial Ditch 17 located two miles east of the Facility. This agricultural ditch drains northward into ground-water recharge and to the Crow River. As with most agricultural ditches, intermittent flow or other physical characteristics along with nutrient-laden runoff limit the ability of the water body to maintain a balanced warm-water community. Such waters typically only support populations composed of species able to survive and reproduce in a wide range of physical and chemical conditions, and are not generally harvested for human consumption. The proposed water discharge from the Facility generally would only contain the constituents of the ground water except in higher concentrations. Nutrients, such as nitrogen, nitrates and phosphorous, are typically not present. The total dissolved solids concentration would mainly be comprised of hardness (calcium and magnesium) with minor amounts of sodium, potassium, chloride, sulfate, and silica. Stormwater from the facility will be collected and routed to a stormwater detention pond. The detention pond would be discharged after between 24 and 48

3


hours of treatment. The discharge will be through the community stormwater system to Judicial Ditch 17. It has not been determined whether stormwater will be commingled with non-contact water before being used for irrigation. This latter alternative is under evaluation and is the same route that would be used for non-process wastewater. Stormwater would be discharged after a 24 to 48 hour detention, but must be tested to assure that it will not adversely impact receiving waters. It must be treated so that it does not exceed 25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) or 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Storage Tanks: Six storage tanks, including two 750,000-gallon denatured ethanol storage tanks, a 165,000-gallon 190-proof tank, a 165,000-gallon denaturant tank, a 75,000-gallon denaturant tank, and a 3,000-gallon corrosion inhibitor tank will 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 inside the tank farm, except the corrosion inhibitor tank, would have internal floating roofs to control emissions. In addition to the tank farm, several other miscellaneous storage tanks will be located at the facility. Secondary containment for these tanks will be provided by positioning each tank in an engineered concrete basin. Water Intake: An industrial well has been developed on the project site. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Division of Waters has been contacted regarding this project. The DNR and their hydrologists have played an integral role in developing the well testing program. It is the intent of the proposed Facility to ensure the continued availability of the ground water resource to current and future users. As such, utilizing the Facility discharge to irrigate the adjacent golf course will help by eliminating or significantly reducing ground water being pumped at the golf course.

Environmental Concerns The following environmental concerns associated with the proposed construction were identified and discussed in the EAW:

Water discharges: Non-contact wastewater (wastewater that is not part of the manufacture of ethanol) will be utilized for golf course irrigation when possible. During periods when irrigation is not possible, these will be discharged through the City storm sewers to Agricultural Ditch No. 17, which will eventually flow to the Middle Fork of the Crow River. Stormwater will be treated in a stormwater retention pond. The conditions of the NPDES Permit require that stormwater be treated to a level that allows discharge to a water of the state. The receiving water of the stormwater discharge will be Judicial Ditch 17. Stormwater might be commingled with non-process wastewater and utilized for irrigation.

4


Process wastewater that comes into contact with the production process, will be recycled to the cook tanks and fermentation basins and there will be no discharge of process wastewater to surface water.

Water appropriation: The facility will appropriate ground water through a commercial water well that has been constructed. The well was pumped for one week at a rate of about 590 gallons per minute, and water levels in eleven nearby wells were monitored. Adverse impacts on these water wells were not observed.

Erosion and Sedimentation: The site is fairly level and therefore erosion is expected to be minimal. 50 acres of the 95-acre site will remain in cultivation. Since vegetation will be removed from about 45 acres, the facility will require a General Permit for discharge of stormwater from construction activities. That permit includes several mitigation measures to be implemented during construction. The facility will also require a NPDES/SDS Permit for stormwater associated with an industrial activity, which will further require preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan.

Surface-water Runoff: The mitigation measures contained in the General Permit for discharge of stormwater from construction activities and the NPDES/SDS permit for stormwater associated with an industrial activity will assure the quality of surface water leaving the site will be sufficient to protect the water quality of receiving waters (25 mg/L BOD5 and 30 mg/L TSS).

Wastewater: Because the facility will return all wastewater to the process after treating it in an anaerobic digester called a biomethanator, there will be no discharge of industrial wastewater. The biomethanator will convert organic material into fuel gas (mostly methane) that will be used to dry distillers dried grains and solubles.

Tanks: There will be twelve large tanks on the site that will be subject to the conditions of an above-ground storage tank permit issued by the MPCA. These conditions include the construction of secondary containment with sufficient capacity to hold the contents of the tank and runoff from a 25-year storm.

Stationary Source Air Emissions: A wide variety of air pollutants would be emitted from the facility in the following areas: grain receiving and offloading, grain milling and handling, batch fermentation, distillation and dehydration, distillers grains drying and handling, ethanol storage tanks, thermal oxidizer and heat recovery boiler, and fugitive and miscellaneous emissions. Emissions from the grain receiving and offloading and the grain milling and handling would consist mainly of particulates, which would be removed by a baghouse filter and returned to the process. Emissions from the batch fermentation area would be routed to a direct contact water scrubber. Scrubber water would be returned to the process and non-condensing gases (carbon dioxide) would be released to the atmosphere. The gases from the distillation and dehydration process would be exhausted to a thermal oxidizer with a destruction efficiency of at least 95 percent prior to venting to the atmosphere. Fugitive emissions from a variety of sources, as described in the EAW, would also be emitted from the facility. The TO and the Heat Recovery Boiler would also be a source of air emissions.

5


An analysis of the potential emissions of air pollutants has been performed in conjunction with the Bushmills application for an air permit. Preliminary estimates of air emissions indicate that the plant will be a synthetic minor source with respect to both the prevention of significant deterioration and the Title V air permitting process. Bushmills is considered a synthetic minor source of air pollution because the Facility will not emit 100 or more tons per year (TPY) of any regulated air pollutant with the use of pollution control equipment.

Emissions for criteria air pollutants are predicted to be as follows:

Total Potential Facility Emissions

Pollutant Proposed Emissions (TPY) Total Particulate Matter (PM) 39.14 Particulate Matter less than ten microns (PM10) 27.10 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 37.14 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 91.39 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 95.08 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 93.58 Hazardous Air Pollutants 12.53

Bushmills has asked to be permitted to produce wetcake and modified wetcake. Wetcake production will be allowed provided the conditions listed for EU061 in the Draft Air Quality Permit are met. This will require Bushmills to provide a calculation of emissions from the wetcake production process. The air emission permit for the Facility will contain specific operational and performance standards for each emissions unit. In addition to the above, a screening model was completed to determine potential health risks associated with the project. The screening model was completed with the use of the MPCA Air Emission Risk Analysis (AERA) Risk Analysis Screening Spreadsheet (RASS ). Conservative estimates of emissions were utilized in the RASS. Based on the predictions of the screening model, health risks from air emissions from the proposed facility will be within an acceptable range. Odors and Noise

Fermentation tanks and DDGS dryers are typically the main generators of odor problems at ethanol facilities. Fugitive odors from the site (such as process buildings) can be greatest in the summer, when housing doors may be open. Additionally, if the Facility is permitted to manufacture wetcake and modified wetcake as it has requested, odors are a distinct possibility, particularly during loadout of wetcake. Bushmills is proposing to use a TO/heat recovery boiler to control VOCs from the Facility. A number of VOCs can be odorous. The proposed TO will destroy a minimum of 95 percent of the organic compounds believed to cause odors from the Facility. With this level of control, it is expected that potential impacts will be limited to areas immediately surrounding the Facility.

6


Noise levels at existing ethanol facilities in Minnesota have been reviewed. Drawing on that information, the applicant has determined that no noise source at the Facility is expected to exceed 80 decibels at the property line, which will comply with the state noise standard. Additionally, the distance between the Bushmills property line and neighboring homes will also provide additional buffer to further dissipate noise levels. No significant impacts to the areas immediately surrounding the Facility are anticipated. Nearby Resources

The facility will be constructed on 45 acres of prime agricultural land. Of the total 95-acre parcel, 50 acres of prime agricultural land will remain in cultivation. A U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) is located immediately to the Southwest of the site. No adverse impacts on this area are anticipated. Other Potential Environmental Impacts The U.S. Department of Agriculture has initially identified a single small wetland on the parcel. Subsequent inspection indicated that the wetland no longer exists (or never did). A small wetland may exist on railroad property south of the facility. The railway spur constructed to serve the facility will be constructed in a location to avoid this wetland. Additional Concerns Described in Comment Letters

Mr. Thomas Fischer of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Conservation asked about the route of excess discharge between the facility and Judicial Ditch 17. A map (Figure 1) of this route is found in Appendix B of these Findings, the Responses to Comments. Mr. Thomas Fischer and Ms. Diane Anderson also had concerns about possible impacts on the Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) next to Summit Lake. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had similar orally expressed concerns. Subsequently, Bushmills has decided to discharge stormwater through the City storm sewer system into Judicial Ditch 17. Ms. Diane Anderson requested that the stormwater pond be designed for 100-year return frequency storm event. The MPCA requires that stormwater be monitored prior to discharge and that it meets effluent limits of 25 mg/L for BOD5 and 30 mg/L for TSS. That is the primary design criterion for sizing the pond. Some commenters had concerns about whether irrigation has been done with non-contact plant effluent, and what impacts it would have on the golf course. This was addressed in Responses 1-1, 3-2, and 3-4. Some commenters had concerns about impact of the project on the Waterfowl Production area west of the facility. These were addressed in Response 1-2.

7


PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 5, Item B, an EAW was prepared by MPCA staff on the

proposed project. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1500 (2003), the EAW was distributed to the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) mailing list and other interested parties on August 13, 2004.

2. The MPCA notified the public of the availability of the EAW for public comment. A news release was provided to news media throughout Southwestern Minnesota, as well as, other interested parties on August 16, 2004. In addition, the EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on August 16, 2004, and available for review on the MPCA Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html on August 13, 2004.

3. The public comment period for the EAW began on August 16, 2004, and ended on September 30, 2004. During the 45-day comment period, the MPCA received four comment letters from government agencies and received one comment letter from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe.

4. A public meeting was held in the Atwater Community Center on July 28, 2004. It was attended by

about 20 people. A second public meeting was held in the Atwater Community Center on September 15, 2004, that was attended by about 25 people.

5. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 30-day public comment period.

Comment letters received have been hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix A to these findings. The MPCA responses to comments received are hereby incorporated by reference as Appendix B to these findings.

CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 6. Under Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), the MPCA must order an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur. In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7 (2003). These criteria are:

A. the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects; B. cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects; C. the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority; and D. the extent to which environmental effects can be anticipated and controlled as a result of other

available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs.

8

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html%20on%20August%2013


THE MPCA FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THESE CRITERIA

ARE SET FORTH BELOW Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 7. The first criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects" Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these factors are set forth below.

8. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to air quality:

A. Air Emissions B. Odors C. Noise D. Dust

9. The extent of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

A. Air Emissions

Air emission sources at the facility will include: grain receiving and handling, hammermills, batch fermentation, distillation and dehydration of ethanol, distillers grains and solubles drying and handling, ethanol storage tanks, thermal oxidizer/heat recovery boiler, diesel generator sets, and rail car unloading and loading. Bushmills Ethanol would be a minor source with respect to both prevention of significant deterioration and the Title V Permitting Process, because the Facility will not emit 100 or more TPY of any regulated air pollutant. Emissions of Criteria Pollutants are projected to be as follows:

Total Potential Facility Emissions Pollutant Proposed Emissions (TPY) Total Particulate Matter (PM) 39.14 Particulate Matter less than ten microns (PM10) 27.10 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 37.14 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 91.39 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 95.08 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 93.58 Hazardous Air Pollutants 12.53

9


Bushmills has applied for an air emissions permit with the MPCA. The air emission permit for the Facility will contain specific operational and performance standards for each emissions unit. In addition to the above, a screening model was completed to determine potential health risks associated with the project. The screening model was completed with the use of the MPCA Air Emission Risk Analysis (AERA) Risk Analysis Screening Spreadsheet (RASS ). Conservative estimates of emissions were utilized in the RASS. Based on the predictions of the screening model, health risks from air emissions from the proposed Facility will be within an acceptable range. B. Odors

Fermentation tanks and DDGS dryers are typically the main generators of odor problems at ethanol facilities. Fugitive odors from the site (such as process buildings) can be greatest in the summer, when housing doors may be open. Additionally, if the Facility is permitted to manufacture wetcake and modified wetcake as it has requested, odors are a distinct possibility, particularly during loadout of wetcake.

Bushmills is proposing to use a scrubber system and a TO/heat recovery boiler to control VOC emissions from the Facility. Several VOCs can be odorous. The proposed TO will destroy a minimum of 95 percent of the organic compounds believed to cause odors from the Facility. With this level of control, it is expected that potential impacts will be limited to the areas immediately surrounding the Facility. Bushmills has also developed an Odor Action Plan to immediately implement corrective action in the event a single odor complaint is received and validated and wetcake will only be allowed to be stored on-site for 72 hours in warm weather.

C. Noise

Noise levels at existing ethanol facilities in Minnesota have been reviewed. Drawing on that information, the applicant has determined that no noise source at the Facility is expected to exceed 80 decibels at the property line, which will comply with the state noise standard. Additionally, the distance between the Bushmills property line and neighboring homes will also provide additional buffer to further dissipate noise levels. No significant noise impacts to the areas immediately surrounding the Facility are anticipated. Some additional noise will be generated by increased truck traffic to and from the facility once constructed and in operation. In the shorter term, there may be an increase in noise generated by construction equipment. Heavy equipment will be operated during daylight hours for the duration of the construction project. However, given the distance between the new facility and nearby residents, noise impacts are expected to be minimal as well as temporary in nature.

10


D. Dust

Dust will be generated during the construction process. However, impacts are expected to be minimal since the project area is relatively small (compared to nearby agricultural areas). In addition, construction activities will be temporary. Construction related dust will be managed as necessary through the use of water trucks. Once the facility is constructed, dust is expected to return to pre-construction levels.

10. The reversibility of any potential air quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur: The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would be reversible. While any air emissions, noise, or dust that are released to the atmosphere would not be recovered, but further emissions, dust, or noise could be stopped, if necessary. As discussed above, the expected effects on air quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is expected to cause a significant negative effect on air quality.

11. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to air quality:

The comment letter from the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe expressed a concern that the emissions from the scrubber were inadequately described (Comment 2-1). These concerns were responded to in Response 2-1 in the Response to Comments (Appendix B). The Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe also expressed a concern that emissions from wetcake were not adequately addressed. This concern was discussed in Response 2-2 in the Response to Comments. The Mille Lacs Band further expressed concern about the potential for heavy metals entering air, water, and foodstuff due to the use of pesticides to control wildlife, vermin, and scavengers. This concern was addressed in Response 2-3. Lastly, the Mille Lacs Band expressed concern regarding the additional emissions associated with power plants supplying the facility, as well as emissions from increased traffic associated with Bushmills. These concerns were addressed in Response 2-4. As discussed above in Findings 8, 9, 10 and 11, the analysis indicates that the effects on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

12. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because: All potential impacts to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent these impacts have been developed.

13. The MPCA finds that the project, as it is proposed, does not have the potential for significant environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur as a result of its air emissions.

11


14. Reasonably expected environmental effects of this project to water quality:

A. Ground-water Supplies B. Surface-water Runoff C. Wastewater D. Ground-water Quality E. Wetlands

15. The extent of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

A. Ground-water Supplies

The facility will appropriate ground water at a rate of approximately 450 gallons per minute through a recently constructed water well. During the Summer of 2004, the well was pumped for a sustained period of time and drawdown in the water table was measured at 11 nearby water wells, nine of them being residential water wells. The test demonstrated that the Bushmills Ethanol well would have no adverse effect on water quantity in the aquifer that serves the City and nearby residences.

B. Surface-water Runoff

Stormwater generated at the facility will be treated in a stormwater treatment pond at the site. Stormwater will be retained for 24 to 48 hours. It will be monitored to assure that the effluent limits of 25 mg/L BOD5 and 30 mg/L TSS are met before discharge through the City storm sewer system to Judicial Ditch 17. Stormwater may also be commingled with non-process wastewater and used for irrigation of the Island Pine Golf Club. The effluent limits will protect the water quality of Judicial Ditch 17 and downstream receiving water. Since the stormwater ponds will retain stormwater and release it over an extended period of time, this will reduce bounce in downstream receiving waters as well.

C. Wastewater

Process wastewater will be treated in a biomethanator, which is an anaerobic biological water treatment system that converts organic material into fuel gas (primarily methane) which offsets the fuel gas for Dryer A. The biomethanator essentially treats the process wastewater from the plant, with methane being the byproduct. When the dryer is not in operation, the methane is routed to the biomethanator high efficiency flare system. The treated wastewater from the biomethanator is recycled to the cook water tank for reuse in the process. No biomethanator waste water will be discharged from the plant as it is only recycled. Non-contact wastewater will consist of cooling tower blowdown, reverse osmosis concentrate, waste softener regeneration, and perhaps other filter blowdown. These discharges will be used for golf course irrigation with any excess being discharged through the Atwater Storm Sewer System to Judicial Ditch 17.

12


D. Ground-water Quality

All exterior aboveground storages tanks (ASTs) will be surrounded with a secondary containment structure with the capacity of the entire content of each tank, as well as runoff from a significant 25-year storm. Any underground piping will be designed to prevent leaks and will include a leak detection system. Product (denatured ethanol) transfer areas will be located on impervious surfaces with secondary containment to minimize potential releases. Storage tanks located within Facility buildings will be designed and managed according to AST regulations. As noted previously, the Facility will be required to have the appropriate Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP), spill prevention control and countermeasures, and emergency response plans.

E. Wetlands

The EAW indicated that there was a small wetland on site that would not be impacted by the project. Subsequent investigation by local officials and the proposer’s consultant determined that the wetland does not exist and may never have existed. There may be a small wetland on railroad property adjacent to the site. This wetland will be avoided when the railroad spur serving the site is constructed (Comment/Response 1-3).

16. The reversibility of any potential water quality effects that are reasonably expected to occur:

The MPCA finds that any potential effect that is reasonably likely to occur from this project would be reversible. As discussed above, the expected effects on water quality are minimal. There is no reason to believe that this project is reasonably expected to cause a significant negative effect on water quality.

17. Comments received that expressed concerns regarding potential effects to water quality: Several comment letters expressed concern that the route of discharge of stormwater and excess non-contact process waster was unclear (Comment/Response 1-1, 3-1). Two commenters requested information about the design sizing of the stormwater pond, (Comment Response 1-1, 3-1) and one asked that it be sized for the 100 year storm (Comment/Response 3-1). Some commenters expressed concern over the potential discharge of stormwater to Summit Lake, and possible discharge of Summit Lake flow into a nearby Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) (Comment /Response 1-2). Some questions were raised about the potential for use of these waters as irrigation for the golf course (Comment/Response 1-1). As discussed above in Findings 14, 15, and 16, the analysis indicates that the effects on water quality that are reasonably expected to occur are not significant.

18. The MPCA finds that the environmental review is adequate to address the concerns because:

All potential impacts to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the proposed expansion of this facility have been considered during the review process and a method to prevent these impacts has been developed.

13


19. The MPCA finds that the project as it is proposed does not have the potential for significant

environmental effects on water quality based on the type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects reasonably expected to occur.

Cumulative Potential Effects of Related or Anticipated Future Projects 20. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B. (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

21. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated

future projects that may interact with this project in such a way as to identify any potential cumulative environmental impacts that are reasonably expected to occur.

22. Based on MPCA staff experience, available information on the project, including the EAW, the

permit application, and information presented by the commenters, the MPCA does not reasonably expect significant cumulative effects from this project.

23. In considering the cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA

finds that the reasonably expected effects from this project will not be significant.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject To Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 24. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider, when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur, is "the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

25. The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required Status A. MPCA Air Emissions Permit Drafted and on notice, comment

period ends on September 30, 2004

B. MPCA NPDES/SDS Discharge Permit to Receiving Waters, including a NPDES/SDS Discharge Permit for non-contact cooling water and an NPDES/SDS Stormwater Permit associated with industrial activity (which includes a SWPPP

Drafted and on notice, comment period ends on September 30, 2004

14


C. MPCA NPDES General Permit for discharge of stormwater during construction activities

To be submitted

D. MPCA AST Permit Submitted

E. State Fire Marshall Above Ground Storage Tank Plan Review

To be submitted

F. DNR Water Appropriation Permit Submitted

G. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT)

Access Driveway Permit (Form TP-1721)

To be submitted

H. Kandiyohi County Building Permit To be submitted

I. Kandiyohi County On-site Septic System Permit To be submitted

J. Board of Commissioner, Judicial Ditch No. 17

Express Authority to Discharge to Judicial Ditch No. 17

To be submitted

26. The above-listed permits include general and specific requirements for mitigation of environmental

effects of the project, as follows: A. MPCA Air Emissions Permit. The Air Emission Permit for the Facility would contain

operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.

B. MPCA NPDES/SDS Discharge Permit to receiving waters, including a NPDES/SDS Discharge

Permit for non-contact water and an NPDES/SDS Stormwater Permit associated with industrial activity (which includes a SWPPP). An NPDES Permit has been prepared and will be issued by the MPCA following a 45-day public comment period. The NPDES Permit authorizes a maximum discharge flow and pollutant loading allowed from the Facility. Effluent limitations established within the permit ensure that water quality in the receiving water is protected.

C. MPCA NPDES General Permit for discharge of stormwater during construction activities. A

general NPDES Stormwater Construction Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of Best Management Practices, such as silt fences, rock check dams, and prompt revegetation, to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. The proposer must have a sediment and erosion control plan that will provide more detail as to the specific measures to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures

15


implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also require adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed.

D. MPCA AST Permit. The AST Permit includes operational limits and construction

requirements that would help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects. Requirements include a secondary containment area, routine monitoring for leaks, corrosion protection for the floor of the tank, overfill prevention equipment, and areas where substances are transferred must be equipped with spill containment.

E. State Fire Marshall Above Ground Storage Tank Plan Review. The State Fire Marshal

Division conducts plan reviews for AST that contain flammable (Class I) liquids at bulk plants, chemical plants, refineries, and processing plants. The plan review would consider such design elements as flammable materials storage and conformance with setbacks.

F. DNR Water Appropriation Permit. This permit regulates the appropriation of surface and

ground water throughout Minnesota. It requires a would-be appropriator of water to conduct pumping tests to determine what the effect of their appropriation will be on the aquifer, and to demonstrate that other water wells will not be adversely impacted. Highest priority is given to protect residential water wells.

G. MnDOT Access Driveway Permit (Form TP-1721). This permit regulates the construction of driveways connecting to State Highways. The Access Permit ensures that the work will be accomplished in a manner that will not be detrimental to the Highway and that will safeguard the public, and that the construction of turning lanes occurs.

H. Kandiyohi County Building Permit. This permit assures that all structures constructed at the

facility will comply with applicable rules of Kandiyohi County.

I. Kandiyohi County On-site Septic System Permit. This permit assures that the on-site wastewater system is designed, sized, and constructed in accordance with Minn. R. ch. 7080, Individual Sewage Treatment Systems.

J. Board of Commissioner, Judicial Ditch No. 17. Express authority to discharge to Judicial

Ditch No. 17 affords an opportunity for the Board to control discharges to the ditch system. 27. The MPCA finds that ongoing public regulatory authority will address any significant potential

environmental effects that were identified as reasonably expected to occur.

16


The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs. 28. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which environmental effects can

be anticipated and controlled as a result of other available environmental studies undertaken by public agencies or the project proposer, including other EISs." Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.D (2003). The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

29. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA staff as part of the potential environmental impact analysis for the proposed expansion of the Bushmills Ethanol Plant. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the project proposer, commentors, staff experience, and other available information.

A. Completed data portions of the Bushmills Ethanol EAW. B. Minnesota Natural Heritage Information System Data Request Form ERDB

20040674, dated April 7, 2004. C. Bushmills Ethanol AERA, dated February 2004.

30. There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects that

cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes, or by regional and local plans.

31. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies, and MPCA staff expertise on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

32. The MPCA has jurisdiction in determining the need for an EIS for this project. The EAW, the

permit development process, the facility planning process, responses prepared by MPCA staff in response to comments on the Bushmills Ethanol Plant EAW, and the evidence in the record are adequate to support a reasoned decision regarding the potential significant environmental effects that are reasonably expected to occur from this project.

33. Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is expected to comply with all MPCA standards.

34. Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700 (2003), there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the project.

35. An EIS is not required.

17


18

36. Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed findings are hereby adopted as such.

ORDER

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency determines that there are no potential significant environmental effects reasonably expected to occur from the Bushmills Ethanol Plant project and that there is no need for an Environmental Impact Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED

______________________________________ Sheryl A. Corrigan, Commissioner Minnesota Pollution Control Agency ___________________________________ Date

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE EAW

1. Comments by Thomas Fischer, Board Conservationist, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil

Resources. Letter received August 26, 2004. Comment 1-1: “Water Discharges. Once an agreement has been reached with the golf course, I can appreciate the usage of the discharge waters for irrigation purposes. This appears to be a good “recycling” effort, which would decrease the amount of water needing to be pumped from the golf course well(s). I am concerned about the excess discharge making its way to Judicial Ditch 17. The ethanol facility is one-mile west of Atwater; Judicial Ditch 17 is two-miles east of the ethanol facility. The City of Atwater is located between these two points. How does the excess discharge make its way from the facility to Judicial Ditch 17? I’m also concerned about the potential impact to Summit Lake due to possible overflow of the proposed stormwater pond at the ethanol facility. I hope the SWPPP addresses this concern.” Response 1-1: Bushmills Ethanol Plant (Bushmills) is working out the details for a written agreement with the Island Pine Golf Club in the city of Atwater (City), Minnesota, for the acceptance of plant non-contact water as course irrigation. Bushmills currently has a letter of intent from Island Pine Golf Club stating the Club’s desire of the plant effluent for irrigation purposes. The path to Judicial Ditch 17 from the plant for the purposes of water discharges would be to the Golf Club irrigation pond, with any overflow or excess flow through the City stormwater system, to Judicial Ditch 17. A diagram of this path was submitted to MPCA in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System application in March 2004. Figure 1 (attached) shows the pipeline alignment. Exact details will be resolved with the final design of the discharge system. In the unlikely event that the facility stormwater pond should overflow, the natural contours of the land would direct runoff toward the southeast away from Summit Lake towards the Golf Club. Mr. Thomas Fischer also recommended that Mr. Skip Wright, hydrologist with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Spicer Office, be contacted. Mr. Wright was contacted and had the following concerns:

a) The stormwater pond should be constructed for a one hundred year return frequency storm event.

b) What is the potential for plant effluent degrading the health of the grasses at the Golf Club? c) He desired more information on the route of flows between the facility and Judicial Ditch 17. d) What are the chloride levels in the facility discharge?

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Responses to Comments on the Atwater, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet

In response to these concerns:

a) The stormwater pond needs to be constructed to ensure that there is no potential for violation of permitted effluent limitations associated with the stormwater associated with an industrial activity discharge. The pond sizing is more determined by this requirement than the return-frequency of the design storm. In fact, the system has been designed assuming the entire drainage area is impervious. This results in a capacity considerably greater than the capacity developed by using the typical assumptions with regards to the imperviousness of the drainage area, which assumes only roofs and pavement are impervious. The inside bottom dimensions of the stormwater pond are 383 feet by 215 feet. At the designed depth of 6 feet, the dimensions are 418 feet by 262 feet. At the back-up depth of 11 feet (water will back up in the drain sump areas), the dimensions are 477 feet by 308 feet. This brings the capacity of the stormwater pond to within 0.25 inches of the 100 year recurrent storm frequency event. See also Comment/Response 1-2.

b) Since the facility effluent is essentially ground water with higher concentrations of naturally

occurring minerals, the effluent is of a lesser quality (higher mineral content) than the ground water currently used at the Gulf Club. The higher concentration of naturally occurring minerals have a greater potential to affect the health of grasses at the Golf Club than they do surface-water quality. To protect the Golf Course grasses, the proposed draft permit contains a monitoring criteria for the waste stream to the Golf Course irrigation pond. The desire of the Golf Club is to offset the volume of water that they are pumping from the aquifer. The volume of water that is pumped from the aquifer will dilute the mineral concentration in the plant effluent, as will any rain water, resulting in irrigation water quality between plant effluent and ground water. The Golf Club is aware of quality reduction.

c) See comment above already addressing this concern.

d) Chloride levels in the facility discharge are typically in the 35-40 milligrams per liter (mg/L)

range with higher temporary concentrations during polishing softener regenerations. The frequency of the softener regenerations are typically two to three per month.

Comment 1-2: “According to the Kandiyohi County Comprehensive Water Plan (Chapter 4, page 57), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has a ninety-nine acre Waterfowl Production Area (WPA) located adjacent to Summit Lake. Figure 2 of your EAW shows the proposed location of the ethanol facility and its proximity to the WPA as well as Summit Lake. I’m concerned about how this ethanol facility might possibly impact the WPA, both during construction and long-term usage. If you haven’t done so already, I recommend that you contact the Litchfield, Minnesota office of the U.S. FWS to inform them of the proposed project and obtain their input.” Response 1-2: Mr. Scott Glup of the FWS Litchfield Office was contacted and referred the concerns to Laurie Fairchild, also of the FWS, who added the following concerns:

a) More detail of the pond is requested: size, shape, and continuous or periodic discharge (if periodic, what is the criterion for discharge, i.e. rainfall amount).

b) Alternatives to discharging to Summit Lake. If an alternative is chosen, then FWS can

wrap up review quickly.

2


c) Field tile right of way concerns at Summit Lake (necessity of right of way permit). d) FWS not aware of Bushmills requesting an endangered species review.

Addressing those concerns:

a) The discharge will be subsequent to, rather than simultaneously with, a precipitation event. Consequently, the discharge will have less “bounce” impact on receiving water than the uncontrolled field tile discharges that are occurring now and will occur in the future. Moreover, the pollutant levels in the discharge will need to meet the 5-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) effluent limitations so as not to create turbid conditions or impairment of the dissolve oxygen level in the receiving waters. See also Comment/Response 1-1, (Mr. Wright’s concern a.) Bushmills is now intending to discharge stormwater to the east, through the City’s storm sewers to Judicial Ditch 17.

b) The main alternative that exists to discharging treated stormwater to Summit Lakes is to

discharge to the southeast toward the Island Pine Golf Club and the City. This alternative was examined, and Bushmills has decided to revise the project to discharge to the east. The change is not significant because there is no new receiving water for the Stormwater discharge; the stormwater discharge will follow the same path that the facility’s non-contact water follows. The environmental impact will not be significant because it is a stormwater rather than an industrial water discharge and because the facility’s stormwater pond was designed with excess capacity due to assuming that the entire facility was covered in an impervious surface.

c) Since Bushmills has decided to abandon the discharge to Summit Lake, this question is

now moot.

d) A Natural Heritage (state) review was requested and has been responded to by the DNR (NHNRP contract#: ERDB 20040674). Ms. Laurie Fairchild of FWS was subsequently contacted and she indicated that a Federal endangered species review would be required if the discharge were made to Summit Lake and the WPA. These are different but very similar reviews. Since no such discharge is now contemplated, a Federal review is no longer required.

Comment 1-3: “The EAW states that the United States Department of Agriculture (Willmar Office) identified a single, small wetland on site. U.S.D.A. is not the only agency to be contacted regarding wetlands. Locally, Kandiyohi County administers the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. WCA has been in place across the State of Minnesota since 1991 to achieve a no net loss of wetlands. I recommend contacting the county (Jeff Bredberg) to discuss your project and process the application as required by WCA.”

3

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Responses to Comments on the Atwater, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response 1-3: The wetland in question was described in the EAW. Mr. Jeff Bredberg of Kandiyohi County Environmental Services and Mr. Rick Reimer of the United States Department of Agriculture toured the site with representatives of the project proposer. They were unable to find any wetland on the Bushmills parcel, which was then covered with a corn crop. They reviewed Natural Resource Conservation Service aerial photographs going back to 1983, and could not find any wetlands in the cropland areas. It appears that the wetland described in the EAW no longer exists or never actually existed at all. There may be a small wetland in the railroad right-of-way. When the railway spur to serve the facility is constructed, that wetland (if it exists) will be avoided. 2. Comments by Charles Lippert, Air Quality Technician, Department of Natural Resources

and Environment, Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians. Letter received August 31, 2004. Comment 2-1: “The plant seems to address fugitive emissions through the use of a scrubber and a burner (thermal oxidizer). The DNRE Air Quality Program understands the potential of CO and NOx production from the burner and is satisfied with the answers Bushmills has already provided. However, there seems to be a lack of information regarding the scrubber, especially the treatment of the chelating solvent agent of the scrubber, its handling and emissions during its re-generation, change-out or maintenance phases. This is a concern since this facility aggressively tries to capture much of the fugitive emissions by routing all possible exhaust mixture to the scrubber, yet there seems to be a lack of equal fervor in ensuring the scrubber system would operate with minimal emissions.” Response 2-1: The Fermentation Scrubber is a counter current water scrubber with a packed bed and water distribution header. One of the key features of this scrubber is that it is a single pass scrubber that will receive well water at approximately 56 degrees F. After a single pass, the spent scrubber water is then directed to the cook tank and fermentation process. The scrubber water is classified as contact process water and will not be recirculated in the scrubber or released to the environment. The scrubber is removing Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) from the fermentation gases and returns them to the process (cook tank and fermentation process) where they came from. No chelating agent is used. Recent engineering test data from a similar facility indicates that this scrubber will achieve VOC absorption efficiencies in the 98 percent to 99.5 percent range depending on scrubber water flow rates in the 30 to 50 gallons per minute range. Only naturally occurring minerals (which are being consumed by all residents on well water in the Atwater area) are being introduced by the scrubber to the process. The scrubber, unlike a regenerative thermal oxidizer, does not require regeneration or change out as was suggested in your letter. The scrubber will be inspected and serviced as required as part of the Operation and Maintenance Plan. The scrubber will also be monitored for pressure drop and water flow rate and any abnormal operation, e.g., water flow, will be immediately observed and corrective action initiated. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is requiring scrubbers at ethanol facilities to meet 95 percent control efficiency to be considered to be Best Available Control Technology. This scrubber system exceeds this EPA requirement. Comment 2-2: “As much thought has been put into providing emissions controls for the facility, there seems to be a lack of emissions control address with the issues of wetcake. This product has the potential for raising the most complaint from the local residences of nuisance odors emanating from the facility. Granted, even Bushmills Ethanol is uncertain of the levels of VOC this product would emit, thus will be working closely with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in determining wetcake’s VOC emissions. However, Bushmills Ethanol should have at least minimum control levels in place to address this potential problem, with this control plan flexible enough such that more aggressive controls can be implemented once the VOC emissions from the wetcake have been established.”

4

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Responses to Comments on the Atwater, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Response 2-2: Regarding the wetcake issue, MPCA does not regulate odors. The MPCA is concerned about VOC emissions from wetcake, however, some of which are odorous. The MPCA has required Bushmills to conduct testing to quantify potential VOC emissions before they will be allowed to produce wetcake as part of their normal operations. This has been an issue for other facilities and MPCA and EPA are looking forward to receiving data on VOC emissions from wetcake. Finally, if Bushmills is ultimately allowed to produce wetcake as part of normal operation, Bushmills has committed to refrain from storing wet cake for greater than 72 hours unless ambient temperatures are below 55 degrees F. Comment 2-3: “Another concern would be the potential of heavy metals entering both the air and water, through the use of pesticides and fungicides. Since this will become a concentration of grains and DDGS, Bushmills must address how they would limit the wildlife, vermin and scavengers from accessing the feed-stock grains, DDGS, and wetcake. If a vermin or a scavenger makes the facility their home, what non-toxic methods of control will be implemented? If pesticides are to be used, what criteria must be present before authorization is issued. What safe-guards will be in place such that the toxins, often involving heavy metals, would not enter the fuel-grade ethanol stream and be distributed as HAP emissions elsewhere or would not enter the DDGS or the wetcake and bioaccumulate through in farm animals that provide us with our food. Since DDGS and wetcake are involved, like the issue of possible pesticide use, Bushmills also must adequately address mold and mildew control so that their requested market products would not be spoiled yet answer the same questions raised with the issue of wildlife, vermin and scavengers control.” Response 2-3: In order to minimize wildlife, vermin and scavengers from accessing the feed stock grains, distillers dry grains and solubles (DDGS), and wet cake, a number of actions will be taken by Bushmills to include; secured doors on the grain unloading and storage operations, and DDGS storage and load out operations; the wet cake pad and other areas of the plant will have field mice traps; and pesticides and fungicides will only be used if approved for use by the state and only after Bushmills’ management review and approval. These controls will minimize the opportunity for wildlife, vermin and scavengers to make the Bushmills plant their home. In no case will controls be used that are not approved for use by the state and federal government. Comment 2-4: “On a macro-scale impacts, have the Bushmills Ethanol conducted Environmental Impact Study on their ancillary contribution to the air-shed pollution, addressing such issues as how much additional mercury, NOx, and SO2 would be produced by Electrical Generation Units to provide the electrical power needed to sustain this facility, increases in HAPs, PM, VOC and NOx emissions from increased road-way traffic from their employees, supplier, and distributors, and increases in HAPs and PM from diesel-fuel powered train? Though these pollution issues are not of Bushmills Ethanol’s direct contribution, the public should still be notified on these potential ancillary contributions and the risks inherent therein.” Response 2-4: The Bushmills plant will have an in house laboratory where all products (wetcake, if allowed, DDGS and denatured ethanol) are regularly sampled to meet all regulatory requirements associated with the use and disposition of such products. Upon startup and whenever requested by the MPCA, hazardous air pollutant (HAP) sampling will be performed by Bushmills. The MPCA has reviewed the ambient HAP modeling to insure that emission rates and predicted ambient concentrations of HAPs are within limits to insure protection of the public health. These are the same safeguards that MPCA places on all proposed ethanol projects in the state.

5

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Responses to Comments on the Atwater, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Regarding whether Bushmills performed an Environmental Impact Study, please be assured that the Bushmills project went through state environmental review and completed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) as required by Minn. R. ch. 4410. The EAW addressed all of the items you inquired about except emissions from increased electrical generation units and diesel-fuel powered trains. Environmental review does not address emissions from rail traffic and the state does not have authority to regulate those emissions. Regarding any potential increase in power plant emissions as a result of an increase in electrical consumption by Bushmills, the utility is responsible to determine and control these emissions, not Bushmills. Environmental Review is conducted on new power generation facilities pursuant to Minn. R. § 4410.7000 3. Comments by Diane K. Anderson, Environmental Planner, Environmental Review Unit,

Division of Ecological Services, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter received September 15, 2004.

Comment 3-1: “It was difficult to assess the impacts to surface waters without a map showing the location of Ag. Ditch No. 17 drainage and discharge paths, stormwater retention ponds and the golf course irrigation ponds.” Response 3-1: Please see the attached map (Figure 1) showing the approximate path from the plant to Ag Ditch 17 for the plant’s non-contact utility waters. See also Comment/Responses 1-1, and 1-2.

Comment 3-2: “The EAW does not include the total annual volume of ground water to be utilized. The DNR supports the idea of reusing the non-contact cooling water for golf course irrigation. Is there experience with using this type and quality of water for irrigation? The DNR would also like to know the estimated annual use of water for irrigation at the golf course and the percent of the total discharge that will be used for irrigation. Is there an agreement with the golf course to use this water for irrigation and could more information on such an agreement be presented?” Response 3-2: The total estimated volume of ground water to be withdrawn from the aquifer by Bushmills Ethanol is 226.1 million gallons per year (640,500 gallons per day). Of this amount, as much as 29.8 million gallons per year (144,800 gallons per day) would be available to Island Pine Golf Club during their irrigation season (April-October). Per conversations with owners of the Club, water use varies from approximately 96,000 to 288,000 gallons per day, depending on weather conditions.

At this time, there is no written agreement in place between Bushmills Ethanol and Island Pine Golf Club. However, the Golf Club has written a letter to Bushmills stating their desire for the water discharge from the plant to offset part of the water that is being pumped to irrigate the golf course. There currently are no ICM designed facilities irrigating golf courses, however, one facility in Nebraska is irrigating crop land, and one plant in Kansas is permitted to irrigate crops upon starting operation. Comment 3-3: “Item 17. Water Quality – Surface Water Runoff: Potential impacts to the lakes located downstream of the project should be discussed in this section. For example, the proposed storage volume for the stormwater pond should be identified. The DNR recommends the 24-hour,100-year event. If a permanent pool will be maintained, DNR staff are willing to assist in the design of an outlet that prevents fish (i.e., carp and bullheads) migration.

6

Bushmills Ethanol Plant Responses to Comments on the Atwater, Minnesota Environmental Assessment Worksheet Whether chillers will be used to reduce the amount of water used in the cooling process should also be identified.” Response 3-3: Bushmills has decided to reroute the stormwater through the Atwater storm sewer system to Judicial Ditch 17. It has not at this point in time been determined whether plant non-contact effluent and stormwater will be co-mingled for irrigation of the golf course. Neither has it been determined whether a common pipe or two parallel pipes will be used to convey the stormwater and non-contact plant effluent. There will be sampling of both flows prior to any commingling. Currently, the runoff from the project site flows to the southeast toward the Island Pine Golf Club and the City. Per the stormwater permit submittal, the plant will hold the retained stormwater for 24 to 48 hours following the event, and after inspection and required sampling, will be discharged ultimately to Judicial Ditch 17. This change from the concept described in the EAW is not viewed as a significant departure, except insofar as a discharge point (to Summit Lake) has been eliminated. It is not expected to result in a substantial increase in water discharged to the Judicial Ditch 17, since the sizing of the stormwater pond is relatively large, and it might never need to discharge. As stormwater will be required to meet BOD5 and TSS effluent limits, its discharge will not adversely effect the water quality in or downstream of Judicial Ditch 17. The stormwater pond is designed for a twenty-five year event, and assumes the entire site is impermeable. Excess capacity has been allowed by assuming the entire drainage area is covered in an impervious surface. This nears the quantity required for a one hundred year event using more typical assumptions with regards to the imperviousness of the drainage area (the roofs, sidewalks, and driveways only are impervious). In fact, the pond is designed so that effluent from it will meet effluent limits of 25 mg/L BOD5 and 30 mg/L TSS. Water chillers are a standard in ICM’s plant design to assist with cooling demands in the facility. Chillers are designed to reduce water temperature of cooling water to allow less water to be appropriated for cooling.

Comment 3-4: Item 18. Water Quality – Wastewater: This section should identify the anticipated concentrations of the Total Dissolved Solids in the non-contact process water effluent and whether algaecides will be used. Response 3-4: Total Dissolved Solids in the non-contact process water effluent is estimated at 1570 mg/L. Biocides will be used in the cooling tower. However, during the use of non-oxidizing biocide the cooling tower blowdown will be shut and will remain shut until two conditions are met:

1. Desired Time has elapsed for the biocide to decompose. 2. Oxidation Reduction Potential has returned to a normal level, showing inactivity of the

biocide. 4. Comments by Britta Bloomberg, Minnesota Historical Society, State Historical Preservation

Office. Letter received September 23, 2004. Comment 4-1: There are no properties listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places, and no known or suspected archaeological properties in the area that will be affected by this project. Therefore, in our opinion, the “no” response to question 25a is appropriate. Response 4-1: Comment noted. No response is required.

7


8

Comment 4-2: Please note that this comment does not address the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 36 CFR 800, Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the preservation of historic properties. If this project is considered for federal assistance, or requires a federal permit or license, it should be submitted to our office with reference to the assisting federal agency. Response 4-1: Comment noted. The MPCA will advise Bushmills Ethanol of this requirement. 5. Comments by Ronald Mortensen, County Engineer, Meeker County Highway Department. Letter received September 30, 2004.

Comment 5-1: “The permittee may not use the Judicial Ditch No. 17 Drainage system to drain water from its facility, until the permittee obtains express authority from the drainage authority having jurisdiction over the drainage system.” Response 5-1: The comment is noted. The project proposer has been so advised.

Date post:	18-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	doankiet
View:	215 times
Download:	2 times

TO INTERESTED PARTIES - Minnesota Pollution … through a vaporizer/superheater and the resulting...

Documents