Clearbrook Tanks Project Findings of Fact, Conclusions of ... · 3. The existing tanks and proposed new tanks at the Terminal are used for temporary storage, segregation, and blending

ATTACHMENT 1 STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION ON THE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED CLEARBROOK TANKS PROJECT CLEARBROOK, CLEARWATER COUNTY, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

This matter came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Citizens’ Board (Board) at a regular meeting held in St. Paul, Minnesota on March 24, 2015. Based on the information gathered during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) process, the comments received on the EAW, input from MPCA staff, and other information in the record, the MPCA hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Project Description 1. The Minnesota Pipe Line Company, LLC (MPL) is the owner of the Clearbrook Terminal (or Terminal)

located south of County Road 74 in Clearwater County, Minnesota. The Clearbrook Terminal is an existing above-ground storage tank terminal that is currently comprised of eleven (11) crude oil tanks and support equipment.

2. The Terminal is operated by Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. (“KPL” or “the Proposer”). KPL, as operator of the Clearbrook Terminal, proposes to expand the existing Terminal by constructing four field-erected 300,000 barrel external floating roof crude oil tanks (the Project).

3. The existing tanks and proposed new tanks at the Terminal are used for temporary storage, segregation, and blending of crude oil delivered through existing pipelines.

4. In addition to the tanks and their associated containment areas, the Project will require new infrastructure that will include a new 1,500 foot access road, two small buildings to house power zone centers, and necessary pumps and piping.

5. Pipelines from North Dakota and Canadian oil fields supply the Terminal, and the oil stored in the tanks is then transported from the Terminal via existing pipelines to the Twin Cities’ refineries.

Environmental Review of the Project

6. Because this Project will store 1,000,000 gallons or more of a hazardous material, Minn. R.

4410.4300, subp. 10(B) requires that the MPCA prepare and review an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW).

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

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

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order 7. An EAW is a brief document designed to set out the basic facts necessary to determine whether an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required for a proposed project or to initiate the scoping process for an EIS (Minn. R. pt. 4410.0200, subp. 24). The MPCA is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU) tasked with preparing the EAW for this Project (Minn. R. pt. 4410.4300, subp. 10(B)).

8. The MPCA provided public notice of the Project as follows:

a. Notice of the availability of the EAW for public comment was published in the EQB Monitor on January 5, 2015, as required by Minn. R. 4410.1500.

b. The EAW was available for review on the MPCA website throughout the public comment period at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/index.html.

c. The MPCA provided a news release to media, Becker County, and other interested parties on January 5, 2015.

9. During the 30-day public comment period ending on February 4, 2015, the MPCA received a

comment letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and an electronic transmission from a member of the public. Copies of the letter and electronic transmission are included in Appendix A to these Findings.

10. A response to the comment letter received from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is not required.

The MPCA prepared a written response to the electronic transmission received during the public comment period; the responses are included in Appendix B to these Findings. A copy of the MPCA’s letter responding to the member of the public’s comments, dated February 27, 2015, is included in Appendix C.

Standard for Decision on the Need for an EIS

11. The MPCA shall base its decision on the need for an EIS on the information gathered during the

EAW process and the comments received on the EAW (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 3). The agency must order an EIS for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 1). In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must compare the impacts that may be reasonably expected to occur from the Project with the criteria set forth in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7. These criteria are:

A. Type, extent, and reversibility of environmental effects;

B. Cumulative potential effects. The responsible governmental unit (RGU) shall consider the

following factors: whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effect; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project;

C. The extent to which the environmental effects are subject to mitigation by ongoing public

regulatory authority. The RGU may rely only on mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project; and

2

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order

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.

Type, Extent, and Reversibility of Environmental Effects 12. The MPCA finds that the types of impacts that may reasonably be expected to occur from the

Project include: a. Wastewater discharges; b. Stormwater impacts; c. Surface water impacts; d. Groundwater impacts; and e. Air quality impacts.

13. Written comments received during the comment period raised additional issues, as follows:

· Potential oil discharges and watershed impacts; and · Soils and geology questions.

14. With respect to the extent and reversibility of impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from

the Project, the MPCA makes the following findings.

Findings on wastewater discharges and stormwater impacts. 15. The existing Terminal does not discharge to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) nor does it

use municipal wastewater infrastructure. The Project will not require the Terminal to connect to a POTW and there will be no impacts to any municipal wastewater infrastructure.

16. The existing Terminal operates a sanitary septic system with a drain field that services the office/facility restrooms. The septic system is regulated by a county permit. The Project will not increase the permanent number of workers at the Terminal. Therefore, the existing septic system will not need to be expanded. Portable toilets will be used during the construction process and will be serviced on a regular basis.

17. The normal operation of the tanks does not generate wastewater. Therefore, the Project will not

result in wastewater discharged to surface waters as part of normal Terminal operations. During construction, water used for the hydrostatic testing (described in Finding 18) will be discharged in compliance with MPCA’s National Pollutant Disposal Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Individual Permit (MN0056472).

18. The Proposer will conduct a quality test to check the integrity of all four new tanks through a procedure

called hydrostatic testing. Hydrostatic testing is when the facility fills their tanks with water and then puts each tank under pressure to test the quality and integrity of the tank before it is put into use. The process may have to be done many times until all potential quality issues (if any) are resolved and the tank passes this testing and can be used in regular production process. The hydrostatic testing of any equipment is regulated by the NPDES/SDS Individual Permit.

3

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order 19. Tank testing is also required by American Petroleum Institute (API) standard 653 after the tanks are

constructed, and also when a major repair to the tank floor or shell is made to ensure that the tank and related equipment are safe for use.

20. The NPDES/SDS Individual Permit requires individual review by the MPCA and a separate permit for each

hydrostatic test. The variability in the amount of water and site conditions change throughout the year; therefore, the MPCA decided to review each of these discharges and set separate limits and best management practices (BMPs) for each occurrence.

21. For hydrostatic testing or tank/pipeline cleaning, the MPCA requires the proper disposal of all

cleaning water and solids off site; discharge to the environment is not permitted (the discharges are typically disposed to the city sewer and to a disposal facility). All the water used for the tank/pipeline hydrostatic testing must be clean water. Therefore no hazardous material should be involved in any part of the cleaning, testing, or discharge of this process. The NPDES/SDS Individual Permit also specifically states that KPL cannot discharge any hazardous material to the environment.

22. Before cleaning and inspection, any crude oil in the tank is pumped from the tank to a pipeline. Liquid heel (the volume of liquid not emptied during normal operations at the lowermost operating position of the floating-roof of the tank) and any sludge remaining after normal pump-out are vacuumed out, and the tank is degassed by forced ventilation before a final sludge removal and rinse-out. If necessary, diesel fuel is used to reduce the viscosity of the heavier crude oil to loosen sludge. Final tank rinse consists of water and possibly some detergent to remove final residue or staining. The diesel fuel, sludge and wastewater from the final tank rinse are not discharged; rather, these are hauled offsite to a licensed facility for oil/water separation and oil recycling. Because tank cleaning and inspection do not involve the discharge of wastewater, no impacts to any surface or groundwater resources in the area are anticipated.

23. Construction of the new tanks, secondary containment, and new internal roads will increase the impervious area of the site by approximately 18 acres. Because more than one acre of land will be disturbed, KPL must obtain a NPDES/SDS General Stormwater Permit (CSW General Permit) for its construction activities. The CSW General Permit contains requirements for erosion and sediment control during construction, and also contains permanent stormwater management system requirements.

24. The CSW General Permit requirements during construction include erosion prevention practices

that minimize how long disturbed soils can be left in an erosive condition before they are stabilized by measures such as straw mulch and erosion control blankets. KPL is also required to use sediment control practices such as silt fences or compost logs that must minimize the discharge of suspended sediment in any stormwater discharges during construction.

25. KPL is required to develop a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that meets the CSW General Permit requirements; to inspect and maintain the erosion and sediment control practices during construction; and to vegetate or otherwise stabilize the site. The SWPPP will describe the BMPs such as ditches, dikes, and siltation fences that will be used to reduce the potential for

4


pollutants to reach water bodies during construction of the tanks. Gravel and/or vegetation will be used to stabilize surfaces disturbed during construction activities. Most of the soil excavated from the construction area will be used as engineered backfill or for secondary containment structures.

26. Typically, after construction is over and the site has gone through final stabilization, site stormwater

is no longer covered under the MPCA CSW General Permit. The Terminal’s existing MPCA NPDES/SDS Individual Permit incorporates stormwater discharge requirements. Most of the runoff from the new impervious surfaces will be collected and retained in the secondary containment system. As a result, the new impervious surfaces will not significantly increase the rate at which water is discharged from the site to the surrounding watershed area. A NPDES/SDS Individual Permit regulates the stormwater runoff from this facility that is discharged from the secondary containment area.

27. Collecting the stormwater from new impervious surfaces within the secondary containment berms

will allow time for settling of any sediment and pollutants attached to sediment prior to discharge of the stormwater. The NPDES/SDS Individual Permit and the CSW General Permit require that stormwater collected within the berms be visually checked prior to discharge and discharged in a manner that will not cause downstream erosion. If a visible sheen is detected, BMPs are implemented based on an assessment of source and extent of significant material.

28. Any stormwater that leaves the Project property would enter the ditch that runs through the middle of the facility property. Any stormwater that flows through this unnamed ditch would travel to an unnamed creek that discharges to Silver Creek and then to the Lost River. Although this is the path a discharge would take, it is very unlikely that stormwater coming off the property would reach the unnamed creek, let alone Silver Creek or the Lost River, before it is absorbed into the soil.

29. If a stormwater discharge did reach the Lost River, the flow is then to the Clearwater River, thence

to the Red Lake River, and finally into the Red River of the North at East Grand Forks, Minnesota. Project stormwater is expected to dissipate well before it could reach Lost River, so the likelihood of any impact to Clearwater River or beyond is remote.

30. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, if water quality impacts

were to occur, the operation and management of the Project and the BMPs can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are found to be reversible.

31. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs. The impacts of wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process, and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.

32. 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 impacts related to wastewater discharge and stormwater runoff that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

5

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order Findings on surface water and groundwater impacts. 33. The Project will not involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion,

outfall structure, diking, and/or impoundment) or modification of wetlands. The Project has been designed to avoid environmental effects to wetlands, and compensatory wetland mitigation is not required. KPL will meet BMPs during construction, and will construct permanent containment dikes around the tanks. KPL is required to design the containment dikes to contain 110% of the volume of one tank or the tank volume plus sufficient freeboard to contain precipitation from the 25-year, 24-hour storm (about five inches), whichever is greater.

34. The Project does not involve the physical or hydrologic alteration (dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment) of any surface waters. The unnamed tributary to Silver Creek to the west of the Project area will be protected during Project construction through the implementation of standard erosion control practices. In addition, protection plans already in place including the Terminal’s Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) and Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Emergency Response Plan (ERP) will be updated to address this Project.

35. Well logs in the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) County Well Index (CWI) indicated groundwater in the Project area as being shallow, generally within 10 to 30 feet of the ground surface. However, soil borings drilled during a remedial investigation conducted at the Project area in 1996 and a geotechnical investigation completed for the Project in 2013, indicated groundwater depths of 40 feet or greater. Shallow groundwater has been identified intermittently across the site within the clay soils. This water is not used as a drinking water source. Due to the intermittent presence of this shallow groundwater across the site and low permeability of the clay unit, the shallow groundwater is not believed to present a risk to the deeper aquifer below the clay or any surface waterbodies offsite.

36. The soil boring logs indicated that clay soils in the Project area extended to depths of approximately

45 feet below grade. The clay soils have a very low measured permeability; therefore, groundwater would move very slowly (on the order of feet per year). Artesian conditions were found in several soil borings drilled into the aquifer present at 45 feet below grade during both the 1996 and 2013 investigations. Artesian conditions indicate an upward groundwater flow, thus limiting the potential migration of any surface or subsurface releases.

37. There are no monitoring wells located at the Project site. However, there are seven non-drinking

water monitoring wells used by and located at the Enbridge Terminal, across County State Aid Highway 49 (470th street) from the Terminal. Based on data collected from these wells, groundwater beneath the Enbridge Terminal area flows in a northwesterly direction when artesian conditions are not present.

38. The MPCA expects the same northwesterly groundwater flow from the aquifer beneath the

Terminal. Lower and Upper Red Lake are located approximately thirteen miles to the north and east of the Terminal. With existing data indicating groundwater flow to the northwest, the risk from groundwater contamination from the Terminal reaching Lower or Upper Red Lake is remote.

6

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order 39. Municipal wells for the city of Clearbrook are located over one-half mile downgradient from the site

and are 166-178 feet in depth. Based on the site geology and well depths, it would be highly unlikely that contamination from any spill or leak at the Terminal would reach these wells. As mentioned earlier, groundwater flow in clay soils with these very low permeability rates is on the order of feet per year, so it would take decades or longer for any potentially contaminated groundwater to reach drinking water supplies or surface water resources. Further, KPL is required to clean up any releases well before that would occur.

40. Three active water supply wells are located within the Terminal property boundary. These three

wells are not used for drinking water. Two of these wells are production wells located immediately southeast of Tank 6 (CWI well ID 636509 and 462903). Well 636509 is an inactive industrial well and well 462903 is an active domestic well. Industrial wells may be used for hydrostatic testing depending on the availability of water from other sources, and as a non-drinking water source for construction activities such as dust control, mixing grout products, cleaning, and similar activities. The third well is a domestic well located southeast of Tank 4 (CWI well ID 128504). One additional well located within the property boundary has been sealed and abandoned (CWI well ID 667943).

41. For this Project, the MPCA is not requiring the installation of monitoring wells or a remedial

investigation because there are no known current or unmitigated past releases impacting groundwater. All past releases have been adequately investigated/mitigated in compliance with MPCA cleanup requirements. The installation of permanent monitoring wells is also not a requirement for groundwater sampling at all release sites in general.

42. No impacts to groundwater are anticipated from the construction or operation of the Project. Thus the Project is not expected to have any effect on any of these wells.

43. The Project is not within a Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) wellhead protection area. 44. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental

review record is adequate to address the concerns related to surface water and groundwater impacts. The impacts to surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process and methods to prevent significant adverse effects have been developed.

45. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the Project and the BMPs can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are found to be reversible.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to surface water and groundwater that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

7

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order Findings on air quality impacts. 47. The Terminal currently operates under an Option A Registration Permit. Because actual emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other pollutants will not exceed major source thresholds after construction of the new tanks, KPL has elected to apply for and operate in accordance with a Minnesota Capped Permit (Option 2). Because KPL has elected to operate in accordance with a Minnesota Capped Permit, the Terminal-wide potential to emit for VOC and other regulated pollutants are effectively restricted to levels less than those under the current air permit.

48. Actual emissions after the Project are below major source thresholds and any mandatory EAW triggers for air emissions. The Capped Emissions Permit, Option 2, limits the actual emissions at the Terminal to 85 tons per year for VOCs, 20 tons per year for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs), 75 tons per year Particulate Matter (PM), and 85,000 tons per year Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e). The maximum amounts estimated for VOCs and HAPs are 69.53 tons per year and 4.18 tons per year, respectively.

49. KPL estimates the future actual VOC and HAPs to be 61.89 and 3.67 tons per year, respectively. The

Terminal is and will remain an area source for HAPs.

50. Based on the regulatory and policy judgment reflected in these thresholds, from an air standpoint, the Project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The Project will primarily result in an incremental increase in VOC emissions with nominal emissions of greenhouse gases and PM and as a result, a criteria pollutant air assessment is not required for the Project.

51. With respect to the reversibility of air quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project, crude oil related chemical emissions from the facility will continue while the facility remains in operation, and would cease only if the Project were to be temporarily or permanently closed.


review record is adequate to address the concerns related to air quality. The impacts on air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process and appropriate mitigation measures are available and will be required to prevent significant adverse effects.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to air quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Findings on potential oil discharges and watershed impacts.

54. Tank design features include a number of safeguards that are contained in the design standards,

including tank construction that will meet the Minnesota Office of Pipeline Safety (MNOPS) standards as well as the American Petroleum Institute (API) standards. API standards are designed to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the industry’s operations, comply with federal

8


legislative and regulatory requirements, safeguard health, and protect the environment. Specific design safeguards include cathodic protection and coatings, and leak detection features.

55. The crude oil product is primarily contained by the steel tank itself (i.e., primary containment). A secondary containment system is constructed (impervious clay base barrier and 10-14.5 foot high impervious berms) to contain any spills or releases that may occur. The secondary containment will contain 110% of the volume of the largest tank, or that volume plus sufficient freeboard to contain about a 5-inch storm event, whichever is greater. Therefore, if a tank release occurs it will be captured and contained within the secondary containment system first and foremost. Only if a major failure or catastrophic release occurred that somehow escaped the secondary containment system would crude oil be released to surrounding soils and possibly impact nearby surface waters and groundwater.

56. Cathodic protection systems and protective coatings are part of the tank bottom design, as is an extra thick tank bottom, to prevent floor corrosion which can lead to pinhole releases.

57. The tanks will sit atop a release prevention barrier (impervious surface) with monitoring ports into

the space between the tank bottom and the prevention barrier, to enable identification of a leak through the tank floor that might happen despite the above corrosion prevention measure in place.

58. When crude oil is flowing into the tanks, overfill protection equipment such as radar gauges will

monitor tank liquid levels, and pre-set high-level alarms will warn operators of an excessive level, with automated flow cutoff to prevent accidental overfilling.

59. The Project is located entirely within the watershed of the Clearwater River; therefore, stormwater runoff generated at the site would flow only into this watershed. Surface water from the Project area would not flow to the northeast toward Lower Red Lake, some thirteen miles distant.

60. Clearwater County is somewhat unique in Minnesota because of the number of major watersheds that have their origins there. Most counties and their Comprehensive Local Water Plans only have one or two major watersheds to address. Clearwater County has seven watersheds: the Red Lake River, the Upper and Lower Red Lakes, the Clearwater River, the Wild Rice River, the Otter Tail River, the Crow Wing River, and the Upper Mississippi River.

61. The individual tributaries and ditches within each watershed all help to contain water within that

watershed, thereby acting as breaks to lateral flow into other adjacent watersheds. Also unique is Clearwater County’s position on the Laurentian Divide, a continental height of land feature that separates the waters between the major river basins of the Mississippi River and the Red River of the North.

62. The area’s hydrologic uniqueness is reflected in Clearwater County’s Comprehensive Local Water

Management Plan. This plan was reviewed in preparation of the EAW. Consistent with this plan, the Project includes provisions to install appropriate soil erosion and stormwater BMPs to protect the hydrologic features of the area.

63. A catastrophic failure involving the sudden release of the contents of more than one tank would be an extremely rare event. However, if such a failure occurred at the Project site, it is possible for an

9


amount of the crude oil to escape the secondary containment system. The oil would pool in low spots, migrate vertically into subsoils and follow the natural surface water drainage of the area.

64. It is very unlikely that a release would impact Lower and Upper Red Lake before it could be

remediated. There is a thirteen mile distance from the Terminal to the Red Lakes. Additionally, both the low permeability of the soils, and the direction of surface water runoff and groundwater flow to the northwest rather than to the northeast (the direction towards Red Lake) decrease the risk of impacts to Red Lake.

65. In the unlikely event that there would be runoff towards the northeast, it would be picked up by a

ditch and tributary system that is part of the Ruffy Brook (tributary to the Clearwater River). If a catastrophic event were to overwhelm the Ruffy Brook tributary and runoff would move further to the northeast, that flow would be picked up by a ditch and tributary system to the main stem of the Clearwater River. Beyond that, it is still several miles to the east before the actual divide between the Clearwater watershed and the Upper and Lower Red Lakes’ watershed.

66. The measures that are intended to prevent these types of large scale releases are contained in the spill prevention and preparedness plan which is required under Minn. Stat. 115E. The facility also has readily available cleanup supplies and contractors for spill recovery on land and water. These preventative measures, in addition to the area’s hydrology discussed above, make it extremely unlikely that any oil will travel the thirteen mile distance from the Terminal to Red Lake.

67. In addition, MPCA emergency responders would oversee the initial cleanup of any spilled materials,

which may involve deploying vacuum trucks, excavators, and other control equipment to the site. The MPCA Petroleum Remediation Program would continue to oversee and monitor the investigation and cleanup of the release once the emergency response was completed. The investigation and cleanup would be conducted in accordance with Minn. Stat. 115.061 and 115C.

68. Although significant adverse impacts to water quality are not expected, if water quality impacts were to occur, the operation and management of the Project and the BMPs can be modified and impacts to waters could be reversed. Therefore, the water quality impacts that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project are found to be reversible.


review record is adequate to address the concerns related to the area watersheds. The impacts to the Clearwater watershed that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project have been considered during the review process, and methods to prevent significant adverse impacts have been developed.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to the Clearwater watershed that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

10

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order Findings on soils and geology (raised in public comments). 71. KPL completed a subsurface remedial investigation at the Terminal in 1996 at the request of the

MPCA, to assess contamination resulting from earlier spills. A second subsurface investigation (geotechnical soil study) was completed by American Engineering Testing (AET) in 2013. In the 1996 investigation, soil and groundwater samples were collected from 25 soil borings. In the 2013 study, six geotechnical soil borings were drilled.

72. The soil borings indicated extensive clay to depths of at least 39.5 to 45 feet below grade. This matches with the MGS CWI water well records which indicate that clay soils extend to a depth of approximately 45 feet beneath the Terminal and laterally in a one-mile radius from the site. The clay was tested and found to have very low vertical permeability rates.

73. Because these impermeable soils are so widespread, it is feasible that KPL will not need to import

any clay soils from offsite locations for construction of the containment basins. The results of the AET study indicate the availability and viability of using scarified and re-compacted clay soils from the proposed site location to provide a low permeability clay liner barrier.

74. The MPCA finds that information presented in the EAW and other information in the environmental review record is adequate to address the concerns related to the soils and geology at the Project site. The use of on-site clay soils for construction of the containment berm have been considered during the review process and do not present a significant adverse environmental effect.


environmental effects based on the type, extent, and reversibility of impacts related to water quality that are reasonably expected to occur from the Project.

Cumulative Potential Effects 76. The second criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential

for significant environmental effects is the “cumulative potential effects.” In making this determination, the MPCA must consider “whether the cumulative potential effect is significant; whether the contribution from the project is significant when viewed in connection with other contributions to the cumulative potential effect; the degree to which the project complies with approved mitigation measures specifically designed to address the cumulative potential effects; and the efforts of the proposer to minimize the contributions from the project.” (Minn. R. 4410.1700 subp.7.b). The MPCA findings on this criterion are set forth below.

77. The EAW, public comments, and MPCA follow-up evaluation did not disclose any related or anticipated future projects that may interact with this Project in such a way as to result in significant cumulative potential environmental effects.

78. The EAW evaluated air quality for cumulative potential effects. The potential to emit from the Terminal following the Project will be less than the current potential to emit due to installation of emissions controls at the new tanks and issuance of the capped permit.

11

On the Need for an Environmental Impact Statement Findings of Fact Clearbrook Tanks Project Conclusions of Law Clearbrook, MN And Order 79. The MPCA considered the potential cumulative effects of other proposed pipeline projects either

connected to the Terminal or the Enbridge Terminal. These included the MPL Line 4 “Reliability project,” and Enbridge’s Sandpiper, Line3 and Line 67 pipeline projects. These projects are independent of the Project.

80. The MPL Line 4 “Reliability project” is a pipeline owned by MPL. The pipeline extends from the Terminal to the Twin Cities’ refineries. The MPL Line 4 “Reliability project” involves increasing the capacity of the pipeline with associated pump stations.

81. The existing pump station at the Terminal will be upgraded and will require minimal physical modification of the Terminal. Therefore, relevant impacts associated with the MPL Line 4 “Reliability project” are primarily associated with a minor increase in air emissions.

82. The air permit application includes an analysis of both the Terminal tanks addition and the MPL “Reliability project” in the capped permit pre-change analysis. The pre-change analysis demonstrates that the estimated future actual station emissions, incorporating the combined effect of both projects, allow the Terminal to maintain its status as a minor source of air emissions under the capped emissions permit. Further, any potential environmental impacts resulting from the MPL “Reliability project” will be subject to separate review of the Certificate of Need.

83. Enbridge has applied to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for permission to increase the

capacity on Line 67 and to construct two new pipelines (Sandpiper and Line 3) that will intersect with their terminal in Clearbrook. One or each of the pipelines may also supply crude oil to the Terminal. Enbridge will be required to apply for and receive the necessary permits prior to construction. Enbridge currently has a capped air permit; any increased emissions from pipeline expansions (pumping stations) will need to be covered under their existing permit.

84. MPCA reviewed the MPL Line 4 “Reliability project” and Enbridge’s Sandpiper, Line 3 and Line 67 projects for potential long term cumulative impacts (i.e. water resources, air, visual effects, vehicle emissions, transportation, and noise). There are no facts indicating a potentially significant cumulative effect on air emissions. There is no significant cumulative potential effect to any surface or groundwater resources.

85. The MPCA did not identify other potential cumulative effects relating to the Project.

86. Based on information on the Project obtained from air screening modeling and permit application review

processes, as presented in the EAW, and in consideration of potential effects due to related or anticipated future projects, the MPCA does not expect significant cumulative effects from the Project.

87. The MPCA finds that this Project will not contribute to any significant cumulative potential effect.

The Extent to Which the Environmental Effects Are Subject to Mitigation by Ongoing Public Regulatory Authority 88. The third criterion that the MPCA must consider when determining if a project has the potential for

significant environmental effects is the extent to which the environmental effects are subject to

12


mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority. Only mitigation measures that are specific and that can be reasonably expected to effectively mitigate the identified environmental impacts of the project can be considered. (Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C) The MPCA findings with respect to this criterion are set forth below.

89. The following permits or approvals will be required for the Project:

Unit of Government Permit or Approval Required MPCA Capped Air Emissions Permit – Option 2 MPCA National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES)/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit MPCA

NPDES/SDS Individual Permit for wastewater (discharges from secondary containment and hydrostatic testing), stormwater from future projects, and trench dewatering from future projects. Reissuance of existing permit (MN0056472 with modification to add the four new tanks

MNDNR Water Appropriation Permit #1990-1207 Local Fire Marshall Aboveground storage tank plan review

90. MPCA Capped Air Emissions Permit-Option 2. A Capped Air Emissions Permit-Option 2 must be

issued before construction can begin. The Capped Air Emission Permit-Option 2 will contain operational and emission limits, including requirements for use of control equipment, that will help prevent or minimize the potential for significant environmental effects.

91. MPCA NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit. An NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater General Permit is required. A General NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit is required when a project disturbs one or more acres. It provides for the use of BMPs such as silt fences, bale checks, and prompt revegetation to prevent eroded sediment from leaving the construction site. KPL must have a SWPPP that will provide more detail as to the BMPs to be implemented and will also address: phased construction; vehicle tracking of sediment; inspection of erosion control measures implemented; and timeframes in which erosion control measures will be implemented. The general permit also requires adequate stormwater treatment capacity be provided to assure that water quality will not be impacted by runoff once the project is constructed.

92. MPCA NPDES/SDS Individual Permit. A NPDES/SDS Individual Permit will be required for the Project

for the discharges from secondary containment and hydrostatic testing, stormwater from future projects and trench dewatering from future projects. The NPDES/SDS Individual Permit requires that specific conditions be adhered to for the operation of the Project, and for overall compliance with water quality requirements.

93. MDNR Water Appropriations Permit. The Project will require a one-time appropriation of

approximately 12.6 million gallons of surface water to obtain the necessary hydrostatic test water for the new tanks. KPL will either use the existing appropriations permit No. 1990-1207 or obtain a

13


one-time water appropriation under the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR’s) General Permit No. 1997-0005. The existing permit allows KPL to withdraw water from Steenerson Lake located on and adjacent to the facility property.

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

effects of the Project.

95. The four proposed breakout tanks will be regulated at the federal level by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and at the state level by MNOPS. MNOPS has an agreement with PHMSA to conduct inspections of Interstate Pipeline Tanks such as these in Minnesota.

96. The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project are subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority.

The Extent to Which Environmental Effects can be Anticipated and Controlled as a Result of Other Available Environmental Studies Undertaken by Public Agencies or the Project Proposer, Including Other EISs 97. The fourth criterion that the MPCA must consider is “the extent to which environmental effects can

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

98. The following documents were reviewed by MPCA as part of the environmental impact analysis for

the Project: · data presented in the EAW · permit applications

99. This list is not intended to be exhaustive. The MPCA also relies on information provided by the

project proposer, persons commenting on the EAW, staff experience, and other available information obtained by staff.

100. There are no elements of the Project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects

that have not been addressed by the Project design and permit development processes and by ensuring conformance with regional and local plans.

101. Based on the environmental review, previous environmental studies by public agencies or the

project proposer, and staff expertise and experience on similar projects, the MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the Project that are reasonably expected to occur can be anticipated and controlled.

102. The MPCA adopts the rationale stated in the attached Response to Comments (Appendix B) as the basis for response to any issues not specifically addressed in these Findings.

14

Documents

Clearbrook Tanks Project Findings of Fact, Conclusions of ... · 3. The existing tanks and proposed new tanks at the Terminal are used for temporary storage, segregation, and blending