STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
In the Matter of the Decision
on the Need for an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Koch Refining
Company - Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage
and Loading Facility.
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS
Koch Refining Company is proposing to construct and operate a new LPG storage facility in its West Tank Farm.
Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.1000 - 4410.1600, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff has prepared an
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the project.
The EAW, comments received on the EAW, and information received during the EAW comment period have
been reviewed in accordance with Minn. R. 4410.1700, to determine whether the proposed project has the
potential for significant environmental effects. Based on this record, the MPCA hereby makes the following
Findings of Fact and Conclusions.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A.
Project Proposal.
1. The proposed project is a storage sphere for LPG that is 72 feet in diameter. It has a total capacity
of 1,461,831 gallons. Potential air emissions are 14 tons per year of Volatile Organic Compounds
(VOCs). The purpose of the proposed project is to route LPG from an existing unit in the refinery
to separate storage prior to sale.
2. Several existing projects were described in the EAW and are considered as background conditions.
These projects were remediation activities whose cumulative total air emissions exceeded 100 tons
per year and occurred since April 21, 1997.
B.
Project Site.
Koch Refining is in the Pine Bend Industrial District, near US Highway 52 and State Highway 55.
The proposed project would lie within the boundaries of the existing refinery. The Koch refinery is on
land zoned as general industrial, as is the area immediately to the east. The area adjacent and to the
west of the refinery complex is zoned agricultural land. The proposed project is not expected to
conflict with adjacent and nearby land uses. Potential conflicts involving environmental matters are
not anticipated.
C.
Major Elements.
The primary element of the proposed project is a pressurized storage sphere to hold LPG. The other
components of this project include loading pumps, loading arms, and a new railroad spur and a rail car
loading platform. The project also includes a rundown line from an existing unit in the refinery to the
storage sphere, pump to rail car loading, a rail car loading rack, and a vapor return line. No above
TDD (for hearing and speech impaired only): (612)282-5332
Printed on recycled paper containing at least 10% fibers from paper recycled by consumers
ground storage tanks are proposed to be built as part of this project.
II.
III.
PROJECT HISTORY
A.
The project is a facility capable of storing 1,000,000 gallons or more, for which preparation of an
EAW is mandatory pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.4300, subp. 10.B.
B.
An EAW was prepared on the proposed project and distributed to the Environmental Quality Board
mailing list and other interested parties on December 24, 1998.
C.
A press release containing the notice of availability of the EAW for public review was provided to
media serving the project area on December 23, 1998.
D.
The public comment period for the EAW began on December 28, 1998, and ended on
January
27, 1999. Seven comment letters were received during the 30-day comment period, and one letter was
received later. Comments were submitted by Richard Mueller, Myron Napper, and jointly from Earth
Protector and Concerned Citizens of Dakota County. Comments submitted by units of government
were from the National Park Service, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the Metropolitan
Council, the Minnesota Department of Health, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Responses to comments received have been prepared by MPCA staff and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the MPCA must
consider the four factors set out in Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. 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 or 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 Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). The MPCA findings with respect to each of these
issues are set forth below.
A.
TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The first factor that the MPCA must consider is the "type, extent, and reversibility of environmental
effects," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.A. The MPCA findings with respect to each of these issues are
set forth below.
1.
Surface Water Runoff
The proposed project would have an impoundment around the storage sphere for fire control and
safety. Runoff from the impoundment should have no additional impact on surface water runoff
and collection. This area is already being directed to the West storm water pond. Additional
surface water runoff will be directed to the pond from the rail spur and rail car loading platform
area. Water from the West storm water pond is treated in Koch’s Oil Separation and Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The water is then discharged to the Mississippi River near Koch’s Barge Dock
facilities. The quality of the storm water is expected to be similar to the current quality of the
discharge. The additional volume from the rail spur area is not expected to have a significant
impact on the Mississippi River. Any increases are expected to be within the limits of Koch’s
existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
-2-
2.
Air Quality
Air emissions from the proposed LPG storage facility would be fugitive VOCs. Fugitive VOC
emissions are from valves, flanges, pumps and loading activities. Potential air emissions are
projected to be approximately 14 tons per year. The VOC stream consists of propylene and
propane.
Emissions from valves, pumps and flanges will be regulated and controlled under Koch’s leak
detection and repair (LDAR) program. The LDAR program is a requirement of federal National
Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. These standards apply to any new or
modified equipment of this type built at the refinery.
A vapor return line will be used to help minimize air emissions from loading activities. The line
returns displaced vapors from rail cars to the storage tank. Additionally, using good loading
practices can minimize the volume of gas released when loading arms are disconnected from rail
cars after loading.
A separate air emissions risk analysis was not performed in the current EAW for the proposed
LPG storage facility. Although the LPG project emits VOCs, none are on the list of 188
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). HAP emissions would normally trigger a risk evaluation in an
EAW. The LPG project is not expected to emit significant amounts of chromium or benzene,
which were the primary chemicals contributing the cancer risk in the health risk evaluation in the
on-going EAW for the Part 70 permit. Consequently, the conclusions of the previous health risk
evaluation are not expected to be affected by this project. The VOC emissions from this project
are also relatively small compared with the quantity assumed to be emitted in the 1998 EAW for
Koch’s Part 70 air emission permit. The risk evaluation in the previous EAW assumed emissions
of VOCs at the level of the proposed Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL). The proposed PAL
for VOCs is 6,033 tons per year.
The LPG storage system will also be subject to Risk Management requirements under § 112(r) of
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. This is a federal rule that is intended to prevent
accidental air releases and mitigate the impact from an accidental release that could occur.
Requirements include a risk management plan that has an analysis of hazards, training
requirements, and operating and safety procedures.
3.
Ground Water
LPG handled by the proposed storage and rail loading project is considered a hazardous material
under federal regulations (49 CFR 172.101). This product is not expected to have a significant
potential for ground water contamination. At atmospheric pressure, it is in a gaseous state to -43
degrees Fahrenheit. Because of this physical property, a spill would tend to evaporate quickly.
In addition, low permeability material may be placed in the impoundment.
-3-
4.
MPCA Findings.
The MPCA finds that the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects.
B.
CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS
The second factor that the MPCA must consider is the "cumulative potential effects of related or
anticipated future projects," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.B. The MPCA findings with respect to this
factor are set forth below.
1.
Air Emissions
A number of other projects have been permitted at the facility since 1997. In addition, projects
such as the proposed hydrogen plant are likely to be constructed in 1999. These projects are all
located -- and would have potential environmental effects -- in the same geographic area. Several
projects were discussed in the current EAW as part of the background condition at the facility.
The addition of the LPG storage sphere to the previously constructed projects is not expected to
result in a significant impact.
The quantity of VOCs that would be emitted from the LPG storage facility is 14 tons per year.
This is a relatively small amount compared to the facility-wide total of 2,638 tons per year of
VOCs in 1998. It is approximately 10 percent of the total VOCs from the remediation projects
that were also described in the EAW.
The MPCA has a separate EAW proceeding that is evaluating the total air emissions of all
refinery operations. That EAW, and the subsequent total air emission facility permit, can assess
and address any cumulative potential air emission effects. The LPG project is a very minor
source of non-hazardous air pollutants at the refinery.
Surface Water Runoff
The proposed LPG storage sphere located in areas that are already part of Koch’s storm water
management system. The additional drainage area associated with the LPG rail car loading area
will be directed to the West storm water pond.
2.
C.
The MPCA finds that there are no related or anticipated future actions which could result in
cumulative, adverse, environmental effects.
THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO
MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY
The third factor that the MPCA must consider is "the extent to which the environmental effects are
subject to mitigation by ongoing public regulatory authority," Minn. R. 4410.1700, subp. 7.C. The
MPCA findings with respect to this factor are set forth below.
-4-
1.
The following permits or approvals will be required for the project:
Units of Government
Permit or Approval Required
Status
MPCA
Air Emission Permit
Minor permit
application to be
submitted
MPCA
NPDES
Construction Storm Water Permit
To be submitted
MPCA
NPDES
Storm Water Discharge Permit
In effect
Minnesota Department of
Labor and Industry (MDLI)
High Pressure Piping
(construction) permit
In effect
Rosemount Fire Marshal
Plan Review and Approval
Application to be
submitted
State Fire Marshal
Plan Review and Approval
Application to be
submitted
City of Rosemount
Building Permit
To be obtained
US EPA
Risk Management Plan
To be submitted
2.
MPCA. The project is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of impacts through the MPCA
process associated with the issuance of an Air Emission Permit for the facility. Record keeping
and reporting are conditions of the permit.
3.
MPCA. The project is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of impacts through the
NPDES General Permit for construction activities. Control of erosion and sedimentation would
be accomplished through Best Management Practices.
4.
MPCA. The project is subject to regulatory control and mitigation of impacts through the
NPDES Wastewater Discharge Permit.
5.
MDLI. The facility is subject to regulatory control through the requirements of its high pressure
piping construction permit.
6.
Fire Marshal. The facility is subject to regulatory control through the plan review requirements
by both the State and Rosemount Fire Marshals. This review considers such design elements as
conformance with setbacks and sizing of impoundments.
7.
US EPA. The facility is required to develop a risk management program for chemical releases.
It includes a hazard assessment, a prevention program, and an emergency response program
-5-
8.
D.
The MPCA finds that the permits and monitoring reports required by public regulatory
authorities provided additional opportunity to mitigate the environmental effects of the project, if
necessary.
THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND
CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER
EISs.
The fourth factor 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 factor are set forth below.
1.
The project utilizes technologies and procedures which have been reviewed by the MPCA staff.
2.
There are no elements of the project that pose the potential for significant environmental effects
which were not or cannot be addressed in the project design and permit development processes.
3.
The MPCA finds that the environmental effects of the project were or can be anticipated and
controlled as a result of environmental review, previous environmental studies, and permitting
processes undertaken by the MPCA on similar projects, including the total facility EAW and total
facility air emission permit proceedings underway.
-6-
CONCLUSIONS
1.
The EAW, the permit development process, the facility planning process, and responses prepared by MPCA
staff in response to comments on the EAW, have generated information adequate to determine whether the
project has the potential for significant environmental effects.
2.
Areas where the potential for significant environmental effects may have existed have been identified and
appropriate mitigative measures have been incorporated into the project design and permits. The project is
expected to comply with all MPCA standards.
3.
Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.1700, the project does not have the potential for
significant environmental effects.
4.
An Environmental Impact Statement is not required.
5.
Any findings that might properly be termed conclusions and any conclusions that might properly be termed
findings are hereby adopted as such.
____________________________________
Karen A. Studders, Commissioner
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
____________________________________
Date
-7-
REFERENCES AND COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED
1. Environmental Assessment Worksheet, dated December 23, 1998.
2. The following comment letters were received:
Richard Meuller, Apple Valley, MN. Letter dated January 5, 1999.
JoAnn Kyral, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Letter dated January 15, 1999.
Myron Napper, Rosemount, MN. Letter dated January 21, 1999.
Thomas Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated January 25, 1999.
Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council. Letter dated January 26, 1999.
Leslie Davis and Myron Napper, Earth Protector and Concerned Citizens Group of Dakota County. Letter dated
January 26, 1999.
Patricia Bloomgren, Minnesota Department of Health. Letter dated January 27, 1999.
Scott Peters, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter dated February 11, 1999.
-8-
Comment Letters Received
Koch Refining Company -- Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage and Loading Facility
1) Richard Meuller, Apple Valley, MN. Letter dated January 5, 1999.
2) JoAnn Kyral, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Letter dated
January 15, 1999.
3) Myron Napper, Rosemount, MN. Letter dated January 21, 1999.
4) Thomas Balcom, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Letter dated January 25, 1999.
5) Helen Boyer, Metropolitan Council. Letter dated January 26, 1999.
6) Leslie Davis and Myron Napper, Earth Protector and Concerned Citizens Group of Dakota
County. Letter dated January 26, 1999.
7) Patricia Bloomgren, Minnesota Department of Health. Letter dated January 27, 1999.
8) Scott Peters, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter dated February 11, 1999.
Comment Letters Received and Responses to Comment
Koch Refining Company -- Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Storage and Loading Facility
Comment Letter 1. Meuller.
Comment 1. Koch should not be allowed to construct or operate and additional facilities of
any type at their Rosemount plant. Please do not allow Koch any further facilities, until at
the very least they, literally, clean up their act and stop polluting and covering up what
they’ve already done to the environment.
Response 1. The concerns stated in the comment are understandable given past issues at the
refinery. It is true that there have been spills and contamination at the refinery. Koch has,
however, cooperated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in cleaning up
existing soil and groundwater contamination. They have completed 78 items from the 1998
stipulation agreement on or ahead of schedule with the exception of one requirement due to
delays beyond Koch’s control. Other remediation projects are underway to address the
remaining areas that need cleanup.
Constructing and operating the LPG storage facility are not expected to have potential impacts
on the soil or groundwater. This is because LPG vaporizes at -43° F. The Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) from the LPG storage facility are neither hazardous air pollutants nor air
toxics. Therefore, significant health risks are not expected from the project. Please refer also to
Responses 3-a, 3-b and 6-d.
The proposed facility would meet applicable environmental requirements.
Comment Letter 2. Kyral.
Comment 2. The final paragraph of question nine, page 6, of the EAW should be corrected
as follows: “A portion of Koch’s property extends east of the refinery complex. This
allows for pipeline transfer of materials from the refinery to the Mississippi River, along
with loading and unloading of material at the river. This portion of the Koch property is
within the Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA), which incorporates, by
reference, state Mississippi River Critical Area standards for river corridor land use. Any
refinery projects in this area would have to be consistent with existing state Critical Area
regulations and might incorporate additional voluntary MNRRA guidelines to protect the river
corridor’s resources.”
Although the project area for the LPG storage and Loading facility is not within the
MNRRA boundaries, the wastewater and surface runoff from the project area will drain
into the Mississippi River. We assume that all appropriate measures to ensure that the
above standards are met will be implemented before construction and throughout the
operation of the facility.
Response 2. The suggested language can be used in future EAWs, if future projects occur
within the MNRRA area. This will provide a more complete description of the MNRRA’s
requirements for projects that affect this part of the river front. Less detail about the MNRRA
was in the EAW for the proposed LPG project as the project was outside the MNRRA area.
Please also refer to Responses 5-a and 5-b.
The runoff from the project area will be collected and routed to the West storm water pond for
treatment. After treatment, it would be discharged to the Mississippi River. The quality of the
storm water runoff after the project is built should be similar to the current quality.
Comment Letter 3. Napper.
Comment 3-a. We are opposed to the permitting of the proposed Koch Refining liquefied
gas storage and loading facility at the refinery. I believe the board agreed May 19th, 1998,
regarding the risk assessment that was conducted by Koch Refinery that no permits would
be issued until the risk assessment is approved.
Response 3-a. The MPCA’s Board delayed its decision on the EAW being considered at that
time. That EAW covered the Part 70 Total Facility Air Emission Permit (PAL) permit for the
refinery. The LPG project included in this EAW was not part of that decision.
The Part 70 permit cannot be issued until the EAW process for it is completed (per Minn. R.
4410.3100). The EAW for the Part 70 permit is on hold while the data used in a Risk
Assessment (RA) are reviewed. Data from the RA were used in the health risk evaluation in the
Part 70 permit’s EAW.
The air emissions from the LPG project are VOCs. These VOCs are not, however, hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) or air toxics. They were not in the group of chemicals used to calculate the
potential cancer risk from inhalation in the risk evaluation in the Part 70 permit’s EAW.
Consequently, the resolution of the Risk Assessment process is not expected to disclose new
information that would change the outcome of the review of the LPG project.
It is typical for a large facility, like Koch, to have multiple air permits and other activities
occurring concurrently. Koch will not avoid any applicable requirements by receiving an
individual air emission permit for the proposed LPG storage sphere.
Comment 3-b. [Regarding air emission monitors] We got the south one last spring, but the
most important one on County Road 42 is not in place as yet and we the citizens are
demanding it. Then the risk assessment could proceed.
Response 3-b. A citizens advisory group will recommend a location for the fourth monitoring
site. The advisory group has not yet made its recommendation. Until that time, the MPCA is
unable to put the monitor in place. The new monitoring site will monitor Sulfur Dioxide (SO2),
VOC, Carbonyls, Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). This is the same set of
chemicals as the existing monitoring sites.
The MPCA and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) staff believed there was enough
information from existing monitors for the Risk Assessment to be done. The Risk Assessment
was completed and accepted by a review committee. The MPCA later decided to have an
independent consultant review the data. That review has been completed. The preliminary
report indicates that the data used in the RA were appropriate and all major emission sources
were considered. As a result, we expect that the information in the EAW for the Part 70 permit
would not change significantly.
Comment Letter 4. Balcom.
Comment 4. We have no comments to offer on the proposal at this time. We do not
recommend preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.
Response 4. The comment is noted.
Comment Letter 5. Boyer.
Comment 5-a. The EAW refers to the MNRRA designation, however, by law, Critical
Area requirements also apply. The EAW should address consistency with Critical Area
standards.
Response 5-a. Critical Area requirements apply east of Highway 52. The proposed project is
approximately one mile west of the highway. No components (such as a pipeline) will be within
the Critical Area. Consequently, Critical Area requirements do not apply to the proposed
project. If Koch initiates other projects that fall within the Critical Area boundaries, they would
have to comply with those conditions.
Comment 5-b. Staff have determined that the information provided in the EAW is
complete in addressing required environmental issues. However, staff would like a
response to the following question. Staff would appreciate clarification as to whether the
existing or perhaps a new pipeline would be constructed for the purpose of distributing
LPG product. If a new pipeline is to be constructed, clarification is needed on how the
pipeline and unloading area would be developed “sensitive to the limitations of natural
resources”, as stated.
Response 5-b. The discussion in Item 9 about the MNRRA was intended to provide background
information regarding adjacent or nearby land uses. It is accurate that, in general, any refinery
projects that impinge on the MNRRA are required to be developed in a manner that is sensitive
to the limitations of natural resources. For the proposed LPG project, however, no development
will occur on the river front area. LPG will be loaded and shipped via rail car. A new rail spur,
to serve the proposed storage sphere, would be required. This spur would be located adjacent to
the West Tank Farm. The West Tank Farm is on the opposite side of the refinery from the river.
No pipelines between the refinery complex and the MNRRA will be built for this project. See
also Responses 2 and 5-a.
Comment Letter 6. Davis and Napper.
Comment 6-a. There should be no environmental review or permits issued for any
expansion such as the hydrogen plant until Koch Refining Company (Koch) completes, and
gets approval of, the total facility risk assessment (RA) of air emissions as required by
“Clean Fuels” Air Emission Permit Number 106A-92-I/O-32, issued in 1992. Koch agreed
to perform the “total facility risk assessment of air emissions from the refinery” ... and
until that occurs there should not be any expansion or emission increase.
Response 6-a. Please refer to Responses 3-a and 3-b.
Comment 6-b. ...the hydrogen plant EAW should not only be put on hold but be included
in the total facility EAW.
Response 6-b. Please refer to the Board Item Issue Statement for a discussion of the history of
the hydrogen plant project.
There is a consideration in environmental review for the cumulative impacts from a number of
smaller projects. When the air emissions from a number of smaller projects meet or exceed 100
tons per year, they must be included with the background for the next EAW that is required. In
the EAW for the LPG facility, for example, the discussion regarding remediation projects was
included to satisfy this requirement.
By discussing the hydrogen plant in the EAW for the LPG storage facility, the intention was to
provide information on the status of the project. The hydrogen plant was not part of the project
under review, which was the LPG storage sphere. No final permit application has been
submitted as of the date of this response. When the EAW process for the Part 70 continues, the
hydrogen plant will no longer have a separate discussion because it no longer exceeds the
threshold for a mandatory EAW.
Comment 6-c. The EAW indicates that the hydrogen plant will not exceed 100 tons of
VOCs per year yet does not provide any information for us to calculate and confirm that.
Does your calculation include the 14 tons mentioned in category 32 on page 15 of the
EAW?
Response 6-c. The 14 tons per year emitted from the LPG storage facility are VOCs. No NOx
emissions are expected due to the LPG storage facility. As noted in Item 6 of the current EAW,
the proposed emissions from the hydrogen plant would be less than 100 tons per year of NOx.
Potential emissions from the hydrogen plant are expected to be 95 tons per year of NOx, most
likely restricted by a synthetic minor limit in the air emission permit. Emissions of other
pollutants have not been recalculated at this time. Koch will have to finalize this information to
submit their final permit application for the hydrogen plant.
A cumulative total of 100 tons per year of air emissions from several smaller projects could
trigger an EAW. As noted above, the exact amount of VOCs expected from the revised proposal
for the hydrogen plant have not been calculated. The question of whether adding the VOCs from
the LPG sphere to those of the hydrogen plant exceeds 100 tons per year therefore cannot be
answered with certainty at the moment. We expect, however, that the total tons of VOC will be
slightly less than 100. A previous proposal for the hydrogen plant, at 99 tons per year of NOx,
had 86 tons per year of VOCs. With the NOx reduced to 95 tons per year, a small decrease in
VOCs is also expected.
Comment 6-d. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) is incomplete and
inadequate and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed to determine not only
the emissions but their affect [sic] on the health of people living downwind of the refinery.
An EIS would measure the extent of damage caused by the previous, present, and
projected refinery operations. Earth Protector and Dakota Citizens hereby request that an
EIS be completed and analyzed before any new environmental reviews or permits are
considered.
Response 6-d. The purpose of an EIS is to provide information about the potential
environmental impacts from a proposed project. An EIS should discuss how impacts can be
avoided or minimized. It is not an approval process, but rather a source of information. Neither
an EIS nor EAW are used to retroactively review a project. Existing conditions are considered,
however, when a proposed project requires an EAW or EIS. An EIS is required when a project
fits a mandatory category in Minn. R. 4410.4400. One can also be necessary if an EAW process
shows the potential for significant environmental effects. Neither situation appears to be the
case for the LPG storage and loading project.
Neither the LPG project nor the hydrogen plant is expected to emit significant amounts of
chromium or benzene, which were the primary chemicals contributing the health risk evaluation
from the Part 70 permit EAW. In addition, the VOC emissions for both projects are relatively
small compared to actual VOCs (2,638 tons per year of VOCs in 1998). Consequently, no
significant changes to the conclusions in the health risk evaluation in the EAW for the Part 70
permit would be likely.
The current soil and groundwater conditions were thoroughly investigated as part of the MPCA’s
stipulation agreement with Koch. The proposed project is not expected to have a significant
impact on soil or groundwater. It seems unlikely that an EIS process, if appropriate given the
situation, would uncover additional areas of concern.
Comment 6-e. The monitor promised by Rep. Ozment on County Road 42 east of Highway
52 should be installed.
Response 6-e. Please refer to Response 3-b.
Comment Letter 7. Bloomgren
Comment 7-a. While potential air emissions from the LPG storage and loading facilities
are not, in and of themselves, as health concern to the public, total emissions from Koch
may be of concern. To obtain an accurate picture of potential health concerns from Koch’s
emission, total VOC emissions and total NOx emissions should be included in the EAW.
This data should incorporate emission from all projects implements at Koch since the 1996
Risk assessment was completed. This data includes the soil and groundwater remediation
project. Additionally, the VOCs should be specifically listed to clarify for the reviewer the
chemical components which comprise the total VOC emissions. Organics of concern may
include benzene, toluene, xylene, n-hexane, naphthalene, and tetrachloroethylene.
Response 7-a. Please refer to the Board Item Issue Statement and Response 3-a. The emissions
from the additional projects noted for informational purposes in the current EAW were
considered through the analysis done for the EAW for the PAL permit. Total facility emissions
were included in that on-going EAW proceeding. As noted in the Board Item, any overall
mitigation resulting from the total facility EAW review can be implemented through the total
facility air permit that will follow.
The soil and groundwater remediation projects are controlled, meeting National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart FF and New Source Performance Standards
Subpart QQQ for organic hazardous air pollutants or HAPs. The soil and groundwater
remediation projects did not have emissions of tetrachloroethylene associated with them.
Unlike other product streams at the refinery, LPG has relatively few constituents. As listed in
Item 6, the stream consists of propylene (70%), propane (30%), and ethane (trace). This process
is not expected to result in emissions of benzene or other organic compounds of concern. Ethane
is not considered a VOC by the US EPA as it has determined that it is not photochemically
reactive.
Comment 7-b. [Regarding the incremental risk due to benzene emissions] Since the time
of the risk assessment, additional projects have been added at Koch Refinery and no
updating of this information has been done. MDH believes that the issue of total VOC
emissions must be discussed as a cumulative environmental impact under item 30 of the
EAW and should be addressed either qualitatively or quantitatively.
Response 7-b. Please refer to Responses 6-c, 6-d and 7-a.
We understand that MDH recently revised risk levels for benzene upward from 1.0 micrograms
per cubic meter (µg/m3) to 1.3 - 4.5 µg/m3. In December, 1998, the MDH proposed to adopt
these new findings as the Health Risk Values for the State of Minnesota. The mean
concentration of benzene measured at the three monitors used in the Risk Assessment ranged
from 1.6 to 1.9 µg/m3. These measurements are within the revised range of 1.3 - 4.5 µg/m3.
More recent measurements also show that concentrations of benzene around the refinery are
within the acceptable range reported.
Comment 7-c. MDH is concerned about safety issues that may be related to the storage of
about 1.2 million gallons of propylene (70%) and propane (30%). MDH...recommends that
the State Fire Marshal review the EAW and model or review offsite consequences of a
worst case accident scenario...MDH believes that the potential offsite consequence if the
proposed LPG storage facility should be reviewed prior to deciding whether this proposal
has the potential to cause significant environmental effects.
Response 7-c. There is hazard to storing and processing propylene and other flammable and
potentially explosive material. Koch stores and processes a number of flammable materials.
Koch has provided the following information, detailing the steps to reduce the risk of fire and
explosion from the proposed facility. Please refer also to Response 7-e.
• Koch strictly followed the design guidelines and recommendations of API 2510 of the
American Petroleum Institute for the project design. This standard includes the most recent
additions or revisions of numerous manuals, codes, recommended practices, publications,
standards and specifications including National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) Standard
Number 58. NFPA Standard 58 is also included by reference in Article 82 of the MN
Uniform Fire Code (Sections 8201 and 8202) administered by the MN State Fire Marshal.
• There will be a number of hydrocarbon detectors at the sphere, pumps, and rail rack which
sound an alarm at the control room. (Note: This directly addresses MDH’s concerns about
vapors moving offsite. These vapors would be detected immediately, and actions taken to
prevent such an occurrence.)
• The rail rack will have a remote shutdown push-button that shuts down the loading pumps.
• The sphere will have a water deluge system that can flood the surface of the sphere to cool it
and prevent explosions.
• The sphere will have an automatic shutoff valve on the bottom exit pipe which can be
activated from the control room or locally at the sphere. Additionally, this valve has a
fusible plug in the air supply that will melt in the event of a local fire, thereby closing the
valve.
• There will be control systems to prevent overfilling the sphere or emptying it entirely.
• Adequate separation distances are provided between the major components: sphere, pumps,
rail rack, as well as separation from other sources of hydrocarbon, such as other tanks,
processing equipment and loading areas.
• The rail loading rack has 5 fixed fire monitors and hydrants. These are capable of supplying
water streams to the complete rack area and rail cars. Access roads are provided to both
sides of the rack.
• A preliminary hazard assessment and a formal hazard operations review have been
conducted which address all safety concerns not only during normal operations, but also
during start-up, shut-down and emergency operations.
Comment 7-d. Plan review by the State Fire Marshal is required under Section 8203 of the
Uniform Fire Code and should have been included in item 8 of the EAW.
Response 7-d. Plans for this type of project would be reviewed by the State Fire Marshal, as
well as the Rosemount Fire Marshal as listed in Item 8. We apologize for the omission.
Comment 7-e. MDH believes that the Clean Air Act Section 112(r) requires the company
to submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) by June 1999, which reviews both worst case
and most probable offsite consequences of an accident at this facility...We believe that the
required filing of a Risk Management Plan should be included in Section 8 of the EAW.
Response 7-e. Item 20.c of the EAW references the federal accidental release provisions,
although not by rule number. It would be appropriate to have listed this required review in Item
8. We apologize for the omission. The amount of propylene stored will be above the threshold
amount for 112(r). Koch stores other flammable materials that trigger the requirements for the
analysis referred to in the comment. In its RMP, Koch does not have to analyze each chemical.
It would select the one “worst case scenario” from all the flammable materials and scenarios.
The proposed propylene tank and loading equipment is neither the worst case scenario nor the
most likely case which will be analyzed for the RMP. Other operations, already in place at the
refinery, make up those cases.
Koch has in place the following prevention and response programs, equipment and personnel to
prevent accidents from occurring, and to quickly and effectively respond to them in the unlikely
event that an event does occur:
Prevention
• Design and construction of all equipment to meet current specifications for fire and accident
prevention
• Hazard analysis and hazard operations plan, as required under OSHA’s Process Safety
Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119)
• Regular inspections
• Area, equipment and personnel monitors to detect releases of toxic and flammable materials
• On-going preventative maintenance
Response
• 24-hour a day on-site fire fighting and emergency response personnel
• State-of-the-art fire fighting and emergency response equipment, including
• over 1600 fire extinguishers
• in-place monitors on hydrants
• fire water system operating at 150 psi with multiple very long term water supplies
• pumper and ladder trucks, including one capable of supplying over 4,000 gallons per
minute at a height of 90 feet
• water cannon and other delivery systems
• more than 50,000 gallons of fire fighting foam concentrate, and standing purchase orders
to obtain more on short notice
• mutual aid agreements with the Rosemount, Inver Grove, Eagan and Hastings fire
departments
• monthly training with local fire departments and in-house fire fighters
• regular full scale drills with all local first responders, which include analysis and critique
by state and nation-wide experts on emergency response. The most recent drill was held
in August, 1998.
Comment 7-f. [An] MDH hydrologist...was under the impression that all parties had
agreed that karst bedrock formations are found in the area of the facility. This
understanding was based on Koch’s consultants’ statements that karst bedrock formations
were responsible for petroleum reaching the river sooner than expected...we are concerned
about the apparent error in item 20 because of its implications for other actions by Koch.
Response 7-f. Karst is defined in Minn. R. 7035.0300 Subp. 51. "Karst" means a type of
topography that is formed from the dissolution of limestone, dolomite, or gypsum and that is
characterized by closed depressions or sinkholes, and underground drainage through conduits
enlarged by dissolution.
MPCA staff have indicated that at the Koch Refinery, there is limestone under approximately
120 feet of sand. In this limestone layer, there are fractures and small solution cavities that could
lead to the formation of Karst features. These features are considered the very early stages of
Karst development. Staff have observed no depressions or sink holes, characteristic of Karst
terrains, on the refinery’s property.
Information about Karst is available for other locations near the refinery. Koch’s spent-bauxite
solid waste facility is southeast of the refinery. At the spent-bauxite facility, the Prairie du Chien
formation is encountered at about 100 feet below grade. At this facility as well, staff have
observed neither depressions nor sink holes.
Staff believe that Karst formations do not significantly affect or control groundwater flow around
the refinery. Fractured bedrock, as well as highly permeable soils with sand and gravel, in this
area controls the flow.
Comment Letter 8. Peters
Comment 8. The Metro Division of the Minnesota Department of Transportation has
reviewed the Koch Refinery - Liquefied Petroleum Gas Storage and Loading Facility
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for impacts to the state highway system.
We find the EAW acceptable.
Response 8. The comment is noted.