U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Great Plains Regional Office
U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Region 8
August 2009
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Ankara Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project
-------
-------
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project
Lead Agencies:
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Great Plains Regional Office
Aberdeen, South Dakota
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8 Office
Denver, Colorado
Cooperating Agency:
U.S. Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Office
Bismarck, North Dakota
Cooperating Sovereign Nation:
Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation
New Town, North Dakota
For Further Information, Contact:
Steve Wharton,
TAT Refinery Team Leader
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 8 (P-HW)
1595 Wynkoop St.
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129
(303)312-6935
Wharton. steve @epa.gov
Mike Black,
Director
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Great Plains Regional Office
115 4th Avenue, SE
Aberdeen, South Dakota 57401
(605)226-7621
Mike.black@bia.gov
-------
Abstract
The Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT) representing the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation (MHA
Nation) is a sovereign Indian nation with inherent powers of self-government. The MHA Nation
has requested that United States Department of the Interior (DOI)-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
accept 468.39 acres of land into trust status for the Tribes. This land is located within the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation boundaries. The land proposed to be taken into trust is located in the
northeast corner of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation along the south side of North Dakota
Highway 23, about 2 miles west of the turnoff to Makoti, North Dakota in Sections 19 and 20 of
Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
The MHA Nation proposes to construct and operate a new 13,000 barrel (bbl) of production per
day clean fuels refinery and grow hay for buffalo on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation located
near Makoti, North Dakota. The MHA Nation would own the refinery. The proposed facility
would refine synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels. The MHA Nation has
also applied to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a Clean Water Act (CWA),
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) wastewater discharge permit for the
refinery. The refinery would be considered a "new source" under the NPDES permit regulations.
-------
Preface
This document follows the format established in the National Environmental Policy Act's
(NEPA) regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 to 1508). The
following paragraphs outline information contained in the chapters and appendices so readers
may find the areas of interest without having to read the entire document.
> Summary: contains a short, simple discussion to provide the reader and the decision
makers with a sketch of the more important aspects of the Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The reader can obtain additional, more detailed information from the
text of the EIS.
> Chapter 1 Purpose and Need: identifies and describes the purpose of and need for
the proposed action, decisions to be made by the agencies, their roles and
responsibilities, the NEPA process, and other permits required.
> Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives: describes the
public participation process, including the scoping and issue identification processes,
the Proposed Action, the significant or key issues associated with the Proposed Action,
and alternatives, including the no action alternative. The agencies developed action
alternatives that meet the purpose and need in response to one or more of the key issues.
Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed consideration are identified along
with the rationale for excluding them from the analysis. This chapter also provides a
comparative analysis of the environmental effects of the alternatives to provide a clear
basis of choice among options for the decision maker and the public.
> Chapter 3 Affected Environment: describes the present condition of the
environment that would be affected by implementation of the proposed action or any
action alternative.
> Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences: describes the probable direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects to the human environment that would result from implementing the
Proposed Action or alternatives. The discussion also addresses the short-term uses
versus long-term productivity, unavoidable impacts, and irreversible or irretrievable
impacts. Mitigation measures for the proposed project are identified.
> Chapter 5 Consultation with Others: identifies the agencies, companies, and
organizations consulted, as well as the cooperating agencies.
> Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors: identifies the people involved in research for,
writing, and internal review of the Draft EIS.
> Chapter 7 Distribution and Review of the Draft EIS: lists the agencies,
organizations, and individuals who received a copy of the Draft EIS.
> Chapter 8 Glossary: describes the technical terms used in the Draft EIS.
> Chapter 9 References Cited: lists the references cited in the Draft EIS.
> Index: contains cross references and identifies the pages where key topics can be
found.
> Appendices: contain technical and non-technical information that is important to full
comprehension of the NEPA analysis, but that was too long to be included in the
August 2009 i Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Preface
primary chapters. Appendices D and E include new information developed since the
Draft EIS (DEIS).
Technical Reports: contain technical information associated with air emissions,
hazardous waste, wetlands, water resources, etc. These reports are not in the Final EIS
(FEIS); however, the reports are included on the CD-ROM enclosed with the FEIS
document. The reports are also available online or upon request.
August 2009 ii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
23B Williams-Zahl Loams (3-6% slopes)
24C Williams-Zahl Loams (6-9% slopes)
24E Zahl-Williams Loams
49B Manning Sandy Loam
54E Wabek Loam
AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic
ABTU Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
API American Petroleum Institute
APLIC Avian Power Line Interaction Committee
AQRV Air Quality Related Values
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry
BART Best Available Retrofit Technology
bbl Barrels
BIA U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs
BMP Best Management Practices
BoB Bowbells-Tonka Loams
BPSD barrels per stream day
C5+ Pentanes
CAA Clean Air Act
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
cfs cubic feet per second
CO Carbon Monoxide
C.P.R. Canadian Pacific Railway
CWA Clean Water Act
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation
DBA Diethanolamine
DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DIB Deisobutanizer
DOI Department of the Interior
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EJ Environmental Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAC Facultative
FACU Facultative Upland
FACW Facultative Wetland
FAR Federal Acquisition Regulations
FWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
gpm gallons per minute
FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
FIP Federal Implementation Plan
FRP Facility Response Plan
gpd gallons per day
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HAPET Habitat and Population Evaluation
Team
HAP Hazardous Air Pollutants
HC Hydrocarbon
HF Hamerly Loam
HMTA Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
HWCP Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan
HWMU Hazardous Waste Management Unit
iC4 Isobutane
iC4= Isobutylene
iC8 Iso-octane
iC8= Iso-octene
fflS Indian Health Services
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Control
IRA Indian Reorganization Act of 1934
LP Liquefied Petroleum
LQG Large Quantity Generator
LTU Land Treatment Unit
LW Lostwood Wilderness
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDU Montana Dakota Utilities
mg/L milligrams per liter
MHA Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara
Nation Nation
MMSCFD million standard cubic feet per day
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MStP Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault
&SSM Ste. Marie
MW megawatt
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Acronyms and Abbreviations
nC4 Normal Butane
NDDH North Dakota Department of Health
NDDOT North Dakota Department of
Transportation
NDSWC North Dakota State Water Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NESHAP National Emission Standards for HAPs
NH3 Ammonia
NHT Naphtha Hydrotreater
NC>2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NSR New Source Review
NWI National Wetland Inventory
OBL Obligate
ODEQ Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PA Parnell Silly Clay Loam
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PGA Peak Ground Acceleration
PLS Pure Live Seed
PM25 Particulate Matter less than 2.5
micrometers in diameter
PM10 Paniculate Matter less than 10
micrometers in diameter
PNA Polynuclear Aromatics
PPR Prairie Pothole Region
PSA Pressure Swing Adsorption
PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfC Chronic Reference Concentration
ROD Record of Decision
ROW Right-of-Way
SAR Sodium Adsorption Ratio
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SMR Steam Methane Reformer
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure
SQG Small Quantity Generator
SRP Sulfur Recovery Plant
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWMU Solid Waste Management Unit, RCRA
definition
SWS Sour Water Stripper
TAT Three Affiliated Tribes
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TIH Toxic-by-Inhalation
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TPO Tribal Preservation Officer
TRNP Theodore Roosevelt National Park
TSD Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
UIC Underground Injection Control
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S.C. U.S. Code
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
VOC Volatile Organic Compound
W1B Williams Loam (4-6% slopes)
W1C Williams Loam (3-6% slopes)
WRP Water Recycle Plant
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
WWTU Waste Water Treatment Unit, RCRA
definition
ZmC Zahl-Max Loams
ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
The Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT) (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation [MHA Nation])
propose to construct and operate a new 13,000 barrels (bbl) per day clean fuels refinery and
grow hay for buffalo on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Reservation) located near Makoti,
North Dakota. The MHA Nation would own the refinery. The proposed facility would refine
synthetic crude oil from Canada into gasoline and diesel fuels.
On February 5, 2003, the MHA Nation voted to purchase the land for the proposed refinery and
for additional forage crops. The MHA Nation purchased 468.39 acres to be used for economic
development to benefit its members. The refinery would be sited on 190 acres of the property and
the remaining agricultural acreage would be used to grow hay for buffalo on the Reservation. The
buffalo would not be located at the site. The proposed location is in the northeast corner of the
Reservation and Ward County. Following the purchase of the property, the MHA Nation
requested that the United States Department of the Interior (DOI)-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
accept the property into trust status. The MHA Nation has also applied to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a Clean Water Act (CWA) wastewater discharge
permit for the refinery.
As a general matter, federal agencies, such as BIA and EPA, must comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including preparation of an environmental impact statement
(EIS) before undertaking any major federal actions that may have a significant effect on the
human environment. As Co-Lead agencies, the BIA and EPA have prepared this EIS to analyze
the environmental impacts of the following federal decisions:
> Whether the BIA should accept the 468.39 acre parcel into trust for the purposes of the
MHA Nation's proposal to construct and operate a clean fuels petroleum refinery and to
produce buffalo forage;
> Whether EPA should issue a CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for the process water discharges associated with operation of the
proposed refinery.
The MHA Nation is assisting with the preparation of the EIS as a Cooperating Sovereign Nation.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is a cooperating agency in the preparation of the
EIS. The USAGE may also use the EIS in deciding whether to issue a Section 404 permit under
the CWA for construction of the refinery. The purpose of this document is to inform the public
and government agencies about the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and
alternatives. The EIS also includes mitigation measures and identifies the environmental
regulations that would apply to the facility.
Summary Alternatives Analyzed in the EIS
The EIS analyzes the combined environmental impact of the project proponent's proposed
construction action (Alternative 1) and the proponent's proposed effluent discharge action
(Alternative A). The remaining construction alternatives (Alternatives 2-5) and effluent discharge
alternatives (Alternatives B, C & D) are discussed in comparison to the combined Alternatives 1
and A analysis for each resource area or issue analyzed in the EIS. The alternatives are
summarized below:
August 2009 v Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
Proponent's Proposed Actions
> Alternatives 1 and A referred to as the "Proposed Actions" include the MHA Nation's
proposal that BIA accept the land into trust for the petroleum refinery and buffalo
forage, and that EPA issue an NPDES permit for effluent discharges associated with
operation of the refinery.
Construction Alternatives
> Alternative 2 - Accept the land into trust without construction of the proposed refinery;
> Alternative 3 - (DOI Preferred Alternative) Construction of the proposed refinery
without accepting the land into trust;
> Alternative 4 - Modification of Alternative 1 proposal was developed to reduce impacts
to wetlands and revise the design of the proposed refinery to reduce regulatory
requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (hazardous
waste control law); and
> Alternative 5 - No action.
Effluent Discharge Alternatives
> Alternative A - (EPA Preferred Alternative) Discharge of effluent through an NPDES
permit;
> Alternative B - Partial discharge of effluent through an NPDES permit and partial
discharge of effluent through irrigation;
> Alternative C - Effluent discharge to an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class I
well; and;
> Alternative D - No action. Under this alternative, EPA would not issue any permits for
the discharge of effluents from the proposed refinery.
Agencies' Preferred Alternatives
On the basis of the analysis documented in the EIS, the comments received during the public
comment period on the DEIS, and other record documents, the DOI and EPA have selected
preferred alternatives for the agencies' respective actions. It should be noted that the decision to
build and operate the refinery rests with the MHA Nation.
DOI
The DOI1 has identified its preferred alternative as Alternative 3. In Alternative 3, DOI would not
place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the Tribes. DOI
recommends that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with
Alternative 4. The construction and operation of the proposed oil refinery does not depend on the
land being held in trust by the United States.
1 On April 3, 2008, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of Interior assumed the lead for the
decision to approve or reject the Three Affiliated Tribes' application for placement of lands in trust for a clean fuels
refinery. The application for placement of lands in trust was made to the BIA, Great Plain Region.
August 2009 vi Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
As discussed in this FEIS, it is anticipated that there would be spills and leaks of refinery
products, and that over time it is expected that there would be some contamination of soil and
ground water immediately underneath the refinery site. It is DOI policy to minimize the potential
liability of the Department and its bureaus by acquiring real property that is not contaminated.
See 602 Departmental Manual 2 (4). The Alternative that is most consistent with this policy is
Alternative 3.
EPA
The MHA Nation will be deciding whether to build and operate the refinery. If the proposed
refinery is constructed, EPA has identified its process water discharge preferred alternative as
Alternative A, the issuance of an NPDES permit for effluent discharges associated with the
refinery.
If the refinery is constructed, EPA recommends implementation of the modified refinery design
as described under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was developed to reduce impacts to wetlands and
to utilize tanks instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. EPA
also recommends that the mitigation measures developed for Alternative 4, including ground
water monitoring and financial assurance, be implemented by the Tribes.
Upon completion of the wait period for this EIS, the Agencies will issue their final decisions.
Each agency will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD), specifying the Agencies' respective
decisions, the alternatives considered, and stating whether all practical means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected have been adopted or why such
measures were not adopted. The RODs can be issued no sooner than 30 days following the
publication of the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.
Public Involvement and Areas of Concern
In September 2003, the MHA Nation held a series of informational meetings throughout the
Reservation to describe the Tribes' Proposed Actions and answer questions. Formal scoping for
the NEPA analysis of the proposed refinery began on November 7, 2003 with the publication of
the Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. Comments and issues
identified in the scoping process were compiled in a draft scoping report and made available to
the public for review and comment on October 1, 2004. A public hearing was also held on
November 9, 2004 to solicit public comment on the draft scoping report and any additional
concerns regarding the environmental review of the proposed refinery.
On June 29, 2006, BIA and EPA announced the availability of the DEIS and the start of the
public comment period. BIA and EPA held seven public hearings on the DEIS in Twin Buttes,
White Shield, Parshall, Mandaree, New Town, and Makoti, North Dakota between July 31 and
August 5, 2006. The public comment period closed on September 14, 2006. During the public
comment period, BIA and EPA received 31 letters and 20 comment cards. Sixty-five people
testified at the seven public hearings on the DEIS. Some of the main issues raised during the
public comment period include concerns regarding: air quality, human health, environmental
performance of the proposed refinery, funding for cleanup, and regulatory requirements for
environmental monitoring and performance.
August 2009 vii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
The Agencies response to comments is provided as Appendix E of the Final EIS (FEIS).
Individual comment letters and public testimony are included in the FEIS on CD-ROM as
Appendix F. Paper copies of the information are available upon request.
Environmental Issues Summary
This EIS analyzes the environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation and
closure of the proposed MHA Nation refinery and production of buffalo forage. The EIS
identifies the environmental impacts that are likely to occur as a result of the project. Mitigation
measures have been developed, as described in the EIS, to reduce, control or eliminate many
environmental impacts. The facility will also require several permits which will further limit
environmental impacts.
The refinery construction alternatives, Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, would be combined with one or
more of the wastewater disposal Alternatives A, B or C. Facilities that would be common to all of
the refinery construction alternatives are: a tank farm to store synthetic crude and refinery
products, the refining units, a loading area for trucks and railcars, a wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP), fire water storage ponds, an administration building, a synthetic crude pipeline from
the refinery site to an existing pipeline several miles north of the proposed site, natural gas
pipeline and power line. With regard to the non-construction alternatives, Alternatives 2 and 5,
the environmental impact would be the same as the existing conditions. The lands would remain
in agricultural use.
The potential environmental impacts associated with the refinery are expected to vary depending
upon the construction alternative selected for the refinery and the selected effluent discharge
alternative. A brief discussion of the types of environmental impact is analyzed in the EIS is
summarized below.
Ground water, Soils and Spills
> Ground water occurs beneath the refinery site. Ground water is in the underlying
material called "till" which was deposited by glaciers in an approximately 100-foot
thick layer. Ground water generally moves slowly in till layers due to low permeability.
Depth to water in the till aquifer typically ranges from 5-15 feet. Ground water in the
till appears to flow toward the southwest at about 0.4 to 2.4 ft/year. Ground water also
occurs in the Ft. Union Formation, which underlies the till and the Fox Hills Formation
which underlies the Ft. Union Formation.
> It is anticipated that there would be spills and leaks at the proposed refinery facility.
Almost all refineries and other petrochemical facilities such as gas stations eventually
have spills and leaks. The majority of spills and leaks would be completely contained
within the facility and would not impact the environment. However, over time, it is
expected that there would be some contamination of soils and ground water
immediately underneath the refinery site due to leaks and spills. The contamination
would remain generally within the refinery site unless a major spill occurred or a series
of spills and leaks occurred overtime.
> Areas within the refinery storing synthetic crude or refinery products would be required
to be lined and have secondary containment (e.g., berms) to hold the entire contents of
storage tanks. Areas with a high potential for spills such as the loading area for trucks
and railcars would also be paved and curbed which should contain most spills.
August 2009 viii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
> Due to the shallow depths to water, ground water resources in proximity to the refinery
could be affected by leaks and spills. Adverse impacts to ground water withdrawn by
individual well users and public supply systems are not anticipated, except for the well
that was at the existing farmhouse. Since the DEIS was published, that well has been
decommissioned. Other individual wells are not anticipated to be impacted because of
the relatively low permeability of the till underlying the refinery site. The next closest
farmstead is 1/3 of a mile from the proposed refinery site.
> Communities in the area such as Makoti and Plaza located three and five miles from the
proposed refinery, respectively, use ground water as a source of drinking water.
However, these communities use either the Fox Hills-Hell Creek or buried valley
aquifers. Water quality in these aquifers are not expected to be impacted by the
proposed facility because the buried valley aquifers do not occur in the vicinity of the
refinery and the depth to the top of the Fox Hills -Hell Creek aquifer is more than 1,000
feet beneath the proposed refinery location. If the alternative for wastewater disposal
through an underground injection well is selected (Alternative C), the injection zone
would be required to be below any aquifer that could be used for drinking water.
> Water supply for the refinery would be from a combination of sources including the
Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer, recycled water from the refinery and run-off collected
from the site. If the refinery uses the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer for the majority of its
water supply, there may be localized draw down in the aquifer.
Surface Water
> The site is located in the headwaters of a small unnamed tributary of the East Fork of
Shell Creek which is tributary to Lake Sakakawea. With regard to effluent discharge
Alternatives A and B, stormwater and treated wastewater from the refinery would be
discharged at the surface. For Alternative C, only stormwater would be discharged at
the surface and process water would be discharged through an underground injection
well.
> The proposed refinery construction alternatives would need surface water discharge
permits (NPDES) for stormwater discharges and depending on the effluent discharge
alternative selected, for wastewater discharges. EPA will be using this EIS to assess the
environmental impact of EPA's future decision to issue or not issue a surface water
discharge permit to the proposed refinery. Treated wastewater discharges from the
facility would cause minor changes in existing water quality. The proposed NPDES
permit would require that wastewater discharges be protective of aquatic life, drinking
water, agriculture and wildlife uses. No NPDES permits would be needed for the non-
construction alternatives and water quality would remain the same as existing
conditions.
> Construction and operation of the proposed refinery would change the quantity and
flow pattern of the drainage from the site. The paving/hardening of the refinery site
would increase runoff and reduce infiltration. If the refinery collects most of the runoff
for use as water supply, there would be less water flow from the site for the majority of
storm events.
August 2009 ix Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
Solid and Hazardous Waste
> The proposed refinery would operate as a large quantity generator (LQG) of hazardous
waste under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The facility, through
the RCRA generator regulations, would be required to transport the waste to approved
hazardous waste facilities for the treatment and disposal of the waste. Many of the
waste streams from refineries are specifically listed under the RCRA regulations as
hazardous wastes.
> All refinery construction alternatives, except for the combination of Alternatives 4 and
A, could also be a Treatment Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility under RCRA. The
facility would likely or potentially need to obtain a TSD permit from EPA for any of
these alternatives. The TSD permit includes requirements for monitoring, financial
assurance, inspections and facility closure plans.
> With regard to solid waste, the facility would be required to comply with EPA "Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices" at 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 257, as appropriate.
Vegetation, Wetlands
> The portion of the site that would be used for the proposed refinery would be changed
from an agricultural to industrial use.
> Both jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands exist on the proposed refinery site.
Jurisdictional wetlands are those wetlands which are considered to be waters of the U.S.
for purposes of the CWA. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are waters that are not subject to
CWA jurisdiction.
> The USAGE determined one wetland, which covers 11.7 acres in the northwest corner
of the site, to be subject to CWA jurisdiction. According to the initial site plan
(Alternative 1), 0.5 acres of the jurisdictional wetland would be filled by the proposed
refinery. An alternative site plan (Alternative 4) has been developed in part to reduce
filling of jurisdictional wetlands to 0.1 acres. A CWA Section 404 permit for the
discharge of dredged or fill material would be needed from the USAGE prior to
construction.
> The jurisdictional wetland would be impacted by the proposed refinery. Changes in the
quality and quantity of water flowing into this wetland would change the hydrology and
vegetation in the wetland.
> Non-jurisdictional wetlands would also be impacted during construction of the refinery.
> Any filling of wetlands would be mitigated by the creation or restoration of additional
wetlands.
Wildlife, Threatened and Endangered Species
> The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) expressed concerns about potential
effects to the threatened piping plover and endangered whooping cranes from landing
on open water areas in the refinery wastewater treatment facilities or colliding with
overhead power lines. Mitigation measures have been developed to discourage birds
from using ponds within the refinery site, including adding netting to prevent birds from
landing in open tanks or ponds with oily wastewater and placing cobbles on the side
August 2009 x Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
slopes of the constructed ponds to discourage plovers from nesting. Electrical
transmission lines would be constructed to minimize collision and electrocution risks to
birds
Transportation
> The refinery would increase traffic on local roads and on the rail line. With the
shipment of refinery products, there would be an increased probability of petroleum
products spills along the pipeline corridor, transportation corridors and the rail line.
Air Quality
> Air emissions from the refinery would be minor. Potential air emissions have been
modeled; demonstrating that the proposed facility would not cause any exceedances of
the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) or Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) increments. At this time, EPA has determined that no Clean Air
Act (CAA) PSD pre-construction permit would be required for the facility because the
total quantity of air pollutants emitted throughout the year by the refinery are less than
the regulatory threshold. The requirement for the refinery to apply for an operating
permit within 12 months of commencing operation was triggered by the promulgation
of News Source Performance Standards ~ 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GGGa on
November 16, 2007.
Human Health
> With proper operation of the refinery, potential impacts to human health are anticipated
to be negligible to the general public. Pollutants or materials which would be of concern
to public health would be contained within the refinery, treated to nontoxic levels or
disposed of at approved hazardous waste facilities.
> During the operation of the proposed clean fuels refinery, releases of various chemicals
and hazardous materials during refinery operations are the most significant concern for
impacts to human health. Transporting, handling, storing, and disposing of chemicals
and hazardous materials inherently pose a risk of a release to soil, ground water, air,
surface water, and sediment. Numerous regulatory programs would be implemented at
the proposed facility to prevent or control potential releases such as the emergency
response planning, oil spill response planning and containment measures, NPDES
permits, RCRA, and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
requirements.
> In the remote event of a catastrophic spill or fire, there could be emissions from the
facility that would be of concern to public health in the immediate area of the refinery;
however, there are currently no residences or businesses located in the immediate area
of the refinery site that would remain occupied once refinery operations commenced.
> The air modeling analyses show that the potential impacts of hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) would be below levels of concern to human health through both direct inhalation
and food chain pathways outside of the proposed refinery site process area.
> Epidemiological and toxicological studies, as discussed in Chapter 4 of the EIS, did not
observe any increases in health effects for people living near petroleum refineries. One
August 2009 xi Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Summary
occupational health study observed increased rates for one type of cancer for workers in
the petrochemical industry.
Environmental Justice, Socioeconomics
> EJ concerns that are raised in the EIS include many of the issues addressed above, such
as air pollution emissions, discharge of pollutants into surface waters and ground water,
and hazardous waste generation. The EIS also addresses socioeconomic effects of
constructing and operating a new refinery.
> Economic benefits associated with the refinery could increase the quality of life for
members of the MHA Nation. However, negative effects to the quality of life could be
experienced by the communities surrounding the facility due to increases in highway
traffic, noise, and light pollution during construction and operation of the facility.
Major Revisions to the EIS
This section lists the major revisions to the EIS. For more information regarding additional
changes to the FEIS, please see the response to comments in Appendix E.
> Identification of the "preferred" alternatives.
> Revised information on air quality impacts and additional information regarding New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) requirements. See the revised sections on Air
Quality in Chapters 3 and 4 and the revised air technical report available on the
enclosed CD-ROM, on the FEIS website, or upon request. Please also see the
information on air in the response to comments (Appendix E).
> Additional human health information analyzed regarding potential impacts from
petroleum refineries and human health in general project area. See the revised section
on Human Health in Chapter 4, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) correspondence in Appendix D and the ATSDR and Qualitative and
Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Reports. Please also see the
information on human health in the response to comments (Appendix E).
> Revised EJ Analysis, 2007 technical report available on the FEIS CD-ROM, EPA's
website, or upon request.
August 2009 xii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
Preface i
Acronyms and Abbreviations iii
Summary v
Contents xiii
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need 1-1
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action 1-1
1.2 NEPA Process and Decision Making 1-1
1.3 Decisions to be Made Based on this NEPA Analysis 1-5
1.4 Authorizing Actions 1-6
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and
Alternatives 2-1
2.1 Public Participation 2-1
2.1.1 Scoping 2-1
2.1.2 Review of the Draft EIS 2-2
2.1.3 Review of the Final EIS 2-2
2.2 Process Used to Develop Alternatives 2-2
2.2.1 Alternatives Considered in the NEPA Analysis 2-3
2.2.2 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail 2-3
2.3 Alternative 1 Original Proposed Project Action 2-3
2.3.1 Development of the Proposed Project Action 2-4
2.3.2 Refinery 2-7
2.3.3 Hazardous and Non-hazardous Wastes 2-51
2.3.4 Buffalo Forage Production 2-56
2.4 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery 2-56
2.5 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed (DOI Preferred
alternative) 2-57
2.6 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action 2-57
2.7 Alternative 5 No Action 2-67
2.8 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 2-67
August 2009 xiii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
2.8.1 Alternative A - Proposed Effluent Discharge Action (EPA Preferred
Discharge Alternative) 2-67
2.8.2 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit and Some
Storage and Irrigation 2-68
2.8.3 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Class I Well 2-69
2.8.4 Alternative D No Action 2-69
2.9 Summary of RCRA Applicability 2-69
2.10 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis 2-70
2.11 Summary of Environmental Consequences 2-74
2.12 Summary of Mitigation Measures: 2-74
2.13 Agency-preferred Alternative 2-74
Chapter 3 Affected Environment 3-1
3.1 General Physical Environment 3-1
3.2 Geologic Setting 3-1
3.2.1 Geology at Project Site 3-2
3.2.2 Stratigraphy 3-7
3.2.3 Hydrogeology 3-7
3.2.4 Geologic Hazards 3-9
3.3 Ground Water Resources 3-9
3.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity 3-11
3.3.2 Bedrock Aquifers 3-11
3.3.3 Buried-Valley Aquifers 3-14
3.3.4 Ground Water Quality 3-21
3.4 Surface Water Resources 3-27
3.4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements Clean Water Act 3-27
3.4.2 Water Quality Regulatory Requirements 3-28
3.4.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements Safe Drinking Water Act... 3-32
3.4.4 Characteristics of Surface Drainage Systems 3-33
3.4.5 Stream Flow 3-34
3.4.6 Surface Water Quality 3-37
3.4.7 Water Supply 3-42
3.5 Soils 3-44
3.5.1 Soil Mapping Units 3-44
3.5.2 Poor Revegetation Potential 3-49
3.6 Vegetation 3-50
3.6.1 Wetlands 3-50
3.6.2 Mixed-Grass Prairie 3-54
August 2009 xiv Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
3.6.3 Agricultural Land 3-54
3.6.4 Developed Land 3-57
3.6.5 Existing Disturbance 3-57
3.7 Wildlife 3-58
3.7.1 Mammals 3-58
3.7.2 Avifauna (Birds) 3-58
3.7.3 Amphibians and Reptiles 3-60
3.7.4 Fish 3-60
3.7.5 Invertebrates 3-60
3.7.6 Special-Status Species 3-60
3.7.7 Sensitive Communities 3-66
3.8 Cultural Resources 3-66
3.8.1 Cultural Context 3-66
3.8.2 Prehistoric Context 3-66
3.8.3 Historic Context 3-67
3.8.4 National Historic Preservation Act 3-68
3.9 Land Use 3-69
3.9.1 Project Area 3-69
3.9.2 Project Site 3-70
3.10 Transportation 3-70
3.11 Aesthetics 3-73
3.12 Air Quality 3-74
3.12.1 Climate 3-74
3.12.2 Clean Air Act Regulations and Permit Requirements 3-77
Existing Ambient Air Quality 3-83
3.12.3 Air Quality Designation 3-89
3.12.4 Global Climate Change 3-90
3.13 Socioeconomics 3-94
3.13.1 Population, Employment, Earnings and Income 3-94
3.13.2 Facilities and Services 3-103
3.13.3 Social Values 3-104
3.14 Environmental Justice 3-104
3.15 Health and Safety 3-111
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences 4-1
4.1 Geology 4-1
4.1.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-1
4.1.2 Construction Alternatives 4-2
4.1.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-2
August 2009 xv Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-3
4.2 Ground Water Resources 4-3
4.2.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-3
4.2.2 Construction Alternatives 4-9
4.2.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-11
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-12
4.3 Surface Water Resources 4-12
4.3.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-12
4.3.2 Construction Alternatives 4-20
4.3.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-21
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-22
4.4 Spills 4-22
4.4.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-22
4.4.2 Construction Alternatives 4-41
4.4.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-41
4.5 Solid and Hazardous Wastes 4-42
4.5.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-43
4.5.2 Construction Alternatives 4-45
4.5.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-46
4.6 Soils 4-48
4.6.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-48
4.6.2 Construction Alternatives 4-54
4.6.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-55
4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-55
4.7 Vegetation 4-56
4.7.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-56
4.7.2 Construction Alternatives 4-62
4.7.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-63
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-63
4.8 Wildlife 4-64
4.8.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-64
4.8.2 Construction Alternatives 4-81
4.8.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-87
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-88
4.9 Cultural Resources 4-88
4.9.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-88
4.9.2 Construction Alternatives 4-89
4.9.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-90
4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-90
4.10 Land Use 4-90
August 2009 xvi Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
4.10.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-90
4.10.2 Construction Alternatives 4-92
4.10.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-92
4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-93
4.11 Transportation 4-93
4.11.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-93
4.11.2 Construction Alternatives 4-96
4.11.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-96
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-97
4.12 Aesthetics 4-97
4.12.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-97
4.12.2 Construction Alternatives 4-99
4.12.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-99
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-100
4.13 Air Quality 4-101
4.13.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-101
4.13.2 Construction Alternatives 4-121
4.13.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-121
4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-121
4.14 Socioeconomics 4-122
4.14.1 Alternatives 1 and A - Original Proposed Actions 4-122
4.14.2 Construction Alternatives 4-124
4.14.3 Alternative 5 No Action 4-124
4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-125
4.15 Environmental Justice 4-125
4.15.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions 4-125
4.15.2 Construction Alternatives 4-127
4.15.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives 4-128
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-128
4.16 Health and Safety 4-128
4.16.1 Alternatives 1 and AOriginal Proposed Actions 4-130
4.16.2 Construction Alternatives 4-148
4.16.3 Effluent Alternatives 4-149
4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts 4-150
4.17 Mitigation Measures, Controls and Selected Plans 4-150
4.17.1 Design and Operating Measures to Prevent and Contain Spills and Leaks
4-150
4.17.2 Measures During Construction to Protect Surface Water and Reduce Soil
Erosion 4-151
4.17.3 Protect and/or Reduce Impacts to Waters of the US, Wetlands and
Riparian Habitat 4-152
August 2009 xvii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
4.17.4 Measures to Protect Surface and Ground Water During Refinery
Operations 4-153
4.17.5 Facility Design Considerations to ProtectBirds 4-154
4.17.6 Cleanup of Contamination, Closure of the Refinery 4-155
4.17.7 Human Health Risks and Safety Mitigations 4-155
4.17.8 Acceptance of Land into Trust Status 4-156
4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-157
4.18.1 Irreversible Commitment of Resources 4-157
4.18.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 4-157
4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects 4-157
Chapter 5 Consultation with Others 5-1
Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors 6-1
Chapter 7 Distribution of the Draft EIS 7-1
Publicly Available DEIS 7-1
Federal, Tribal, and State Officials 7-1
Federal Agencies 7-1
Tribal Agencies 7-2
State Agencies 7-2
Local Agencies 7-2
Organizations/Companies 7-2
Chapter 8 Glossary 8-1
Chapter 9 References Cited 9-1
August 2009 xviii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
Tables
Table 1-1 Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Potentially Required for the Clean
Fuels Refinery Project 1-7
Table 2-1 Summary of Plants that would Compose the Refinery 2-8
Table 2-2 Summary of Tanks to be Constructed on the Refinery Site 2-31
Table 2-3 Locations of Proposed 30,000-bbl Storage Tanks along Enbridge's Pipeline... 2-36
Table 2-4 Summary of Weekly Truck and Rail Traffic at the Refinery 2-46
Table 2-5 Summary of Workforce for the MHA Nations' Proposed Clean Fuels Refmery2-47
Table 2-6 Major Types of Waste Generation Projected for the MF£A Nation's Proposed
Refinery 2-52
Table 2-7 Hazardous Waste Generation Classification and Applicable Regulations 2-59
Table 2-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative and Resource 2-75
Table 3-1 Major Buried Valley Aquifers Fort Berthold Indian Reservation 3-7
Table 3-2 Record of Wells and Test Holes Completed within Fox Hills and Hell Creek
Aquifer on Reservation Lands 3-13
Table 3-3 Summary of Wells Data Relevant to the Project Site 3-19
Table 3-4 Preliminary data for stable water isotopes obtained from analysis of samples
collected in August 2005 3-26
Table 3-5 Soil Series with Poor Revegetation Potential 3-50
Table 3-6 Summary of Cover Types Identified for the Project Site 3-50
Table 3-7 Summary of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Inventoried on the
Project Site 3-53
Table 3-8 Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Occur or Potentially
Occur in the Project Area 3-61
Table 3-9 Residences within 1 Mile of Project Site Boundary 3-69
Table 3-10 Highway Access, Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2003 3-71
Table 3-11 North Dakota General Vehicular Size and Load Restrictions 3 -72
Table 3-12 Load Restrictions for Highways in the Project Area 3-73
Table 3-13 Summary of Monthly Precipitation at the National Weather Service and North
Dakota Agricultural Weather Network Meteorological Stations 3-76
Table 3-14 Summary of Monthly Temperatures at the National Weather Service and North
Dakota Agricultural Weather Network Meteorological Stations 3-77
Table 3-15 Summary of Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Concentrations ((ig/m3)1 3-82
Table 3-16 Summary of PSD Increment Standards (|ig/m3) 3-82
Table 3-17 Summary of White Shield SO2 Monitoring Data 3-83
Table 3-18 Summary of White Shield PM10 Monitoring Data 3-84
Table 3-19 Summary of Beulah PM2.5 Monitoring Data 3-84
Table 3-20 Summary of Beulah NO2 Monitoring Data 3-85
Table 3-21 Summary of Fargo CO Monitoring Data 3-85
Table 3-22 Federal Air Quality Designations 3-89
Table 3-23 Measurements of Standard Visual Range 3-90
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
Table 3-24 Changes in the Populations of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Ward County,
and State of North Dakota, 1980-2002 3-95
Table 3-25 Projections of Changes in the Populations of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,
Ward County, and North Dakota, 2000-2020 3-95
Table 3-26 Demographic Characteristics of Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and Ward
County, 2000 3-97
Table 3-27 Summary of Housing Units on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and in Ward
County, North Dakota, 2000 3-98
Table 3-28 Resident Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for the State of North
Dakota, Ward County, and the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, 1990-2000... 3-99
Table 3-29 Local Estimates of Indian Service Population and Labor Market Information ~
Three Affiliated Tribes 3-100
Table 3-30 Industries of Interest to the Available Labor Force 3-101
Table 3-31 Summary of Total Estimated Employment on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
and in Ward County, 1990 and 2000 3-102
Table 3-32 Per Capita Personal Income and Poverty Rates in Analysis Area 3-103
Table 3-33 Affected Area Environmental Justice Indicators 3-106
Table 4-1 Estimated Flow Rates and NPDES Permit Outfalls for Proposed Refinery 4-5
Table 4-2 Preliminary Draft Effluent Limitation for Refinery Process Wastewater and Oily
Stormwater 4-18
Table 4-3 Preliminary Draft Monitoring Schedule for Refinery Process Wastewater and Oily
Stormwater 4-19
Table 4-4 Estimated Releases from Components of the Oil System 4-24
Table 4-5 Number of Spills that Exceed 10,000 Gallons by EPA Region (1995-1999) ....4-25
Table 4-6 Total Number of Oil Spills from Facilities, 1984-1996 4-26
Table 4-7 Spill Scenarios Developed for the Valdez Marine Terminal 4-32
Table 4-8 Soils with Poor Revegetation Potential and Associated Right-of-Way 4-51
Table 4-9 Estimated Temporary and Permanent Vegetative Community Disturbance
Associated with Project Components 4-57
Table 4-10 NWI Wetlands Potentially Affected by Construction and Operation of Linear
Infrastructure including Pipelines and Transmission Lines 4-60
Table 4-11 Fish sampled per site on East Fork of Shell Creek - June 2001 4-72
Table 4-12 Comparison of Maximum Cumulative Soil Concentrations to Ecological Screening
Values 4-85
Table 4-13 Comparisons of Risks Calculated in This Study with Other Transportation-Related
Risks in the United States 4-95
Table 4-14 Release Probability Analysis for Bulk Liquids 4-95
Table 4-15 Estimated Annual Emissions for the Proposed MHA Nation's Proposed Clean
Fuels Refinery 4-101
Table 4-16 MHA Nation's Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery, Applicable and Proposed Clean
Air Act Requirements 4-103
Table 4-17 Modeled Maximum Class II Ambient Air Impacts 4-109
Table 4-18 Modeled Near-Field Wet Deposition 4-110
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
Table 4-19 CALPUFF Class I SO2 Increment Analysis 4-111
Table 4-20 Project Increment Consumption at Class I Areas 4-111
Table 4-21 Class I Area AQRV Analyses 4-112
Table 4-22 Hazardous Air Pollutants Ambient Concentrations 4-113
Table 4-23 Upset Emissions from Large Refineries1 4-115
Table 4-24 Projected Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Refinery
Estimated from Prince George Husky Refinery 2005 Data 4-117
Table 4-25 Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Proposed Refinery 4-118
Table 4-26 Summary of Impacts to EJ and Reference Communities 4-127
Table 4-27 Hazardous Air Pollutant Ambient Impact Analysis Results 4-145
Table 4-28 Selected Environmental Permits, Plans and Mitigation Measures 4-158
Table 4-29 Monitoring, Inspecting, Reporting and Follow-up 4-162
Table 6-1 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs 6-1
Table 6-2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 6-1
Table 6-3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6-2
Table 6-4 MHA Nation 6-2
Table 6-5 Greystone Third-party Contractors 6-2
Table 6-6 GeoTrans Ground Water Contractors 6-3
Figures
Figure 1-1 Project Site Location 1-3
Figure 2-1 Project Area Overview 2-5
Figure 2-2 Schematic of Refinery Units 2-9
Figure 2-3 Wastewater Treatment System with Full Recycling 2-19
Figure 2-4 Wastewater Treatment System with No Recycling 2-21
Figure 2-5 Storm water Collection Areas Storm water Collection Areas 2-23
Figure 2-6 Hazardous Waste Generation, Refinery Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-27
Figure 2-7 Site Layout 2-29
Figure 2-8 Example of Initial Excavation of a Refinery 2-34
Figure 2-9 Aerial View of Typical Foundation and Underground Structure Construction.. 2-34
Figure 2-10 Typical Construction of Aboveground Structures 2-35
Figure 2-11 Example of a Modular Unit Arriving at a Refinery Ready for Installation 2-35
Figure 2-12 Proposed Pipelines, Power Lines, and Project Site 2-37
Figure 2-13 Location for the Montana Dakota Utilities Resources Natural Gas Pipeline.. 2-
39
Figure 2-14 Existing Verendrye Power Line at Highway 23 Crossing 2-42
Figure 2-15 Modified Refinery Layout Plan 2-61
Figure 2-16 Wastewater Treatment System Alternative 4 2-63
Figure 2-17 Hazardous Waste Generation, Alt. 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant 2-65
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Contents
Figure 3-1 Descriptive Geology of the Fort Berthold Reservation 3-3
Figure 3-2 Distribution of Ground Water Wells on the Refinery Site 3-5
Figure 3-3 Generalized Geologic Column on Near-surface Rocks of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation 3-8
Figure 3-4 Wells within the Fox Hills-Hell Creek Aquifer 3-15
Figure 3-5 Buried Valley Aquifers 3-17
Figure 3-6 Ground Water Levels Hiddenwood Lake Aquifer 3-22
Figure 3-7 Ground Water Levels Vang Aquifer 3-22
Figure 3-8 Surface Water Resources on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation 3-29
Figure 3-9 East Fork of Shell Creek Drainage Basin 3-35
Figure 3-10 Hydrograph for Measured Daily Mean Stream Flow, Measured Stream Flow, and
Estimated Stream Flow for the East Fork of Shell Creek 3-37
Figure 3-11 Monthly Stream Flows East Fork Shell Creek, North Dakota 3-39
Figure 3-12 Soil Survey Map 3-45
Figure 3-13 Wetland Delineation Map 3-55
Figure 3-14 Surface Wind Speed Wind Rose 3-79
Figure 3-15 Ambient Monitor and Major Source Locations 3-87
Figure 3-16 Global Mean Annual Land Temperatures 1880-2006, NOAA, NCDC 3-91
Figure 3-17 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas interagrams 3-92
Figure 3-18 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in teragrams 3-92
Figure 3-19 Zip Codes within a 10-Mile Radius of Project Site 3-109
Figure 4-1 Air Deposition Modeling Locations 4-83
Figure 4-2 Comparison of Projected CO2 Emissions from the Proposed Refinery and Existing
North Dakota Power Plants 4-118
Appendices
A Overview of Petroleum Refining (on CD-ROM only)
B Wetland Analysis (on CD-ROM only)
C Draft NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet
D Correspondence: Financial Assurance Letters, Ground Water Monitoring, ATSDR, etc.
E Response to Comments
F Comment Letters, Comment Cards & Public Hearing Transcripts (on CD-ROM only)
Technical Reports - Listed after appendices (on CD-ROM only)
August 2009 xxii Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
On February 5, 2003; the Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT) (Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation
[MHA Nation]) voted to purchase three tracts of land on the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation in North Dakota. These tracts, which are in the northeast corner of the
Reservation and in Ward County (Figure 1-1) include:
> the NW % of Section 20, Township 152 North, Range 87 West (Tract 1);
> the North !/2 of Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West (Tract 2); and
> Outlet 1 in the NE % of Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West (Tract 3).
Taken together as a single parcel, these tracts encompass 468.39 acres after existing easements
are considered. Following the purchase, the MF£A Nation requested that United States
Department of the Interior (DOI)-Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) accept the tracts into trust status
(Resolution 03-020 dated March 17, 2003). The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 (IRA)
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to hold land for Indian Tribes and individual Indians in
trust.
The MHA Nation proposes to construct, operate, and maintain a clean fuels refinery on 190 acres
of the 468.39-acre parcel. The MHA Nation would own the refinery. The MHA Nation would
grow hay on the remaining acreage. This would reduce the costs of purchasing hay for buffalo
from other sources.
1.1 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose to which the federal agencies are responding is the MHA Nation's proposal that BIA
accept 468.39 acres of fee land into trust for the purposes of constructing and operating a clean
fuels petroleum refinery and producing buffalo forage on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
The need is to facilitate Tribal self-determination and economic development. The BIA, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) each
have federal agency decisions to make based upon this EIS. BIA will decide whether to approve
the Tribes' request that BIA accept the 468.39 acres of land into trust for the purposes of
constructing and operating the clean fuels refinery and for producing buffalo forage. EPA will
decide whether to approve the Tribes' application for a Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES permit
for process water discharges associated with operation of the proposed refinery. USAGE will
decide whether to issue a CWA Section 404 permit for the discharge of dredge and fill materials
into waters of the United States (U.S.), associated with the construction of the proposed refinery.
1.2 NEPA Process and Decision Making
As a general matter, Federal agencies, such as BIA and EPA, must comply with the NEPA before
approving any major federal actions that may have a significant effect on the human environment.
BIA's decision on the MHA Nation's request that BIA accept the lands into trust for purposes of
the proposed project and EPA's issuance of a new source NPDES permit constitute such major
federal actions. BIA is the federal agency with the primary responsibility for administering trust
lands and, as such, it must ensure the NEPA process is conducted for MHA Nation's request to
accept the tracts into trust status.
As the initial lead federal agency for conducting the NEPA analysis, BIA invited others to
participate in the NEPA process. After reviewing the MHA Nation's proposal, jurisdictional
August 2009
1-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
concerns, and potential effects, BIA invited the EPA, FWS, Indian Health Services (IHS),
USAGE and the MHA Nation to participate in the NEPA analysis.
EPA initially decided to participate as a cooperating agency because of its authority for
permitting specific aspects of the clean fuels refinery project. As the process moved forward, BIA
asked EPA to reconsider and become a joint lead. EPA directly implements its federal
environmental protection programs on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Under the CWA,
EPA has the authority to issue an NPDES permit to the facility for the process water discharges
from the operation of the refinery. The MHA Nation has submitted an NPDES permit application
to EPA for the process water discharges. EPA's issuance of the NPDES surface discharge permit
to this facility is a "major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment." Since EPA has determined the facility is a "new source" under the CWA, EPA's
issuance of the NPDES permit for a new source discharging process water invokes NEPA. In
addition to the NPDES process water permit, EPA also has the authority to issue any applicable
stormwater permits to the facility for stormwater construction and operation discharges into
waters of the United States (U.S.).
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is responsible for permitting major sources of air pollution.
However, at this time EPA has determined that the facility does not require a CAA Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit for construction of a new major source of air pollution or
a CAA Part 71 permit to regulate air emissions while the refinery is operating. Some units of the
refinery would however be subject to NSPS under the CAA.
EPA has determined EPA's Underground Injection Control (UIC) program would apply to the
refinery and an UIC permit would be needed if the refinery uses a septic system and leach field.
Depending upon how wastewater would be discharged from the facility, the refinery may need a
Class I UIC permit. The drinking (potable) water system at the facility would be considered a
public water system and would be regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). Depending on whether the facility uses underground storage tanks subject to the
Underground Storage Tank (UST) requirements, the refinery may be regulated by EPA under the
UST requirements.
Depending on how hazardous wastes will be handled and stored at the proposed facility, the
refinery may need a RCRA hazardous waste permit from EPA (Treatment Storage and Disposal
permit). All alternatives, except 4 and A would need this RCRA permit. The potential hazardous
waste permit and the UIC permits do not invoke NEPA for EPA; however, information about the
permit programs is included in the EIS.
BIA asked the MHA Nation to participate as a cooperating sovereign nation because of its local
expertise and unique status. The MHA Nation has specific expertise in several areas that are
important to the NEPA analysis, including cultural resources and socioeconomics. Additionally,
the MHA Nation is a sovereign nation with which BIA and EPA have a federal trust relationship.
BIA asked the FWS to participate as a cooperating agency. While the FWS declined to participate
as a cooperating agency, the FWS did agree to provide information and data where it could and
review documents. BIA and EPA determined whether the actions they authorize, fund or carry
out in connection with this project may affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or
the designated critical habitat of such species. BIA and EPA determined that actions will either
have no effect or may affect but will not adversely affect such species or critical habitat in
consultation with the FWS as appropriate under the Endanged Species Act (ESA).
August 2009 1 -2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
In response to the comments submitted on the October 1, 2004 draft version of the EIS scoping
report, BIA asked IHS to participate in the NEPA process as a cooperating agency. IHS declined
to participate as a cooperating agency. While IHS declined participating as a cooperating agency,
it did agree to provide information and data where it could and review documents.
BIA asked the USAGE to participate as a cooperating agency because of its authority under the
CWA for permitting the discharge of dredged or fill material into all waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. USAGE has determined a wetlands swale and wetlands on the northwestern boundary
of the project site are waters of the U.S. subject to USAGE regulatory authority under CWA
Section 404. The proposed project may include dredge and fill of the wetlands swale. With this
determination, the MHA Nation would have to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit from USAGE
before any dredging and filling of the wetlands swale could occur. No dredge or fill activities are
proposed for the wetlands located on the northwestern boundary of the project area.
BIA, EPA, USAGE, and the MHA Nation entered into an agreement (Memorandum of
Understanding [MOU]) to facilitate completion of the NEPA process and preparation of the EIS.
This MOU defines each party's roles and responsibilities for preparing documents, reviewing
documents, and coordinating decision making with regard to the EIS. Ultimately, both BIA and
EPA intend to make decisions about the MHA Nation's proposal using the results of the NEPA
analysis.
This document provides BIA and EPA with information upon which to base final decisions that
consider factors relevant to the proposal. Scoping issues and concerns raised by the public and
agencies drove the development of alternatives and the focus of the EIS. This EIS documents (1)
the analysis of effects on human health and the environment that could result from
implementation of the proposed action or alternatives to that action and (2) the development of
environmental protection measures needed to reduce or eliminate environmental consequences.
Finally, this EIS is not a decision document. It discloses the process used to analyze the potential
environmental consequences of implementing the proposal and alternatives to the proposed
action. BIA's and EPA's decision about the proposed project will be contained in separate ROD.
1.3 Decisions to be Made Based on this NEPA
Analysis
As noted above, BIA, EPA, and USAGE will make separate decisions based on this NEPA
analysis. BIA's decision will be documented in a ROD signed by the, Assistant Secretary of
Indian Affairs, Department of Interior. The ROD will indicate any mitigation measures
enforceable by BIA that need to be adopted. The BIA will consider the ROD when deciding
whether to accept the 468.39 acres into trust status for the MHA Nation. In addition to the ROD,
the Secretary of the Interior, or designee, must consider the existence of statutory authority, need
for the additional land, purpose for the land, the impact on the State and its political subdivisions
resulting from the removal of the land from the tax rolls, jurisdictional problems and potential
conflicts of land use that may arise, and whether BIA is equipped to discharge the additional
responsibilities resulting from acquisition of the land in trust status (25 CFR Section 151.10). The
ROD and the decision on the MHA Nation's request to accept land in trust will be final for the
DOI; because the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs will be making the determination. In the
Draft EIS (DEIS), the decision was to be made by BIA with appeal rights as mandated in 25 CFR
Part 2.
EPA's decision whether to issue the NPDES process water permit for the refinery will be
documented in a ROD signed by EPA Region 8's Regional Administrator. EPA will issue any
applicable permits for storm water (construction) and UIC and may issue a permit for RCRA
August 2009 1 -5 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
hazardous waste. Permits typically delineate the maximum allowable emissions or discharges of
pollution from the regulated facility, monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting, and pollution
control/mitigation requirements. 40 CFR 124.19 sets forth the permit appeal process for NPDES,
RCRA and UIC permits.
The USAGE will use this EIS in determining whether to issue any necessary CWA Section 404
permits for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
The USAGE will issue any such permits only after compliance with the USAGE regulations (33
CFR Part 320 et seq) and the CWA 404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 C.Fedeml Register 230, et seq). 33
CFR Part 331 sets forth the CWA Section 404 permit appeal process.
1.4 Authorizing Actions
A variety of permitting actions would be required to implement any of the action alternatives.
Table 1-1 lists the major permits, approvals, and consultations that may be required for the
acceptance of land into trust in support of the proposed refinery or which may be required at
some time in the future. The list is subject to change, depending on requirements for any
alternative selected by the decision makers.
August 2009 1 -6 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
Table 1-1
Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Potentially Required for the Clean Fuels Refinery Project
Issuing Agency/Permit Approval Name
Nature of Regulatory Action
Applicable Project Component
Federal Permits, Approvals, and Authorizing Actions
U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Clean Air Act - New Source Review (NSR)
Preconstruction Air Permit.
Clean Air Act - Title V Operating Permit.
Clean Air Act -New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
Clean Water Act - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System - Permit for Point Source
Discharges - Process Water.
Clean Water Act - 401 Certifications for Section 402
NPDES process water permit and Section 404 permit.
Clean Water Act - National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System - Construction General Permit.
Clean Water Act - Oil Pollution Act - Facility
Response Plan (FRP)
Clean Water Act - Oil Pollution Act - Spill Prevention
Control Countermeasure Plan (SPCC)
Safe Drinking Water Act - Public Water Supply
System Program.
Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to hold land for
Indian Tribes and individual Indians in trust.
Controls emissions from new or modified sources.
CAA requires all major sources of air emissions to
obtain a permit that applies to day-to-day operation of
the facility.
CAA requires new and modified industrial facilities to
comply with performance standards for certain
stationary sources of air emissions.
Authorizes point source discharges of pollutants to
waters of the U.S. in accordance with effluent
guidelines, water quality standards, monitoring
requirements, and other conditions as set by EPA.
State or Federal certification that Federal licensing or
permitting activity complies with CWA requirements.
Authorizes discharge of storm water pollutants
associated with construction.
The Oil Pollution Act requires certain facilities that
store and use oil to prepare FRPs and submit them to
EPA in order to ensure adequate response mechanisms
are in place to respond to worst case oil spills.
The Oil Pollution Act requires certain facilities that
store and use oil to prepare SPCC plans and retain them
at the facilities to ensure facilities put in containment
and other measures to avoid oil spills that could reach
navigable waters.
National health-based standards for drinking water to
protect against both naturally occurring and man-made
The 468.39-acre parcel in Sections 19 and 20 of
Township 52 North, Range 87 West after considering
existing easements.
Sources of air emissions (excluding air toxic pollutants
listed under Section 112) that emit 100 tons/year or
more, if the source belongs to a list of 28 specific
categories, or any other source type which emits
250 tons/year or more.
Sources of air emissions that emit 100 tons/year or
more of a criteria pollutant, or 10 tons/year of an HAP,
or more than 25 tons/year of any combination of
hazardous pollutants.
Stationary sources regulated under the NSPS include:
flares, boilers, refinery fuel gas combustion units,
storage tanks, seals, valves, drains, etc. NSPS
requirements typically include testing, monitoring and
recordkeeping.
Facilities with proposed process water discharges
associated with an industrial activity.
All CWA 404 (Dredge and Fill) and 402 (NPDES)
permits require 401 Certification prior to issuance of
the permit.
Construction activities that disturb 5 or more acres of
land.
Storage and use of oil requires preparation of FRPs for
certain facilities prior to operation to provide measures
to respond to oil spills that could reach navigable
waters.
Storage and use of oil requires preparation of SPCC
plans prior to operation to provide measures to avoid
oil spills that could reach navigable waters.
Public water system.
August 2009
1-7
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 1 Purpose and Need
Table 1-1
Major Permits, Approvals, and Consultations Potentially Required for the Clean Fuels Refinery Project
Issuing Agency/Permit Approval Name
Nature of Regulatory Action
Applicable Project Component
Safe Drinking Water Act - UIC Permit for Septic
System.
Safe Drinking Water Act - UIC Permit for Injection
(Alt. C).
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal (TSD) Permit.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Hazardous
Waste Generator.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Solid
Waste Management.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act - Subtitle I -
Underground Storage Tanks (UST).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
ESA compliance (Section 7).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Bald Eagle Protection Act.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
National Historic Preservation Act - Cultural Resource
Compliance (Section 106).
U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers
Permit to Discharge Dredged or Fill Material (Section
404 Permit).
U.S. Department of Transportation
Construction and operation of natural gas pipelines.
contaminants.
Authorizes discharges of sanitary wastes into or above
shallow ground water from a system that has the
capacity to serve 20 or more people per day.
Authorizes use of Class I injection well for disposal of
hazardous or non-hazardous industrial waste below the
lowermost underground source of drinking water,
under 40 CFR Part 146 Subpart G.
Design, monitoring, and closure requirements for TSD
units.
Regulations for storing, treating, and disposing of
hazardous waste.
The facility must comply with federal regulations at 40
CFR 257 "Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities and Practices."
Technical standards and corrective action requirements
for owners and operators of underground storage tanks
Protects federally listed threatened or endangered
species and their designated critical habitats.
Protects migratory birds.
Protects bald and golden eagles.
Protects cultural and historic resources. Coordinated
with the Tribal Preservation Office (TPO) and North
Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO).
Authorizes discharge of dredged or fill material in
waters of the U.S., including jurisdictional wetlands.
Prescribes minimum safety requirements for pipeline
facilities and the transportation of gas, including
pipeline facilities.
Septic system and leach field.
Underground injection of industrial waste.
Applies if the facility stores hazardous waste more than
90 days, treats hazardous waste, or has disposal
facilities for hazardous waste.
RCRA listed and characteristic hazardous waste.
Land disposal of non-hazardous solid waste from the
facility.
Underground storage tanks.
Any project activity that potentially affects species
listed as or proposed for listing as threatened or
endangered, and/or their designated critical habitats.
All federally funded, permitted, or authorized activities.
All federally funded, permitted, or authorized activities.
Any federal undertakings with potential to affect
cultural resources.
Activities involving discharge of dredged or fill
materials into waters of the U.S.
New natural gas pipeline construction.
August 2009
1-8
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue
Identification, and Alternatives
This chapter covers five primary topics. First, it describes the opportunities for public
participation and the process used to obtain the public's input. Second, it describes the
process used to develop the alternatives that were considered in this analysis. Third, it
describes the alternatives that were analyzed in detail. The specific features of these alternatives
are fully described. Fourth, it identifies each alternative eliminated from detailed consideration
and briefly describes the rationale for the exclusion. Finally, it summarily presents, in
comparative form, the components and environmental effects of the alternatives analyzed in
detail and will identify the agencies' preferred alternative.
2.1 Public Participation
Public participation is a crucial component of the NEPA process overall. However, it is especially
important and valuable at two particular points in the process: defining the scope of the NEPA
analysis (scoping) and reviewing and commenting on the DEIS. Both of these points are
discussed below.
2.1.1 Scoping
Formal scoping for the NEPA analysis of the proposal began on November 7, 2003 with the
publication of the NOI to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. The NOI was published to
inform readers of the BIA's intent to conduct an environmental analysis of the MF£A Nation's
proposal (Bureau of Indian Affairs 2003). The notice also solicited comments to assist the BIA in
identifying the issues and concerns that should be addressed in the analysis and documented in
the EIS. The comment period ran from November 7 to December 8, 2003.
Before BIA published its NOI, the MHA Nation held a series of informational meetings at
community centers around the Reservation to describe its proposal and answer questions. The six
meetings, which were on successive evenings during September 2003, were not scoping
meetings. The overall goal of the meetings was to provide members of the MHA Nation and
others the opportunity to learn about the proposed refinery and the NEPA process. Consequently,
the meetings included a presentation on the proposed refinery and a description of the NEPA
process that will culminate in the EIS and RODs. The presenters also answered questions after the
presentations. Finally, comment forms were distributed to facilitate the submittal of written
comments and concerns.
The number of people that attended the meetings varied. A range of people (10 to 30 people)
attended each of the meetings held in Makoti, White Shield, Parshall, and New Town. In contrast,
the meetings in Mandaree and Twin Buttes were only sparsely attended with at most three people
attending.
BIA released a Draft Scoping Report for public review on October 1, 2004 and accepted
comments on the report until November 18, 2004. The report summarized the scoping efforts
conducted through September 2004 and the concerns and issues previously identified. On
November 9, 2004, EPA conducted a public hearing on the issues identified in the draft report.
Eighty-seven people attended the hearing. The Final Scoping Report incorporates comments
submitted on the Draft Scoping Report.
August 2009
2-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.1.2 Review of the Draft EIS
The BIA and EPA jointly published the DEIS for the MHA Nation's Proposed Clean Fuels
Refinery Project in June 2006. BIA and EPA announced the availability of the DEIS and the start
of the public comment period on June 29, 2006 in the Federal Register, in press releases, and
mailed announcements. BIA and EPA held seven public hearings on the DEIS in Twin Buttes,
White Shield, Parshall, Mandaree, New Town, and Makoti, North Dakota between July 31 and
August 5, 2006. Comments were received until September 14, 2006. Comments (questions and
statements) received orally at the hearings were recorded by a court reporter. Additional written
comments were received on comment cards at these hearings and in letters to BIA and/or EPA.
During the public review period, BIA and EPA received 31 letters submitted by individuals and
organizations; 65 people testified at the seven public hearings and 20 comment cards were
submitted during the public hearings. BIA and EPA reviewed and considered every comment
submitted during the public review period. The Agencies Response to Comments is provided in
Appendix E, the comment letters and cards, and oral testimony transcripts are included in the
FEIS as Appendix F on the CD-ROM.
2.1.3 Review of the Final EIS
This FEIS, including the Response to Comments will be issued for a 30 day review or "wait"
period. Following the FEIS wait period, BIA will decide whether to approve the Tribes' request
that BIA accept the land into trust and EPA will decide whether to issue an NPDES permit for
discharges from the refinery. After the 30 day FEIS wait period, each agency will prepare a ROD
documenting and explaining the Agency's decision. The RODs can be issued no sooner than 30
days following the publication of the Notice of Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.
(40 CFR 1505.2, 40 CFR 1506.10)
2.2 Process Used to Develop Alternatives
The process of developing alternatives to the proposed project action involved five steps. First,
the agencies conducted scoping to identify the key issues of concern, which would define the
scope of the impact assessment. The scoping involved concerns that were both internal to the
agencies and that were raised by the public. It also considered environmental and project-design
elements.
The second step consisted of formulating alternatives to the acceptance of land into trust in
support of the proposed refinery. Each alternative had to meet the purpose and need for the
project. Typically, at this stage, issues are identified by the agencies to help define the changes
that are needed to avoid, eliminate, reduce, minimize, or mitigate effects that would result from
implementing the proposed project action.
The third step consisted of developing alternatives for the discharge of effluent from the refinery.
Each alternative had to meet the purpose of and need for the project and each alternative had to be
likely to continuously achieve compliance with environmental laws such as the CWA, SDWA
and RCRA. The primary driving issue for these alternatives is protecting water quality.
The fourth step involved screening the potential alternatives for reasonableness. The NEPA
process requires that alternatives evaluated in detail be reasonable. The regulations for
implementing NEPA discuss the need for reasonable alternatives in the NEPA process (40 CFR
1500.2(e) and 1502.14). In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 40 Most
Asked Questions about NEPA (Question 2a) state, in part, that "reasonable alternatives include
those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common
sense" (Council on Environmental Quality 1981).
August 2009 2-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Based on this direction, the agencies focused the screening of alternatives on technical,
environmental, and economic feasibility. Technical considerations included the feasibility of
constructing and operating the facilities. Environmental considerations included the potential for
significant effects and the feasibility of successfully mitigating them. Economic considerations
included potential costs and benefits of implementing the alternative.
Finally, unreasonable alternatives were eliminated from detailed consideration. If an alternative
did not pass the technical, environmental, and economic screening for feasibility, it was not
considered for further analysis.
2.2.1 Alternatives Considered in the NEPA Analysis
The process described above resulted in the development of alternatives that specifically
responded to one or more of the key issues. Although a variety of alternatives was developed, not
all were analyzed in detail. Some were deemed unreasonable during the feasibility screening.
Others were eliminated after initial analysis indicated they were not reasonable or that conditions
had changed. Consequently, the alternatives are described in two overall sections. The
alternatives analyzed in detail are described first. A section on Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated from Detailed Analysis follows the alternatives analyzed in detail.
2.2.2 Alternatives Analyzed in Detail
Five alternatives for BIA's decision on acceptance of the land into trust status and four effluent
discharge alternatives were analyzed in detail. The project alternatives for BIA include the
proposed project action (Alternative 1), three modified action alternatives (Alternatives 2, 3, and
4), and the no action alternative (Alternative 5). Under Alternative 2, BIA would accept the
468.39-acre parcel into trust, but it would not approve MHA Nation's proposal to construct,
operate, and maintain a clean fuels refinery on the parcel. Under Alternative 3, BIA would not
accept the 468.39 acres into trust status. However, the MHA Nation would construct the clean
fuels refinery as described (under Alternative 1) with applicable permitting from EPA. Under
Alternative 4 (the modified proposed project), the Refinery facilities would be configured to
move most of the project facilities out of the wetland and to replace the effluent wastewater
treatment ponds with a tank system. Lastly, Alternative 5 is the No Action Alternative.
The four effluent discharge alternatives for EPA include: (Alternative A) the proposed project
action involving effluent discharge through an NPDES permit, (Alternative B) partial effluent
discharge through an NPDES permit and some storage and irrigation, (Alternative C) effluent
discharge to an UIC Class I well, and (Alternative D) no action. All of the EPA effluent discharge
alternatives apply to the BIA project alternatives that include constructing and operating the
refinery. All of these alternatives are described in detail in the following sections.
Several terms are used throughout this EIS to identify the 468.39-acre parcel, parts of the parcel,
or areas surrounding the parcel that are the focus of the action alternatives. "Project site" refers to
the entire 468.39-acre parcel. "Refinery site" refers to the 190-acre portion of the project site
where the refinery would be constructed. The "analysis area" encompasses the project site and the
corridors connecting the oil, natural gas, and water pipelines and power lines to the refinery site.
Figure 2-1 shows the area surrounding the refinery site, utility corridors, and proposed utility
lines.
2.3 Alternative 1 Original Proposed Project Action
The project proposed by the MHA Nation is to accept the 468.39-acre project site into trust;
construct and operate a clean fuels refinery on 190 acres of the project site; and produce forage
for MHA Nation's buffalo on the remaining acreage. The following sections describe the process
August 2009 2-3 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
and analysis MHA Nation used to develop the proposed project action and the details of this
alternative. EPA will consider all of the effluent discharge alternatives for this proposed project
action.
2.3.1 Development of the Proposed Project Action
The MHA Nation's development of the proposed project action began with a search of the
Reservation for sites that would be potentially suitable for constructing, operating, and
maintaining a clean fuels refinery. The search was conducted using an initial set of screening
criteria (Triad Project Corporation 2003a). These criteria included:
> The site must be relatively flat,
> The site must encompass a minimum of 160 acres (at least 320 acres was preferred),
> The site must be close to a railroad (The existing rail line runs from Makoti, through
Parshall to New Town.),
> The site must have proximate access to an all-weather state highway, and
> The spur from the railroad into the site must be minimal and not cross any roads.
Using these initial screening criteria, eight potentially suitable sites were identified in the vicinity
of the existing railroad corridor and highway 23.
The eight potentially suitable sites were then evaluated and ranked using the following criteria:
> Ownership of the property (Is the site: within the reservation, tribally owned, held in
trust, or can the site be accepted into trust?) with tribal land and land within the
reservation getting the highest points,
> Suitable topography (can the site be easily graded/configured to enhance operation of
the refinery) with a relatively flat site getting the highest points,
> Potential for effects to surface water, watershed, and wetlands with no impacts getting
the highest points,
> Potential for effects to communities (an adequate population base must be nearby to
supply the work force; however, the refinery should not be located too close to
communities) with no impacts getting the highest points,
> Proximity to the existing pipeline was considered with more points attributed for close
proximity to the line,
> Proximity to an existing highway was considered with more points attributed for close
proximity to the highway,
> Proximity to an existing railroad was considered with more points attributed for close
proximity to the railroad and switch yard,
> Proximity to oil industry facilities was considered with more points attributed for close
proximity to existing facilities,
> Value of the site as farmland or wetlands was considered with points attributed for soil
type and existence of wetlands, and
> Visibility of the refinery from recreational areas, namely Lake Sakakawea, was
considered with points attributed for visibility.
August 2009 2-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
The final evaluation of the three sites with the highest scores involved a cost and safety analysis
that included the following criteria:
> Seller willing to sell at a reasonable price within the budget,
> Cost of infrastructure in relation to each site (cost of constructing rail services, roads,
surface drainage, utilities and overall facility),
> Safety factors relative to highway and railway traffic and any ongoing liability, which
can be reduced or eliminated by site selection, and
> Ability to have the land acquired into trust status.
Using these criteria, the MHA Nation determined the project site parcel was the most suitable site
and entered into negotiations with the landowners to purchase the properties. After buying the
parcels and beginning work on a refinery design, the MHA Nation submitted a request to the BIA
to accept the parcels into trust.
2.3.2 Refinery
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would construct, operate, and maintain a clean fuels
refinery on the refinery site. Feedstock for the refinery would include 10,000 bbl per stream day
(BPSD) of synthetic crude oil, 3,000 BPSD of field butane, 6 million standard cubic feet per day
(MMSCFD) of natural gas, and 300 bbl of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From
the feedstock, the refinery would produce about 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of
gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane. With the planned maintenance program, the refinery would
have an economic life well past 20 years. At the end of its economic life, MHA Nation would
decommission and reclaim the facility.
2.3.2.1 Processes Comprising the Refinery
The refinery would consist of 14 plants. Each plant would handle a specific operation or portion
of the overall refining process. Table 2-1 briefly summarizes the 14 plants. The following
sections describe the functions of each of the 14 plants.
The numbering of the plants is for reference only and the numbers assigned to the various units
and plants are meaningful only to the design engineers. Although gaps exist in the numbering of
the 14 plants, all proposed plants are included in the description of the refinery and in the impact
analysis. Engineering design convention is to leave gaps in numbers between major units to
facilitate adjustments during the refinery's design and operation. The general layout of the
refinery is depicted in Figure 2-2.
Unit A Crude Processing
The Crude Processing Unit of the refinery would consist of the crude plant and a saturated gas
plant. The crude plant would distill crude oil into various fractions that would be the feedstock for
other plants. The saturated gas plant would receive gas that contains saturated hydrocarbons (HC)
from the crude plant and other plants and strip those saturated hydrocarbons from the gas.
Plant 01 No. 01 Crude
The crude plant would be the first step in the refining process (Figure 2-2). In the crude plant,
crude oil would go through a series of steps where it is heated, vaporized, fractionated,
condensed, and cooled. Initially, the crude oil would be pumped through a series of heat
exchangers that would increase its temperature. During this heating, some vaporization of the
feed stream would occur, with fractions such as naphtha, light diesel, and heavy diesel being
August 2009 2-7 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
vaporized and sent directly to the atmospheric crude column (fractionating column). The crude
stream from the exchangers that was not vaporized in the exchangers would be sent to the
atmospheric crude heater and heated to specific temperatures and then sent to the fractionating
column. This column would separate the crude oil into different fractions based on their boiling
range fractions or "cuts." Additional stripping would occur in stripper columns downstream of the
fractionator. The fractions from the fractionator and strippers may be recycled for additional
treatment or sent directly to finished product blending or to other downstream plants, such as the
saturated gas plant, for further processing.
Table 2-1 Summary of Plants that would Compose the Refinery
Unit
Description
Crude Processing
Naphtha Hydrotreater
Reformer
Hydroprocessor
Treating
Butane Isomerization
Olefin
Iso-octane
Hydrogen
Utilities
Water Treatment
Storage, Blending, and
Shipping
Bio-diesel
General Refinery
Takes the crude oil and separates it into component parts by a heating
process called distillation.
Removes sulfur from naphtha feedstock and reforms the desulfurized
naphtha with hydrogen to produce a high-octane gasoline blending
component.
Reformate stream is collected and sent to storage as a gasoline
blending component.
Cracks hydrocarbons into smaller, lighter ones under high
temperatures, high pressures, and a hydrogen atmosphere. Produces
light and heavy ultra-low sulfur diesel fuels.
Removes sulfur compounds from various water and gas streams and
converts the removed material into elemental sulfur.
Processes normal butane (nC4) into isobutene. The isobutane is
isolated in the Deisobutanizer (DIB) overhead and fed to the Olefin
Unit.
Converts isobutane to isobutylene as part of the process to produce
iso-octane.
The process dimerizes isobutylene (from the Olefin Unit) into iso-
octene. Then the iso-octene is saturated with hydrogen in a separate
reactor to produce iso-octane, a very clean high octane gasoline
blending component.
Produces the hydrogen needed for other refinery units.
Composed of the fuel gas, flare, instrument and utility air, fire water,
boiler feed water, and nitrogen systems.
Process raw water from wells to treated water and treats wastewater.
Includes tanks for storing products, pumps for blending products, and
facilities for loading railcars and trucks.
Processes oil from soybeans into bio-diesel (methyl esters).
Consists of off-sites, office/warehouse, and general offices.
Source: Triad Project Corporation 2003, Woolley 2004, Woolley 2006
August 2009
2-8
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Plant 02 Saturated Gas Plant
The saturated gas plant would receive wet gas from the crude plant and other process plants (for
example, the reformer and hydroprocessor) that contains saturated hydrocarbons (for example,
methane, ethane, propane, and butanes). Further treatment in the saturated gas plant would be
necessary to remove these "light end" hydrocarbons that could not be separated in the
atmospheric crude distillation or other units. A crude debutanizer column would be used to
separate the butanes and propane from the naphtha, and a crude depropanizer column would be
used to separate out propane. These separated light ends would be used for further product
production or refining activities (for example, butane and propane to the amine plant and
stabilized naphtha to the naphtha hydrotreater [NHT]).
Unit B Naphtha Hydrotreater
The NHT would be used to treat sulfur-containing naphtha that would be used subsequently as a
feedstock to the catalytic reforming unit. Hydrotreating would be needed to remove components,
such as sulfur, nitrogen, and metals, to protect the reformer catalyst and to meet air quality
regulations for the use of low sulfur distillates and jet fuels.
Plant 05 Naphtha Hydrotreater
The NHT would receive stabilized naphtha as feedstock from the saturated gas plant. The naphtha
feedstock would be mixed with hydrogen and heated. The naphtha combined with hydrogen
would then be sent to a vessel containing a catalyst. Several reactions would occur in the presence
of the catalyst, including:
> Sulfur and nitrogen compounds would be converted to hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
ammonia (NH3);
> Metals that are present in the feed would be deposited on the catalyst;
> Some compounds such as naphthenes and aromatics, would become saturated with
hydrogen and some cracking would occur, resulting in lighter components, such as
methane, propane, and butanes.
The resulting treated naphtha stream (low-octane naphthas) from the NHT would be charged to
the catalytic reformer for additional treatment. The catalytic reformer would convert low-octane
naphthas into high-octane gasoline blending components called reformates.
Unit D Reformer
The catalytic reformer is comprised of a reactor section and a product-recovery section; the basic
units are a feed/effluent heat exchanger, 3 furnaces, 3 reactors, a regenerator, overhead
recontacting section, net gas compressor, recycle gas, and a stabilizer column.
Plant 08 Reformer
Desulfurized naphtha feed from the NHT would be mixed with hydrogen, heated, and discharged
to the reformer unit. The mixture would then be passed through a series of fixed bed catalytic
reactors, where higher-octane compounds, such as aromatics, are formed. The effluent from the
final reactor would be cooled and pumped to a separator that would allow butanes and lighter
components to be removed and recycled to the saturation gas plant. Liquid product from the
bottom of the separator would be pumped to a fractionating column called a stabilizer
(debutanizer). The resulting bottom reformate stream would then be collected and sent to storage
as a gasoline blending component.
August 2009 2-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Unit F Hydroprocessor
The Hydroprocessor Unit consists of the Hydroprocessor and Fractionation plants.
Plant 11 Hydroprocessor
The hydroprocessor would use several technologies in an integrated process to upgrade distillate-
range compounds to high-quality kerosene and diesel that would meet air quality requirements for
sulfur, aromatics, and cetane number in vehicles. The hydroprocessing plant would perform three
basic steps: hydrodesulfurization, hydrocracking, and fractionation.
The primary purpose of hydrodesulfurization would be to remove sulfur compounds and other
impurities, such as nitrogen, oxygen, halides, and trace metals, that could negatively affect the
catalysts used in other downstream refining processes. Hydrodesulfurization is a process that
catalytically treats various hydrocarbon streams by reacting them with hydrogen in the presence
of a catalyst.
Plant 12 Fractionation
In hydrocracking, which is a combination of catalytic cracking and hydrogenation, heavier
feedstock (gas, oil, and diesel) would be converted into lighter components in high-temperature,
high-pressure reactors in the presence of hydrogen and a catalyst. The product stream from the
reactors would then be sent to a fractionating column for further refinement. The primary fuels
produced by this process would be ultra-low sulfur kerosene and diesel. In addition, some of the
heavier naphtha streams would be sent as feedstock to the catalytic reformer for upgrading
(increase octane), because these streams (heavy hydrocrackate) would have many aromatic
precursors.
Unit H Treating
Unit H would consist of six sections. They are the sour water stripper (SWS), amine plant, merox
plant, contaminated water stripper, butane treater, and sulfur plant. Each unit is discussed below.
Plant 16 Amine Plant
The purpose of the amine unit would be to remove hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide from
various hydrocarbon gas streams referred to as sour gas streams. This is accomplished by
absorption in an aqueous solution of diethanolamine (DBA).
In the amine plant, sour gas streams would undergo a multi-step process. Sour gas streams from
refining processes (for example, hydroprocessor and saturation gas plant) would first enter a
filter/coalescer vessel, where the separated liquid fraction would be pumped to the SWS. The
overhead gases would then pass through an absorber (amine contactor) where hydrogen sulfide
would be removed. Sweetened fuel gas would be returned to the refinery fuel system.
The liquid bottoms would continue through further treatment in the amine plant. The liquid
fraction containing hydrogen sulfide (rich DBA) would be stripped to separate the hydrogen
sulfide as an acid gas stream. This stream would be sent to the sulfur plant for treatment. The
stripped liquid solution (lean DBA) would be recycled in the process.
Plant 17Sulfur Plant
Air quality regulations require minimizing the amount of sulfur dioxide emissions to the
atmosphere by end products. The main source of these emissions is from the burning of
hydrocarbon streams containing hydrogen sulfide. Petroleum refining operations can remove
August 2009 2-12 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
hydrogen sulfide from end product fuel systems and convert the removed material to elemental
sulfur.
The MHA Nation Refinery would use the most widely used sulfur recovery system the
"Claus" Process. This process consists of two basic phases: combustion and reaction. During the
combustion phase, about one-third of the hydrogen sulfide in the feed gas to the unit would be
burned in a furnace. This would form sulfur dioxide, water, and sulfur. In the reaction phase, the
sulfur dioxide would be reacted in reactors with the remaining two-thirds unburned hydrogen
sulfide over a catalyst to form sulfur.
Claus units typically convert 90 to 93 percent of the hydrogen sulfide to sulfur. The remaining
hydrogen sulfide is referred to as the tail gas. This tail gas would be diverted to an incinerator for
additional treatment. Exhaust from the incinerator would be discharged to the atmosphere via a
tall sulfur stack.
The primary feed streams of the MHA Nation Refinery to the sulfur plant would be acid gases
from the amine plant and the SWS. The resulting molten sulfur product would be sent to a sulfur
pit. From the pit, the sulfur would be pumped to the loading facilities for shipment by truck. The
sulfur would be sold and shipped to the buyers' locations.
Plant 18 Sour Water Stripper
Sour water refers to various waters containing sulfides; however, these waters typically also
include ammonia and small quantities of phenol and other hydrocarbons. Sour water would be
produced as a by-product of operations in several units, including the crude distillation unit,
hydroprocessor unit, amine plant, merox plant, and sulfur plant. In addition, sour water may be
generated when steam is condensed in the presence of gases containing hydrogen sulfide.
The SWS would be designed to remove hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, some phenolics, and other
contaminants from the sour water stream. The feed streams to the SWS would first enter a sour
water degasser vessel, where sour gas would be removed and pumped to the sulfur plant. The
sour water would be directed to the SWS column where sour gas would be diverted to the sulfur
plant for processing. Stripped water would be diverted to a sour water storage tank. The water
would then be recycled or pumped to the wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) for treatment.
Plant 19 Contaminated Water Stripper
The purpose is to strip benzene and other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from the
contaminated waste water that has been in contact with the process and recycle them back to the
process. The stripped waste water contains less than 0.005 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of
benzene, and is sent to the WWTU.
Plant 20 Merox Plant
Non-hydrotreated fuels (sour stocks that contain sulfur compounds) would be sent to the merox
plant to remove sulfur compounds. This "sweetening" process would remove sulfur compounds
(primarily hydrogen sulfide) and mercaptans (thiols) to improve odor, color, and oxidation
stability and to comply with applicable air quality regulations for the fuels' use. The process
would use both extraction and conversion steps using caustic and a dissolved catalyst for the
reactions.
The feed streams (mixed butanes and propane from the saturation gas plant) would first enter a
separate extractor vessel and would be contacted with recycled, regenerated caustic solution. The
treated butane stream would be pumped through to a knockout drum and a sand filter and then on
to the iso-octane unit. The propane stream would flow to a knockout drum, sand filter, and
August 2009 2-13 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
propane dryers and then would be sent to propane storage. Sour water generated in the process
would be pumped to the SWS. Acid gas would be sent to the sulfur plant.
The caustic solution from the extractors that contain dissolved mercaptans would be sent to
oxidizers. Here, the mercaptans would be oxidized to disulfides and the caustic would be
restored. The stream would then be sent to the disulfide separator where the excess air/disulfides
mixture would be separated and sent to the flare. The caustic solution would be recycled to the
extractor.
Plant 21 Butane Treater
Field butanes are imported as feedstock for the production of iso-octane for gasoline. The field
butanes are about 70% nC4 and 30% iso-octanes, and must be treated for sulfur removal with
hydrogen and catalyst. The treated butane mixture is then sent to the DIB for separation by
fractionation.
Unit J Butane Isomerization
The Butane Isomerization Unit consists of the DIB, Butane Isomerization, and Caustic Treater.
Plant 25 Deisobutanizer
This unit is the initial step in the process of producing iso-octane.
Field butanes would be pumped from the storage vessels in the tank farm to the feed preparation
described in Plant 21. The field butanes would then be desulfurized.
Once desulfurized, the field butanes would be charged to the DIB (fractionation column). The
DIB would separate isobutane (iC4), nC4, and pentanes (C5+). The isobutane would be charged
to the olefin unit (Unit K) for processing. The nC4 would be charged to the butane isomerization
unit (Plant 26) to convert it to isobutane.
Plant 26 Butane Isomerization
In the butane isomerization plant, nC4 would be processed to produce isobutane, the key
feedstock for the iso-octane (iC8) unit. The mixed butanes from the Isomerization unit (about
52% conversion to isobutane) would be returned to the DIB column to separate the isobutane and
nC4. The nC4 coming from the DIB column side draw would be directed to the Isomerization
unit. In the presence of the catalyst, nC4 would be converted to isobutene. The isobutane
manufactured in the Isomerization unit along with the isobutane in the field butanes fresh feed is
all recovered in the DIB and sent overhead as feed to the Olefin unit (Unit K).
Plant 27 Caustic Treater
The nC4 product must be treated with caustic solution to remove any sulfur compounds.
Unit KOlefin
The butane dehydrogenation plant would employ catalytic dehydrogenation technology to convert
isobutane (iC4) to isobutylene (iC4=).
Plant 29 - Olefin
The process would be composed of three sections: a reactor section, a product recovery section,
and a catalyst regeneration section. In the reactor section, isobutane feed from the DIB overhead
would flow through a series of reactors. The platinum catalyst in these reactors would promote a
dehydrogenation reaction. The reactant effluent from this reaction process would then be sent to
August 2009 2-14 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
the product recovery section, where the effluent would be cooled, compressed, dried, and sent to
a cryogenic system to separate hydrogen from hydrocarbon. The separator liquid product,
isobutylene, would be sent to the iso-octane unit as a feedstock. Unconverted gases are sent to the
pressure swing adsorption (PSA) unit for production of pure hydrogen. The PSA unit is discussed
in the section on Unit P - Hydrogen.
Unit M Iso-octane
This plant would produce iso-octane, which is a very clean (no sulfur or aromatics), high-octane
gasoline (100 octane (R+M/20)). The iso-octane would be used as a blending component for
gasoline. Processing of isobutene in the iso-octane plant would involve two primary phases:
dimerization and hydrogenation.
Plant 31 - Dimerization
In the dimerization phase, molecules of isobutylene (iC4=) from the olefin unit (Unit K) would be
combined into molecules of iso-octene (iC8=). Dimerization would involve feeding the
isobutylene through a series of exchangers, reactors, column reboilers, and column condensers.
The resulting iso-octene would be charged to the hydrogenation plant.
Plant 32 - Alcohol Extraction
In the dimerization reactors water is present and combines with isobutylene to form tertiary butyl
alcohol (TEA) that is beneficial to the reaction. However, the amount of TEA in the system is
controlled by this unit, recycling the required amount to the reactors, and yielding the excess.
Plant 33 - Hydrogenation
In the hydrogenation phase, the iso-octene would be saturated with hydrogen under low pressure
to produce iso-octane. The primary components of the hydrogenation unit would be the saturation
reactor and product stripper. The hydrogen used in the process would come from the hydrogen
plant (Unit P). From the product stripper, the iso-octane would be sent to storage for use as a
blending component for gasoline.
Unit P Hydrogen
A significant amount of hydrogen would be required for operating specific refining processes,
such as the hydroprocessor. Although some hydrogen would be produced within refinery
operations such as catalytic reforming, the supply would not be sufficient to meet the needs of the
refinery's operations. Therefore, the MHA Nation Refinery would use a steam methane reforming
(SMR) plant and a PSA plant to produce the additional amount of hydrogen required for
operations.
Plant 36 - Steam Methane Reformer
The SMR unit would accomplish the following basic steps:
> Sulfur Removal the feed streams (fuel gas, natural gas, and boiler feedwater) to the
SMR would first be pretreated in a hydrogenation reactor vessel to convert any sulfur
compounds to hydrogen sulfide. The feed from the hydrogenation vessel would then
flow through vessels containing zinc oxide to remove any hydrogen sulfide.
> Reforming following removal of sulfur compounds, the gas stream would be mixed
with steam in a reformer furnace and undergo a catalytic reaction that produces carbon
monoxide (CO) and hydrogen.
August 2009 2-15 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
> Shift Conversion the CO from the reformer would then be reacted in the presence
of a catalyst and additional steam to produce hydrogen and carbon dioxide. About 92
percent of the CO would be converted into hydrogen.
Plant 37 - Pressure Swing Adsorption
To produce a more pure hydrogen stream, the hydrogen stream from the SMR would be sent to
the PSA. The PSA would adsorb impurities from the hydrogen-rich stream by using a fixed bed
of adsorbents operating at high pressure. This can result in purity in excess of 99.9 percent. The
high purity hydrogen will supply the refinery's need for desulfurization. The PSA tail gas is
available at low pressure, so will be used in the nearby SMR furnace as fuel.
Unit R Utilities
The utilities unit would consist of almost a dozen systems. These systems include the fuel gas
system, the flare system, the instrument/utility air system, the fire water system, the boiler feed
water system, the emergency power and the nitrogen system.
Plant 40 Boiler Feedwater System
Refinery operations require steam, which would be supplied by the boiler feedwater system. The
boiler feedwater system would include three steam generator boilers to provide the required
steam. Feeds to the unit would consist of recycled treated water from the water treatment unit
(unit 36), condensate from steam condensate recovery, and recycled low-pressure steam. The
steam generators would be fueled with fuel gas from the fuel gas system.
Periodically, the boiler system would be blown down for cleaning. This water would be sent to
the water recycle plant (WRP) for treatment. The water would be segregated from contaminated
water sent to the WWTP.
Plant 41 Boilers
There are package steam boilers capable of providing steam for plant start up. During operation
the boilers will continue to provide steam to supplement steam provided by recovery of waste
heat, such as the Hydrogen Plant waste heat recovery.
Plant 42 Plant Air
Plant air is required for utility usage throughout the plant for pneumatic tools and other
maintenance activities.
Plant 43 Instrument Air System
Compressed air would be required for various operations at the refinery. Consequently, the
refinery would produce the instrument and utility air required for its operations. Two instrument
air compressors would discharge air to two moisture separators, a prefilter, an air dryer and an air
receiver. From the air receiver, air would be distributed to units throughout the refinery.
Plant 44 Nitrogen System
Nitrogen would be purchased and delivered to the refinery by truck. The nitrogen would be
offloaded into liquid nitrogen storage tanks. From the tanks, a nitrogen header would distribute
the nitrogen throughout the refinery.
Plant 45 Emergency Power (UPS)
In case of a loss of electrical power to the refinery, the uninterrupted power supply will supply
critical power from a battery source.
August 2009 2-16 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Plant 46 Fire Water System
A fire water system would be constructed, operated, and maintained as part of the refinery. This
system would be capable of delivering 1,100 gallons of water per minute in an emergency (2
pumps, each moving 550 gallons per minute [gpm]). Two vertical pumps in the fire water pump
house would provide fire water through a fire water header to hydrants and fixed fire water
systems located at strategic locations throughout the refinery. Water would be supplied to the
pump house from two dedicated fire water reservoirs. The reservoirs would hold 600,000 cubic
feet (4.5 million gallons) of uncontaminated water. The fire water pump house would be located
adjacent to the fire water reservoirs and would pump water directly from the reservoirs.
Assuming 75 percent availability and both pumps running, the system could deliver 1,100 gpm of
fire water to a fire continuously for 50 hours.
The fire water reservoirs would be constructed and filled before the refinery is mechanically
completed. The fire water reservoirs would be constructed early so uncontaminated stormwater
runoff could be used to initially fill them. Well water may be used as an additional water source;
in the event uncontaminated stormwater runoff does not fill the fire water reservoirs. During
operation, the reservoirs would be maintained at capacity by pumping water from the evaporation
pond. If needed during an emergency, water in the evaporation pond or from the water supply
wells could be pumped to the fire water reservoirs to supplement the standing supply.
Plant 47 Power Supply
The power supply is designed to provide two independent sources of power from the utility
supplier in the area, Verendrye Electric. The power will be reduced to the plant voltages from the
line supply voltage. The lower voltage power will be directed to substations in the refinery
through switchgear and MCC's to the individual process units. In addition, there will be an
emergency generator (diesel driven) capable of providing power for critical services (such as
reflux pumps etc.) in the event of a power failure.
Plant 48 Control Room/Lab
The control room is the central control system for the refinery and houses the Distributed Control
System (DCS) for board mounted control throughout the units. The laboratory is adjacent and
contains all the testing apparatus for quality control of all the process streams in the refinery.
Plant 49 Fuel Gas System
Fuel gas refers to any gas generated within the refinery that is combusted. The main source of
fuel gas for use in the refinery would be the amine unit. Here, treated (sweetened) fuel gas would
be produced during the treatment of sour gas streams sent to the amine unit from various refinery
operations. The treated fuel gas would be sent to a main fuel gas separator, where it would be
metered and distributed to the various refinery operations.
Plant 50 Flare System
The flare system has two main components: the flare knockout drum and the 180-foot tall flare
stack. Waste gas streams from several units would be diverted to the flare knockout drum.
Liquids that accumulate in the drum would be pumped to the waste water treatment system for
treatment. The gases would be sent directly to the flare, which would operate at 165°F.
The flare would have sufficient controls and a flare detection system to ensure that it is working
and that it is working efficiently. The flare would have three pilots, each with an igniter, flame
sensor, and a fire eye. Each of the three fire eyes would be connected to an alarm, which would
go off if no flame is detected. The image from a camera that would be focused on the flare and
the three pilots would be shown continuously on a screen in the main control room. Finally, an
August 2009 2-17 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
infrared sensor would monitor the flare for surges of hydrocarbons. If such a surge is detected, the
sensor would increase the production of steam from the steam injection ring to minimize the
formation of soot and smoke. The response of the infrared sensor is substantially quicker than that
of a human controller.
Unit T Water Treatment
The water treatment unit would handle all water, except the fire water. This includes raw water,
treated water, and waste water.
The source of water for the refinery would be four water wells. Water would be pumped from the
wells to a 5,000-bbl raw water holding tank. As it is needed, water would be withdrawn from the
holding tank to a raw water sump by means of raw water sump pumps. The water would then be
pumped to two treatment buildings that would provide primary and secondary softening. From
the softening treatment, the water would be pumped to the treated water storage tank that feeds
the boiler feedwater system.
The four water wells also would provide potable water for uses in offices and buildings. Potable
water would be treated before distribution. The potable water system would be separate from
other water systems at the refinery. Under the SDWA, the refinery water system would be
considered a non-transient, non-community public water supply. Because the water supply wells
are to be developed in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek bedrock aquifer, which is separated from shallow
aquifers by typically 1,000 feet, the ground water supply would be classified as "not under the
direct influence of surface water." The Sentinal Butte and Tongue River formations are between
the Coleharbor (near surface) and the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer.
Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show a well water supply of 40 gpm plus surface precipitation and a
net effluent of 53.9 gpm [e.g. 50.4 gpm surface water discharge and 3.5 gpm septic system
(sanitary) discharge]. Once the inventory of plant water has been established, the facility will be
self sufficient for water without drawing upon well water supply during periods of normal
precipitation. Thus, Figure 2-4 shows operations with no recycling of water and Figure 2-3 shows
operations with full recycling of water.
Plant 55 Waste Water
The refinery would generate three types of waste water: (1) sanitary waste water, (2)
uncontaminated (non-oily) water, and (3) process wastewater or potentially contaminated (oily)
water. Each of these streams of waste water would be handled separately. They also would
receive different levels of treatment.
Sanitary waste water from the offices and other buildings would be collected and disposed of via
a sanitary sewer system. All water collected by this system would be discharged via a septic
system and leach field. Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 show the 3.5 gpm of fresh water that would be
used for sanitary purposes and discharged via the septic system and leach field.
The second type of waste water is uncontaminated (non-oily) waste water which originates from
two sources, the boiler system and stormwater. Waste water from the boiler system (boiler
blowdown) will be routed to the WRP for treatment and recycling back to refinery processes
(Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). This waste water will be segregated from the
August 2009 2-18 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
-------
-------
rx-^^i uAOtf Ara»
ih^h
!) II [ I II
-II. fcaJi
*J|p.**p^A^^|
l^fl-.iWin.VT^
I CfcWM,. ' *t -
iu^zr
Tf^l'lBHl
I.«,I*M.WWI *.»--:
1_J.
i c^_ A^n I'_K-J :
"?rhin^
! . ..LJ ,41, I »»
L
--^ r,r~.l* )
] BgiTfrftrtni.*-, |
,,,.-. «^-. .-.:
KMIH)'
n.->l1JN
~^| avtwwit-***.
i rtM»*nyBfi^i*y if*^c*>xn
*>l^
Mull!*!
.-.
II. 1,__... __
-t^Uawr^.|j^.fl, j
iv-j.:-1^ ii-
...«..., I
il i - 1 ' F I
it w.x'Vf^ifH^V-- 1
j *»flW«
H "-*" |
t £ tU%jf .4K»rH^
X
p LSJ L^J^J
~^~ Wtart
uu i
Ml.ITU iri
u imr v,'. UM 11* 11 uf M niTrv
-------
-------
Area of Detail
WHA NATION FEETQ-TRUST
AMD REFINERY EIS
It.
^^«%.ll .
-------
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
contaminated (oily) waste water to minimize production of hazardous sludge. Uncontaminated
(non-oily) stormwater will be collected from non-process areas of the refinery and routed to a
7.48 million gallon evaporation pond. Waste water from the evaporation pond would be used as
makeup water for the fire water system (two reservoirs of 2.25 million gallons each) as needed,
recycled back to the refinery processes or when necessary discharged through a NPDES
permitted outfall. Depending on the type of liner in the evaporation pond, additional water may
be needed to keep the water in the pond. A clay liner would need some water/moisture to remain
in the pond at all times to maintain the integrity of the liner.
The third type of waste water would consist of contaminated (oily) waste water. Wastewater
collected from process operations (primarily the SWS) would be routed directly to the WWTU
for treatment and then directed to two effluent holding ponds (700,000 gallons each/1.4 million
gallons total). Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater will be collected from process areas
(i.e. loading area, tank farm (Figure 2-5) and routed directly to a 1.4 million gallon holding pond.
Depending on quality, the waste water from the holding pond would be directed to the two
effluent holding ponds described above or sent to the WWTU for treatment and then into the
effluent holding ponds. The effluent from the holding ponds would be recycled back to refinery
processes as needed, or discharged through a permitted NPDES outfall in this alternative. It may
be used for irrigation or disposed of in an injection well as discussed in the effluent alternatives
section. All waste water treatment processes would be proven technology and would be designed
to meet quality requirements for recycling back to refinery processes, NPDES discharge permit
requirements, irrigation/land application requirements, or UIC requirements.
Water directed to the WWTU would first pass through an American Petroleum Institute (API)
separator. The separator would remove non-emulsified oil and oil-bearing sludge from the water
by allowing it to float to the surface of the water where it would be skimmed off. The oil
skimmed off the water would be recycled to the crude unit (Figure 2-6). From the API separator,
the water would be discharged to a dissolved air flotation (DAF) system.
The DAF system would use air to remove oils, greases, and suspended solids from the stream of
waste water. In the DAF system, a portion of the clean effluent is removed, super saturated with
air, and mixed with the waste-water influent before being injected into the DAF separation
chamber. Inside the separation chamber, the dissolved air comes out of solution producing
millions of microscopic bubbles. These bubbles attach to solids and oils and float them to the
surface where they would be skimmed and removed from the tank. Sludge and solids from the
DAF would be sent to the sludge thickener, centrifuge or plate press, before being transported
offsite (Figure 2-6).
Waste water effluent from the DAF system would then be directed to the bio-treatment plant. In
this plant, organic chemicals in the waste water would be biodegraded using bacteria. The
bacteria would continuously metabolize the organics in the water, which converts them to CO2
and water. Using blowers and a high-efficiency diffuser manifold system, oxygen would be
supplied to the microbial layer to provide proper conditions for microbial growth.
Waste water effluent from the bio-treatment plant would be held in the two holding ponds
(700,000 gal each) and tested. If testing suggests additional treatment is needed, the water would
be routed through the WWTU. If the water meets the refinery's criteria for discharge, it would be
released to NPDES discharge Outfall 002.
August 2009 2-25 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Unit W Storage, Blending, and Shipping
The refinery would maintain storage tanks and support facilities of sufficient size and capability
to handle the production, handling, blending, and distribution of the products produced by the
refinery. The primary components of this unit include storage tanks and vessels, rail and truck
loadout facilities, and a vapor recovery system. The storage tanks would be in the tank farm and
the rail and truck loadout facilities would be in the product loading area on the north side of the
refinery site (Figure 2-7). The following sections describe each component.
Plant 60 Storage Tanks and Storage Vessels
The eastern half of the refinery site would be occupied by the tank farm (Figure 2-7). The farm
would include tanks for feedstock, intermediate products, and final products. Table 2-2 shows the
projected inventory of storage tanks. Storage tanks would include both floating roof and fixed
roof tanks. Storage tanks with floating roofs are used for storing volatile petroleum products with
higher flash points to minimize vapor loss. The roof rests on the liquid, which greatly reduces the
vapor space between the top of the tank and the top of the liquid. Minimizing the vapor space also
reduces the potential for fires. Fixed roof tanks are used for storing less volatile products because
they tend to have higher vapor loss.
The tanks and tank farm would be constructed to minimize the potential for accidental releases of
the products stored in the tanks. The lower third of each tank would be double-walled.
Additionally, each tank would be diked and the space inside the dike would be lined with a
geotextile liner. Each dike would be sized to hold the entire contents of the tank plus stormwater
from a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. The 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the portion of North
Dakota that encompasses the project site is about 5 inches (Hershfield 1961).
Six vessels would be constructed to store butane and propane (Table 2-2). Storage vessels are
pressure vessels or tanks that are generally used for storing organic liquids and gases with high
vapor pressures (in contrast to floating and fixed roof tanks that store products at atmospheric
pressure). Propane delivered from the merox plant would be stored until sent to the loading
facilities for distribution. Field butanes would be delivered to the butane storage tanks via
transport trucks. These field butanes would then be pumped to the iso-octane unit as an addition
to the feedstock. Butane generated in the iso-octane unit would be pumped to a butane storage
tank and then to the butane blending pump for blending with gasoline.
August 2009 2-26 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
'r
ranuM
irramv u t& i ru XTm
I KM I «h --i n ^ i * .
M L-,1 I l.h-flK LIMP-
-------
-------
m-
LC«fi*l
--"'
CTHWO*«< |
Legend
Refinery Site Fenceline
Power Line
MHA NATION FEE-TO-TRUST
AND REFINERY EIS
F/G4/RE2-7
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-2 Summary of Tanks to be Constructed on the Refinery Site
Size of Tank
Content of Tank
Crude Oil
Crude Oil
Mid Distillate
Mid Distillate
Mid Distillate
Mid Distillate
Raw Light HC
Light Slop HC
Hydrocrackate
Naphtha
Ethanol
Alky late
Reformate
Bio-diesel
Atm Red Crude
Raw Heavy HC
Raw Heavy Diesel
Raw Light Diesel
Heavy Slop HC
Regular Gasoline
Regular Gasoline
Premium Gasoline
Off Road Gasoline
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
n Butane
Field Butanes
Field Butanes
Field Butanes
Field Butanes
Total
Source: Woolley 2003, Woolley
Volume (bbls)
40,000
40,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
8,000
5,000
8,000
8,000
5,000
25,000
25,000
25,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
461,000
2006
Diameter
(feet)
85
85
86
86
86
86
30
30
30
30
30
45
45
45
42
30
42
42
30
67
67
67
30
11
11
11
11
14
14
14
14
14
Height
(feet)
48
48
48
48
48
48
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
40
32
126
126
126
126
85
85
85
85
85
Type of Tank
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Fixed Roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Floating roof
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Pressure vessel
Plant 61 Blending
The preparation of finished products involves a blended recipe of various components to produce
the final specification product. These requirements change seasonally so tankage must be
designated as component tankage, blending tankage, and finally sales tankage. The blend tank is
filled with various components and is blended with tank mixers or circulating pumps. Laboratory
testing is conducted to ensure product quality and then the blend tank is released to sales. All
deliveries are obtained from approved sales tankage only.
August 2009
2-31
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Plant 62 Shipping and Receiving
Product delivery would be provided by railroad and truck delivery.
Rail Loading
Rail loading would be provided for light diesel, heavy diesel, regular gasoline, and premium
gasoline. These loading facilities would use the vapor recovery system to control emissions
during loading. The loading area also would be paved with concrete surrounded by curbs. All
process drains would be sealed and elevated above grade. Hydrocarbons collected in these drains
would be returned for reprocessing. Storm water drains would be mounted in the concrete flush
with grade. Water collected in these drains would be delivered to the WWTU for treatment.
Truck Loading
Truck loading facilities, with vapor recovery systems, would be available for loading and
shipment of light diesel, heavy diesel, regular gasoline, premium gasoline, and propane. Field
butanes would be delivered to the butane storage vessels via transport trucks unloaded at the truck
loading facility.
As with the rail loading facilities, the truck loading area would be paved with concrete
surrounded by curbs and dual drain systems installed. All process drains would be sealed and
elevated above grade. Hydrocarbons collected in these drains would be returned for reprocessing.
Storm water drains would be mounted in the concrete flush with grade. Potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater will first be sent to a holding pond and could be routed to the WWTU effluent
holding ponds or to the WWTU (API Separator).
Vapor Recovery System
The refinery would incorporate a vapor recovery system to minimize the loss of VOCs from the
tank farm, rail and truck loading docks, and the WWTU. This system would consist of floating
roof, spherical, and bullet storage tanks in the tank farm and a separate pipe loop that would
collect vapors at each tank, loading spot, and the WWTU. Vapors captured by the system would
be compressed, air cooled, and returned to the process for recovery. This vapor recovery system
would minimize fugitive emissions of VOCs from the refinery.
UnitX Bio-diesel
Initially, the MHA Nation would purchase bio-diesel for blending at the refinery. Bio-diesel is
readily available at favorable economics. Consequently, MHA Nation proposes to open the
refinery with only a bio-diesel blending plant.
Plant 66 Bio-diesel
The economic situation favoring buying bio-diesel over producing the bio-diesel is unlikely to
last. Consequently, the MHA Nation expects the need to produce bio-diesel at the refinery in the
future. As a result, the MHA Nation has included this unit in the proposed project action because
it ultimately would be constructed even though it may not be built initially.
The bio-diesel plant would convert oil from soybeans into a mono alkyl ester of long chain fatty
acids or bio-diesel. Although this bio-diesel would have an excellent cetane index and no sulfur
content, the pour point would be relatively high for cold weather use. Consequently, the output of
this plant would be blended with the refinery diesel pool to produce a useable bio-diesel product.
The bio-diesel plant would be sized to produce up to 300 BPSD of bio-diesel from 8,500 bushels
per day of locally grown soybeans, canola, or camelina.
In the plant, bio-diesel would be produced using the base catalyzed transesterification process. In
this process, the soybeans would be crushed mechanically to release their oil. This oil would then
August 2009 2-32 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
be reacted with a short-chain alcohol, such as methanol, in the presence of a catalyst. The catalyst
would be sodium or potassium hydroxide, which would be premixed with the methanol. The
reaction would produce bio-diesel and glycerin. Generally, 100 pounds of oil reacted with 10
pounds of methanol and 1 pound of catalyst would produce 100 pounds of bio-diesel and 10
pounds of glycerin. The residual solids could potentially have market value as animal feed, if the
material met federal and state standards for limiting toxic or deleterious residues in animal feed.
Both the soybeans and mash would be contained in covered storage units.
Unit Z General Refinery
Plant 80 Off-Sites
Each of the process units is defined by a battery limit boundary within which all the related
equipment is contained. These facilities are considered to be Inside Battery Limits (ISBL).
Everything else in the refinery is considered to be Outside Battery Limits (OSBL). These are
referred to as Off Sites, and include such things as interconnecting pipe racks, roads, connections
to infrastructure coming to the refinery (power, crude oil pipelines, natural gas pipeline, and
water supply.
Plant 81 Office/Warehouse
The office and warehouse are connected together to provide a central location for administrative
staff at the refinery. The warehouse will contain very valuable spare parts critical to the operation.
The warehouse will also have a machine shop with tools to provide maintenance spare parts right
on site. The medical facility will also be attached to the Warehouse including a garage for the Fire
Truck, ambulance and foam wagon. The central location leads to better supervision of these
critical services.
Plant 82 General Unit
The general area is designated to assign control over office equipment, mobile equipment, safety
equipment, and other equipment used refinery wide, but not assigned to a specific unit.
2.3.2.2 Pollution Prevention Measures
The MHA Nation Refinery's design incorporates many measures to minimize pollution. Many of
these design elements, such as the use of synthetic oil, air instead of water for cooling, double-
walled tanks, and a vapor recovery system, are identified in previous sections. Wastewater
pollution prevention measures include segregating potentially contaminated (oily) and
uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater, reuse of treated wastewater in refinery processes, and
reuse of uncontaminated (non-oily) wastewater in fire water system. Additional pollution
prevention measures include monitoring plans, spill contingency plans, designating a waste
minimization and pollution prevention coordinator, regularly assessing hydrocarbon losses,
segregating oily from non-oily wastes, minimizing the use of drums for chemical additives,
conducting regular and pertinent personnel training, and using centralized computerized
monitoring systems.
2.3.2.3 Construction Phase
The description of the construction phase for the refinery has been divided into several elements.
They are the refinery itself, the pipeline that would connect the refinery to Enbridge's oil
pipeline, connections to utilities (natural gas and electricity), the railroad spur, and workforce
requirements. Details of these elements are presented in the following sections.
August 2009 2-33 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Refinery
The MHA Nation expects to begin constructing the MHA Nation Refinery after it has acquired
the appropriate permits. Construction would take 18 to 24 months.
Construction would begin with the stripping of topsoil, grading of the refinery site, and
excavating foundations and spaces for underground works (Figure 2-8).
The topsoil would be stockpiled in a berm along the northern boundary of the refinery site. This
berm would provide some screening of the refinery from highway 23. The topsoil would be used
during reclamation of the site after the refinery is decommissioned and removed.
As excavations for foundations and spaces for underground works are completed, construction of
these facilities would begin. Pipe racks and piping that would connect the various modules would
then be constructed (Figure 2-9). As the piping for connecting the various processes, including
the storage tanks, process units, and loading units, is completed, the units would be constructed
(Figure 2-10).
The process units would be modular in nature and shipped to the refinery site via truck or rail
when ready (Figure 2-11). These modules would then be dropped into place using cranes and
plumbed into the existing pipeline connections. The MF£A Nation expects most of the modules
would be fabricated at shops in North Dakota.
Figure 2-8 Example of Initial Excavation of a
Refinery
Figure 2-9 Aerial View of Typical
Foundation and Underground
Structure Construction
-~*
August 2009
2-34
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Figure 2-10 Typical Construction of
Aboveground Structures
Figure 2-11 Example of a Modular Unit
Arriving at a Refinery Ready
for Installation
Oil Pipeline
Enbridge Pipelines of North Dakota (Enbridge) would supply the synthetic crude oil feedstock to
the refinery. Enbridge would tie into a synthetic crude oil pipeline in Outlook, Montana and pump
the oil through its existing system to its Wabek/Plaza field pipeline, which terminates about 4
miles north of the refinery (Figure 2-1). Enbridge would construct a new pipeline to connect the
terminus of its Wabek/Plaza field pipeline to the crude oil storage tanks in the refinery's tank
farm (Figure 2-12). Additionally, Enbridge would have to construct four new 30,000-bbl storage
tanks between Outlook, Montana and the refinery (Figure 2-1). Thus, Enbridge would provide the
synthetic crude oil to the refinery using the combination of existing pipelines and storage tanks,
new pipeline, new storage tanks at existing stations, and new pumping facilities.
Along its existing pipeline, Enbridge would construct four new 30,000-bbl tanks to store the
synthetic crude. Enbridge would need these tanks to facilitate its operations and ability to keep oil
flowing to the refinery. Two of the tanks would be constructed in Montana and two would be
constructed in North Dakota. Enbridge would construct all four tanks on properties where it
already has pumping stations, storage tanks, and other facilities (Table 2-3). The tanks would be
constructed on portions of the properties that were cleared of vegetation, graded, graveled, and
fenced during development of the original facilities in anticipation of future expansion. Thus, no
expansion of these stations or construction on undisturbed ground would be needed to
August 2009
2-35
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
accommodate the new storage tanks. The four tanks would be constructed similarly to those at the
refinery (floating roof, double walled at bottom, and diked).
Enbridge would construct a new pipeline to connect the refinery to its Wabek/Plaza field pipeline
(Figure 2-12). This pipeline would extend 4 miles to the terminus of the Wabek/Plaza field
pipeline in the SW% of Section 2, Township 152 North, Range 88 West to the refinery. About
one mile of the pipeline would be constructed along a local road and three miles would be
constructed along a railroad belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway (C.P.R.).
The pipeline would be a standard type of pipeline for crude oil. Enbridge would construct the
pipeline of steel pipe. It would have an outside diameter of 65/8 inches. The pipeline would be
buried with a minimum cover of 36 inches.
Table 2-3 Locations of Proposed 30,000-bbl Storage Tanks along
Enbridge's Pipeline
Station Name County Legal Description
Montana
Outlook Sheridan Township 36 North, Range 53 East, Section 21, SW%
Reserve Sheridan Township 33 North, Range 56 East, Section 30, NW% of NW%
North Dakota
Grenora Williams Township 159 North, Range 103 West, Section 14, NE% of NE%
Beaver Lodge Williams Township 156 North, Range 95 West, Section 32, SE% of SW%
Construction of the pipeline would follow standard methods. The pipeline would be constructed
in a single spread consisting of equipment and crews handling the various phases of construction
along the route. Construction would take three to four weeks. The construction spread would
involve 10 to 12 workers. Enbridge would stage the construction from the terminus of its
Wabek/Plaza field pipeline, which would involve only property it already leases. Construction
practices would follow the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) according to the
stormwater construction permit.
Before construction begins, the centerline and the exterior boundaries of the Right-of-Way
(ROW) would be staked. The pipeline would be constructed within the ROW of the road and
C.P.R.'s rail line. The permanent ROW would be 10 feet wide, which is the maximum the C.P.R.
would allow.
Following construction, Enbridge would test the pipeline and reclaim the area disturbed during
construction. The pipeline would be tested hydrostatically. After soil over the pipeline is graded
to approximate original contour, it would be seeded with seed mixes approved by the landowner.
Construction and reclamation conducted through wetlands would be conducted according to
nationwide permits Enbridge commonly uses for constructing pipelines.
August 2009 2-36 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
\
\,
J
- s
Legend
' Proposed Oil Pipeline
MDU ReSQUK** P((»l!n«
Powet Transtrteson Line
Bear Paw Ppslnc
Fcncdinc
Area of Detail
FVodud Loadng Area
Tank Farm
Fort BerlhDld Indian Reservation
MHA NATION FEE-TO-TRUST
AND REFINERY EIS
FIGURE 2-12
PROPOSED PIPELINES. POWER UNES.
AMD PROJECT SITE
HIi
'.Mr
-------
*
Tagus 4
^p_
'.J
^
-
-
^iHH|
'BQnl^H
I
»>*
i
/'
i
ffl
-.V
'.I
o
a
v
<
"D
Legend
Area of Detail
- County Lne
^^ MDU RPWUKBS
PmpDacd Oil
1R|? Horth Anwrizpn Fliliffr
MHA KAT6ON FEE-TO-TRUST
AND REFINERY EIS
FHSVRE2-13
PROJECTED LOCATION FOR THE MONTANA
DAKOTA tl7\U7>££ftE$QURC£StiA7URAl-
GAS PlPf 1 tMF OPTION
AStAl VSlS «ftFA Mftl-HTftAJI
ewe
Rlf
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Natural Gas Pipeline
The refinery would require natural gas for operations. Natural gas would be both a source of
hydrogen and fuel. The hydrogen would be used to remove sulfur from the oil. The proposed
project action includes SMR as the process for generating the hydrogen needed in the process.
Demand for natural gas would be 6 MMSCFD.
The MHA Nation is considering two options for providing natural gas to the refinery. First,
Montana Dakota Utilities (MDU) Resources Group, Inc. would supply natural gas using a new
pipeline that would connect its existing Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline to the refinery (Figure
2-12 and Figure 2-13). This pipeline would extend 29 miles from the existing pipeline in the
NE% of Section 24, Township 155 North, Range 88 West to the refinery. As with the oil pipeline,
a portion of the pipeline would be constructed along the railroad belonging to C.P.R.. The oil and
gas pipelines would be constructed on opposite sides of the railroad because of space
requirements.
Under the second option, Bear Paw Natural Gas Company (Bear Paw) would supply natural gas
using a new pipeline that would connect its existing Plaza pipeline to the refinery (Figure 2-13).
This pipeline would extend 4 miles from the existing pipeline in the NE% of Section 3, Township
152 North, Range 88 West to the refinery. As with the oil pipeline, about one mile of the pipeline
would be constructed along a local road and three miles would be constructed along the railroad
belonging to the C.P.R.. The oil and gas pipelines would be on opposite sides of the railroad
because of space requirements.
Under either option, the pipeline would be a standard type of pipeline for natural gas. MDU
Resources or Bear Paw would construct the pipeline of steel pipe. It would have an outside
diameter of 8 inches. The pipeline would be buried with a minimum cover of 36 inches.
Construction of either pipeline would follow standard methods. The pipeline would be
constructed in a single spread consisting of equipment and crews handling the various phases of
construction along the route. Construction would take three to four weeks. As with the oil
pipeline, the construction spread would involve 10 to 12 workers. MDU Resources or Bear Paw
would stage the construction from existing facilities near the pipeline's route. Thus, they would
not need to acquire any additional property to stage construction of the pipeline. Construction
practices would follow the SWPPP according to the stormwater construction permit.
Before construction begins, the centerline and the exterior boundaries of the ROW would be
staked. The pipeline would be constructed within the ROW of the road and C.P.R.'s rail line on
the side opposite the oil pipeline. The permanent ROW would be 10 feet wide, which is the
maximum the C.P.R. would allow.
Following construction, MDU Resources or Bear Paw would test the pipeline and reclaim the
area disturbed during construction. The pipeline would be tested hydrostatically. After soil over
the pipeline is graded to approximate original contour, it would be seeded with seed mixes
approved by the landowner. Construction and reclamation conducted through wetlands would be
conducted according to nationwide permits both companies commonly use for constructing
pipelines.
Power Lines
The refinery needs a constant supply of 6 to 7 megawatts (MW) of electricity. Blackouts can
cause substantial problems. Consequently, electricity would be supplied to the refinery from two
separate circuits.
August 2009 2-41 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Verendrye Electric would provide electricity to the refinery by constructing new power lines from
two separate locations and 41.6 kV circuits (Figure 2-12). The first connection would occur in the
southeast corner of Section 15, Township 152 North, Range 86 West. Verendrye's main north-
south loop line crosses highway 23 at this location. From here, Verendrye would construct a new
power line along the edge of the highway 23 ROW to the northeast corner of Section 19 at the
Project Site. The line would then proceed south along the edge of the gravel road ROW to the
southeastern corner of the north !/> of Section 19. At this corner, Verendrye would construct the
primary substation for the refinery (Figure 2-7). The total length of the power line would be
almost 9.5 miles and the substation would occupy 0.4 acres of the project site.
The second connection would be in the southeast corner of Section 30, Township 152 North,
Range 87 West. Verendrye's main east-west loop line runs along the southern edge of Section 30.
The new power line would follow the gravel road ROW 1 !/2 miles north from this connection to
the location of the new substation in the southeastern corner of the north !/> of Section 19. From
the substation, a single power line would be constructed into the refinery (Figure 2-7).
Construction of the power lines would follow standard methods for constructing power lines. The
structures would be the same as currently exist for both loop lines (Figure 2-14). Consequently,
the power lines would be constructed to prevent the electrocution of raptors. Verendrye would
construct the power lines by drilling holes for the poles, installing the poles, and hanging the
conductors from each road's ROW. Thus, Verendrye would require only a minimal easement
along each road.
Figure 2-14
Existing Verendrye
Power Line at Highway
23 Crossing
The power lines would be constructed using a single spread consisting of equipment and crews
handling the various phases of construction along the route. Construction would take 5 weeks.
The construction spread would involve 8 workers.
Water Wells
As noted earlier, water for the refinery would be provided by four wells drilled from the refinery
site. These wells would probably be completed into the Fox Hills-Hell Creek bedrock aquifers.
Depths of the wells could range from 150 to 1,000 feet.
Railroad Spur
A railroad spur would be constructed into the refinery from the existing railroad that crosses the
project site (Figure 2-5). The C.P.R., which owns the railroad, would construct a spur into the
August 2009
2-42
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
refinery's loading area (Figure 2-7). This spur would facilitate the delivery of feedstock and
shipment of product via rail.
Construction of the railroad spur would follow standard methods. Existing vegetation would be
cleared from the new rail bed. Ground that would be under the rail bed would be grubbed and the
topsoil would be removed and stockpiled for reclamation after the spur is decommissioned.
Gravel and other materials required for the rail bed would be acquired from local sources. After
the subgrade is prepared, sub-ballast material would be placed and compacted to a depth of 6 to
12 inches. Ties and rail would be laid on the subgrade and welded in place. Ballast would then be
brought in, dumped on the subgrade and around the ties, and compacted into place to a minimum
depth of 8 to 12 inches below the tie. Areas adjacent to the rail bed and outside the product
loading area that were disturbed during construction would be regraded, covered with topsoil, and
seeded and mulched.
The portion of rail spur in the product loading area would not be regraded and covered with
topsoil. Instead, this area would be covered with concrete. This concrete would contain any leaks
that occur during loading or unloading of rail cars at the refinery.
Workforce Requirements
A substantial number of workers would be required to construct the refinery. A peak of 800 to
1,000 labors and skilled workers are expected to be employed in the refinery's construction
during 18- to 24-month long construction period.
A substantial portion of the construction workers are expected to be members of the MHA
Nation. The Fort Berthold Community College had training courses for individuals that are
interested in working at the refinery. As a facility owned and operated by the MF£A Nation, MF£A
Nation members would have preference in hiring. Consequently, many of the workers would live
on the Fort Berthold Reservation and would commute to the refinery site daily to work. The rest
of the workforce is expected to live in or around Minot. Consequently, they would commute to
the refinery site from Minot daily.
2.3.2.4 Operation and Maintenance Phase
This section describes the operations of the various facilities and notable maintenance procedures.
Refinery
Products
During the operation and maintenance phase, the refinery would operate for 347 stream days
annually. During the other 18 days, production at the refinery would be shut down for
maintenance. With 347 days of production annually, the refinery would produce almost 2.0
million bbl of diesel fuel, 2.3 million bbl of gasoline, and 0.1 million bbl of propane on average
every year. These products would be shipped from the refinery via truck and rail car as discussed
in the section on traffic below.
Water Demand and Treatment
As noted earlier, water for the refinery's processes and daily use would come from four wells
drilled on site. The refinery's overall operational demand for water would be 40 gpm. Because
the refinery would be operating with air cooling equipment instead of water cooling equipment,
the demand for water would be far less than occurs at other refineries in operation in the U.S. and
North America. The closest refinery (in size and type) was the Turbo Refinery in Canada, which
also used air cooling. This refinery, which had a desalter, used up to 250 gpm of water. No
August 2009 2-43 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
desalter is needed for the MHA Nation's refinery because the crude is already treated at the
source in Canada.
The refinery's water treatment facilities would handle water used in the various processes and
stormwater that falls within the loading area, tank farm, and process area. Handling and treatment
of the waste water would depend on the source of the waste water (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4).
Contaminated water from processes would be routed to the WWTU for treatment before being
released to holding ponds and discharged through NPDES permitted Outfall 002.
At least 10 of the 40 gpm demand would be recycled through the WRP. However, half or more of
the 40 gpm could be recycled, depending on the amount of actual contamination that occurs
(Figure 2-4). The portion of the waste water too contaminated for recycling would be routed to
the WWTU for treatment. Contaminated water could be held in the three holding ponds, before
treatment (1 holding pond) and after treatment (2 holding ponds). The wastewater will be tested
prior to release to NPDES permitted Outfall 002.
Solid and Hazardous Waste and Solid Byproduct Production
The refinery would produce solid waste and would be classified as a generator of hazardous
waste under 40 CFR Part 262 and would be a TSD Facility under 40 CFR Part 264. Projections
suggest the refinery would produce about 660 pounds of solid waste per day. The solid waste
streams generated by the WWTU and WRP would be segregated to minimize the amount of
hazardous waste requiring disposal. By segregating the streams, about 600 of the 660 pounds of
solid waste produced daily would be non-hazardous. Consequently, the refinery would produce
about 60 pounds of hazardous waste daily.
Wastes designated as "hazardous" would be temporarily stored on site prior to handling and
shipment offsite to permitted commercial facilities for treatment, disposal, or both. Any waste
generated in the units would be contained and controlled before placement in storage/shipment
containers. No hazardous wastes would be stored for more than 90 days from the time of
generation, unless an extension is requested by the refinery and granted by the EPA, as allowed
for in 40 CFR 262.34 (b). Reasons for such an extension would be unforeseen, temporary, and
uncontrollable circumstances. The temporary storage of hazardous wastes would take place in full
compliance for management of tanks, containers, drip pads, or containment buildings (40 CFR
262.34 (a)).
The MHA Nation's refinery would generate solid wastes at a much lower level than the average
existing refinery. The API surveyed 117 refineries and concluded solid wastes, on average,
represent about 0.08 percent by weight of the crude oil feed. For the MHA Nation's refinery, this
amount would be 2,100 pounds per day. However, the amount of wastes that would actually be
produced (660 pounds per day) would be substantially lower than results of the survey suggest
because the feedstock would be cleaner and the refineries involved in the survey have processes
that would not be constructed at the MHA Nation's refinery (vacuum units, water cooling towers,
desalters, and cokers) that produce substantial amounts of wastes.
The refinery's configuration also includes a bio-diesel process unit to convert locally grown
soybeans to bio-diesel. The plant has been designed to produce about 300 BPSD of bio-diesel
from 8,500 bushels per day of locally grown soybeans. The residual solids from the bio-diesel
process (byproduct) have market value as animal feed. The soybean feed would be transported
into the refinery and the solid residue exported by truck and rail. On-site storage for soybeans and
soybean mash would consist of two concrete silos, one for the soybeans and one for the mash.
Each silo would be 20 feet in diameter and 100 feet tall.
August 2009 2-44 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Traffic
The refinery would generate new traffic to and from the project site. This traffic would consist of
cars, trucks, and rail cars. Most of the trucks would be semi-tractor trailer types and the rail cars
would be tank cars. There would be between 65 and 70 full time employees commuting to and
from work daily. However, these employees would not be arriving and departing simultaneously
because they would be distributed across three shifts. There would also be ancillary employees
commuting to and from the work as needed. Most of the feedstock and shipments that are not
transported via pipeline would arrive or depart the refinery via truck (Table 2-4). Only butane
would arrive via rail tank car. Once the biodiesel plant is constructed and functioning, soybeans
and soybean mash will also be delivered by railcar.
Maintenance
The refinery would have a specific and detailed maintenance plan in place when it begins
operations. This plan would define the various duties (for example, inspections, periodic work,
and shutdowns), schedules (daily, weekly, monthly, annually, and periodically), and
responsibilities for all processes and facilities at the refinery.
Oil Pipeline
During operation of the refinery, Enbridge's oil pipeline would supply 10,000 BPSD of synthetic
crude oil. Assuming the refinery operates for 347 stream days per year, Enbridge would supply
3.47 million bbl of synthetic crude oil to the refinery annually.
Once the pipeline is on line, it would become part of Enbridge's overall system of pipelines.
Consequently, it would fall under Enbridge's program of routine inspections and maintenance.
Enbridge's maintenance program follows all U.S. Department of Transportation regulations for
pipelines.
The pipeline would be monitored 24 hours per day. Pressure within the pipeline and readings
from meters would be monitored electronically. The pressure and readings from meters would be
transmitted to Enbridge's 24-hour control center. Changes in pressure or inconsistent readings
from the meters would indicate if a leak has developed.
Utilities
During operation of the refinery, the natural gas pipeline would supply 6 MMSCFD of natural
gas. Assuming the refinery operates for 347 stream days per year, MDU Resources or Bear Paw
would supply 2,000 MMSCFD of natural gas to the refinery annually.
Once the pipeline is on line, it would become part of MDU Resources' or Bear Paw's overall
system of pipelines. Consequently, it would fall under the appropriate company's program of
routine inspections (monitoring) and maintenance. MDU Resources' and Bear Paw's
maintenance programs follow all regulations for natural gas pipelines.
August 2009 2-45 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-4 Summary of Weekly Truck and Rail Traffic at the Refinery
Number of Vehicles by Type
Incoming
Outgoing
Traffic
Butane
Ethanol
Bio-diesel2
Soybeans3
)
Gasoline
Diesel
Propane
Sulfur
Semi-truck Rail Car1
22 20 movement in
14
8
15 14
161
154
6
1
Soy bean mash3 14
Non-hazardous sludge 1
Hazardous sludge <1 4
Total (without full bio-diesel unit) 367 20
Total (with full bio-diesel unit) 374 48
Notes:
1. All rail cars would be included in a single outbound train and a single inbound train each week.
2. Bio-diesel would be purchased and used for blending when the refinery opens. Purchasing of bio-diesel
would continue as long as it is economically favorable to do so.
3. Soybeans and soybean mash would be supplied to and from the refinery only after buying bio-diesel directly
becomes economically unfavorable and the bio-diesel unit has been constructed.
4 One truck per month.
The two power lines and substation would become part of Verendrye's overall system of power
lines. Consequently, the lines and substation would fall under Verendrye's program of routine
inspections (monitoring) and maintenance. Verendrye's maintenance program follows all
regulations for electrical distribution lines.
Workforce Requirements
The refinery would require new workers during the operation and maintenance phase of the
project. There would not be any anticipated new employees for the pipelines, other utilities, or
railroad. The refinery is expected to employ about 86 workers directly. This would include 65-70
employees needed to run the refinery on a continuous basis. Additional personnel and contractors
would be needed for: security, maintenance, grounds keeping, and administrative personnel. The
types of positions that would comprise these jobs are summarized on Table 2-5. Most of these
positions would require some level of technical education, such as was offered at the Fort
Berthold Community College. Consequently, most of the positions are expected to be filled by
the local community, which also would not increase the demand for housing. In addition, the
refinery would regularly use the services of a variety of contractors throughout the year (Table 2-
5).
August 2009 2-46 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
CO
1
fo
c
c
CD
aa
73
co
1
"co
o
5
c
CD
g
CD
CO
-2
.0
fo
.0.
0
I
.0
3
fi!
\
C\l
2~
Q.
CO
c
O
s
"oS
s
s
0>
0
o
o
o.
o
b
0.
s
Z
ffi
§
JS
-^
£
o
O
-i
O
^^
o
«
s
s
s
l^i
«o
H
o
_o
"S
E
w
*-
o
6
Z
"o
H
1
o>
o
"S
s
w
o
6
Z
1
u
*-
o
6
Z
£
to
=
_0
'<*!
&
**$ 00 rS rS \r\ O
m TT
ii rs i> *-H ^-> £^
a ^ h 1 -1 - 11
^|S-^SM u ||^^ -i"M^
-gpiOW<
*O ^
& g
Q fl
o *^
S3 j=
8 S
o oj 2
& ° S
o 't ~
a s t,
O t/3 ^O
1 ll
e 1 -S
-*-1
Itll
l^i §
. . a Q W ^
OJ
0 ....
CO
£
b
Q:
-!2
"5
c
to
Q
8
I
to
I
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.3.2.5 Decommissioning and Reclamation Phase
This section describes the final phase of the project where the refinery and associated facilities
would be decommissioned and removed and the project site would be returned to approximate
pre-project conditions. Decommissioning consists of decontamination, dismantling, shipment and
final disposition of refinery components, and site rehabilitation. Disposition of refinery plant
components can take place either by re-use or depositing them into properly permitted off-site
disposal sites. Decommissioning must comply with all relevant regulations, including those
promulgated pursuant to RCRA. All refinery construction alternatives except for Alternatives 4
and A, would be required to prepare a RCRA closure plan for all Hazardous Waste Management
Units (HWMU) (including surface impoundments, tanks, and areas used for greater than 90-day
container storage). All alternatives, including 4 and A, would also need to meet the clean closure
requirements under RCRA for areas where hazardous waste is generated or accumulated. A
RCRA closure plan, however, would not encompass site rehabilitation, which would be governed
by other agreements between the federal agencies and the Tribes. For all alternatives except 4 and
A, RCRA corrective action requirements would also apply for all releases of hazardous waste or
hazardous waste constituents from all solid waste management units (SWMU).
Refinery
Upon decommissioning, all surface facilities at the refinery site would be removed. Units,
equipment, and materials that could be used at other facilities would be sold and shipped to those
facilities. Other units, equipment, and materials would be disassembled and sold as scrap.
After the surface facilities have been removed, the site would be sampled for contamination and
remediated as necessary. Appropriate sampling and laboratory testing would be used to determine
if any contamination exists and if so, to determine the areal extent of that contamination. Any
contaminated areas would be remediated using methods appropriate to the materials of concern
identified by the sampling and testing.
If no contamination is identified or after any contamination is remediated, the refinery site would
be reclaimed. Reclamation would consist of ripping the soils, recontouring the site to approximate
original contours, redistributing the topsoil that was stockpiled in the berm, and seeding. The seed
mixture or mixtures used in reseeding would be determined by the MHA Nation based on post-
reclamation land uses proposed for the site at the time of reclamation. The wetland would be
recreated as part of recontouring and revegetation.
Utilities
All utilities would be decommissioned and reclaimed, unless the MHA Nation identifies a need
for a particular utility at the time of reclamation. Assuming no post-reclamation need for the
utilities is identified, reclamation would proceed as described.
The procedures for decommissioning and reclaiming the pipelines are straightforward. The
underground pipelines would be purged, cleaned, disconnected, capped, and abandoned in place
to avoid any unnecessary surface disturbance. The oil pipeline would be purged with nitrogen.
Aboveground facilities associated with the pipelines would be removed and the surface
disturbances associated with those facilities would be ripped, recontoured, and seeded with a seed
mixture approved by the landowner.
The aboveground electrical facilities would be disconnected and removed. The conductors and
power poles would be removed from along highway 23 and 366th Street. Also, the electrical
August 2009 2-48 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
substation along the east side of Section 19 would be removed and the site reclaimed.
Reclamation would involve ripping the soil, recontouring the site to approximate original
contours, redistributing the topsoil that was stockpiled during construction, and seeding with a
landowner-approved seed mixture.
2.3.2.6 Safety and Emergency Response
This section outlines the methods the entities involved in the MHA Nation's proposed Clean
Fuels Refinery Project would employ to ensure the safe operation of the refinery and pipelines
during construction, operation, and maintenance.
Fires and Explosions
The potential for leaks or ruptures in pipelines and in units at the refinery would exist. In the case
of buried pipelines, most ruptures are the result of heavy equipment that accidentally strikes the
pipeline. These ruptures could result in an explosion and fire if a spark or open flame ignites the
escaping gas or oil. The materials used in the pipelines would be designed and selected according
to applicable standards to minimize the potential for leak or rupture. Frequent markers along the
pipelines would reduce the risk of accidental ruptures from excavating equipment. Additionally,
the companies would monitor flows in the pipelines by either remote sensors or daily inspections
of the flow meters, which would reduce the probability of ruptures through prompt detection of
leaks.
Because most processes are closed, the primary potential for fire at the refinery is from leaks or
releases of liquids, gases, or vapors reaching an ignition source such as a heater. Consequently,
the operation of equipment and the various processes are closely monitored and controlled. An
extensive, computerized plant information network would be installed to monitor all operations
and provide early warnings of any developing problems. Also, operations at the refinery would
conform to regulations of the OSF£A. OSF£A regulations require safe work practices and
appropriate personal protective equipment (as needed for exposures to chemicals and other
hazards such as noise and heat) during tests, inspections, maintenance and turnaround activities,
and when handling regenerated or spent catalyst.
Public Safety
The MF£A Nation would take measures to protect the public from hazards at the refinery. The
entire facility would be fenced and gated to prevent unauthorized entry. Also, warning signs
would be posted around the facility. The refinery would conform to all OSF£A health and safety
regulations. All operations and permitted releases to surface water and air would be monitored.
Employee Safety
The MF£A Nation would develop an Emergency Action Plan that would cover all potential
emergencies, including fires, injuries to employees, chemical releases, and general public safety.
The plan would include telephone numbers for all medical and emergency services and the
contacts in event of emergencies. The plan would be posted at all offices and facilities. All
employees and subcontractors would be trained on the Emergency Action Plan when they are
hired and refresher courses would be conducted annually.
The refinery also would develop and maintain an emergency response team. This team and its
equipment would be stationed at the refinery. The equipment would include fire engines and
other fire-fighting equipment and an ambulance. The members of the team would be trained
emergency response technicians.
August 2009 2-49 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Security
The refinery would be operated as a secure facility with restricted access. The facility (all but the
office building) would be enclosed by an 8-foot high chain link fence topped with barbed wire.
The main gate would be manned by security personnel 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The
east gate, which primarily would provide access during construction and access to vehicles too
high to clear pipe racks, would be locked and only opened by security personnel when granting
access to specific vehicles. The main gate also would be monitored by a closed-circuit television
camera. Security personnel would patrol the perimeter fence.
Emergency Response Plan
An SPCC Plan, FRP, Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan (HWCP), Superfund Amendments
Reauthorization Act (SARA) Emergency Plan and, as applicable, a CAA Risk Management Plan
and Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) Response Plan, would be an integral part
of the refinery's Emergency Response Plan in responding to releases of oil and hazardous
substances. The plan would provide for an organized response to incidents and emergencies to
protect the environment, employees, and public. Emergency Response Team members, as well as
other designated refinery staff members, would be properly trained in the plan requirements and
spill/release response and cleanup techniques and procedures. Periodic mock spill drills would
take place as part of the on-going spill response training process.
The objectives of the emergency response plan for spills or releases would be:
> to describe the responsibilities and required actions of each individual working for the
refinery in the event of an environmental incident or emergency;
> to describe actions to be taken to minimize the effects of an environmental incident or
emergency on personnel, equipment and the environment; and
> to describe the internal and external communications necessary in the event of an
unplanned spill or release.
On-Site Incidents
Minor spills and releases would typically be contained and managed by refinery personnel
assigned to a specific work area, as long as they were not exposed to significant risks, e.g.,
hydraulic fluid leak from machinery. Such actions typically would not require the assistance of
emergency response personnel. For major spills or releases, such as a significant release of crude
oil or product material such as diesel, the refinery's Emergency Response Plan would be
activated, with the Emergency Response Team responding. These team members would be
trained in spill response measures. As required, the Emergency Response Team would obtain the
assistance of refinery operations and maintenance staff in obtaining information on the type and
quantity of spilled material, shutting down or moving equipment as needed, acquisition of
equipment and supplies, and providing access to areas where entry is needed to respond to the
spill or release. If an emergency release exceeded the capability of the response team, or posed as
an unacceptable safety risk, assistance would be requested from professional spill response
specialists and contractors and the appropriate state and/or federal environmental agencies, such
as, EPA and the NDDH.
Off-Site Incidents
Typically all minor or major off-site spills or releases would be responded to by the local
Emergency Response Teams within its geographic jurisdiction. Assistance from the Refinery
August 2009 2-50 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Emergency Response Team may be required for providing information on the spilled material,
acquisition of equipment and supplies, and assisting with containment at the source of the spill or
release. Only trained personnel would be allowed to participate in any cleanup activities with the
potential for exposure.
If any spill or release is significant enough that it exceeded the capability of the Emergency
Response Teams to adequately respond, assistance would be requested from professional spill
response specialists and contractors and the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies.
2.3.3 Hazardous and Non-hazardous Wastes
Non-hazardous and hazardous waste residuals would be generated from many of the refinery
processes, petroleum-handling operations, as well as the waste water treatment and WRP
operations. Most of the solid wastes that would be generated would be non-hazardous residuals or
those excluded from regulation as a waste. Most hazardous wastes would be generated upon
cleaning of the WWTU. Wastes would be recycled or regenerated within the refinery as much as
practical, with the remainder recycled, reclaimed, regenerated, or disposed of offsite at approved
third-party facilities. Most of the wastes that would be generated would be in the form of oily,
non-oily, and biological sludges (especially from the waste water and water recycle facilities);
spent process catalysts; product filter/adsorbent media; slop oil emulsions/solids; tank bottom
sludge; spent liquids, such as caustic and acid solutions: and pond sediments. Table 2-6
summarizes the major types of wastes that the refinery would generate.
The volume of wastes generated would vary with activities occurring at the refinery. Two major
groups of activities that would occur are normal operations and periods of major maintenance
activities called turn-arounds. During normal operations, maintenance activities are limited and
generation of wastes is typically limited to specific operational activities. Quantities of solid
wastes can be generated in the form of sludges; spent materials such as catalysts, absorbents, and
chemical solutions; and cleaning solutions.
During turn-arounds, which would occur approximately every three to five years for individual
process units, the refinery is shutdown for a short time. Although individual units would require
turn-arounds every three to five years, turn-arounds would occur annually because individual
units or groups of interdependent units would be shut down in rotation. Thus, only a partial
shutdown would occur each year, which would minimize the effect of lost production. Activities
would consist of cleaning out the major processing equipment and storage tanks of undesirable
residues that have accumulated over time; replacing catalysts, absorbents, and other types of
process media that become depleted over time; conducting required repairs; and performing any
other actions necessary for the improved operation of the units and refinery.
The quantity of waste generation can be significantly higher for a short period during turn-
arounds, as compared to the same period during normal operations. The operating philosophy of
the refinery would be to avoid planned total plant outages (about once every 5 years). The
shutting down of individual units or groups of interdependent units in rotation as discussed above
also would minimize the volume of wastes mentioned above. In addition, waste minimization
would be emphasized (especially for hazardous wastes). An example of this in the WWTU would
be the possible use of a centrifuge and naphtha to wash and dewater oily sludges. This could
greatly reduce the amount of hazardous waste sludges generated.
August 2009 2-51 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-6 Major Types of Waste Generation Projected for the MHA
Nation's Proposed Refinery
Site Of Generation
Types Of Waste
Operations And
Maintenance
Water Recycle Plant
Waste Water Treatment >
Unit Wastes >
> Wastewater
> Spent Catalyst
> Spent Caustic
> Spent Amine
> Spent Acid
> Spent Filter/Absorbent Media
> Off-Spec Product
> Waste Oil/Oily Sludges
> Wash Out Solids (Flushing Of Equipment)
> Process Equipment Cleanup Sludge [Other Than Heat
Exchangers]
> Heat Exchanger Bundle Sludge [KO50]
> Storage Tank Sludge [Crude (K169), Product, Other]
> Other Oily Sludges
> Oil Contaminated Debris
> Spent/Used Cleaning Solutions
> Waste Gases (sent to flare)
> Water Plant Filter Cake (e.g., Treatment Of Boiler
Blowdown)
> Wastewater
> Unused And Used Chemicals
API Separator Sludge [KO51]
DAF Float [KO48]
> Slop Oil Emulsions [KO49]
> Primary Treatment Sludges (Other Than API Separator Or
DAF) [FO37]
o Sludge from Process Sewer Sumps
o Sludge from Process Stormwater Sumps
o Primary Holding (1) Pond Bottom Sludge
o Equalization Tank Solids
> Secondary Treatment Sludges [FO38]
o BioReactor Solids
o Clarifier Solids
o Secondary Holding Ponds (2) Bottom Sludge
o Evaporation Pond Bottom Sludge
> Waste Chemicals (e.g. Flocculants)
> Firewater Ponds (2) Bottom Sludge
> Sludge from Non-Process Stormwater Sumps
August 2009
2-52
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-6 Major Types of Waste Generation Projected for the MHA
Nation's Proposed Refinery
Miscellaneous > Oily Rags/Debris
> Empty Containers With/Without Residual
> Laboratory Wastes
> Maintenance Oily/Non-oily Wastes
> Industrial Waste (Non-oily Trash)
> Surplus And Unused Chemicals
> Spent Solvents
> Contaminated Soils
> Scrap Metal/Equipment
> Floor Dry/Absorbent
> Sand Blast Grit
> Used Hydraulic Fluids
> Mercury (i.e., Instruments)
> Paint And Paint Wastes
> Spent Filter Cartridges
2.3.3.1 Waste Inventory
Non-hazardous Waste Streams
Most of the non-hazardous waste produced at the refinery would originate from the WRP. The
WRP would be used to purify and recycle water to minimize water usage, as discussed earlier and
shown on Figure 2-4. These streams routed to the WRP would bypass the API separator to
minimize commingling with the hazardous API separator sludges and float streams, thereby
reducing the amount of hazardous waste to be managed. The WRP would produce 600 Ib/day of
waste cake that would be disposed of in an off-site approved non-hazardous Class 2 landfill.
Additional types of miscellaneous non-hazardous wastes may include storage tank bottoms (other
than crude oil), non-contaminated empty containers, contaminated soils, scrap metal, industrial
trash and debris (non-oily), various maintenance shop wastes, and spent filter/absorbent media.
These types of wastes would not have levels of contamination that would result in the materials
being considered hazardous under RCRA.
Hazardous Waste Streams
The major anticipated hazardous waste streams to be generated by the refinery during normal
operations include:
> Wastewater Treatment Sludge
> Primary Sewer Sludge
> Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
> Spent Caustic Solution
August 2009 2-53 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
The major wastes to be generated by the refinery during major maintenance activities (i.e., turn-
arounds) that may be hazardous include:
> Tank Bottom Wastes
> Process Equipment Sludge
> Spent Catalyst
Each of these groups of wastes is discussed below.
Waste Water Treatment Sludge
The primary solid wastes that would be produced by the operation of the WWTU are summarized
in a separate solid and hazardous wastes management report. Sludges from the API Separator and
bio-treatment clarifier would be fed to the sludge thickener and sludge dryer, resulting in an
estimated 56 Ib/day of hazardous dried sludge that would be disposed of in a third-party licensed
off-site disposal site. Figure 2-6 shows the processes that generate waste.
Primary Sewer Sludge
The source of primary sewer sludge and oil emulsions would be the waste water collection and
treatment system. Oily sludges settle out of the waste water streams in sumps within the refinery.
The sludges in the sumps would be periodically cleaned out and are classified as a listed
hazardous waste (F037 petroleum refinery primary oil/water/solids separation sludge). These
sludges would be cleaned as necessary, but typically not more than every 3-year refinery turn-
around period. The solids would be recovered and sent to a third party licensed off-site disposal
site.
Slop Oil Emulsion Solids
Recovered oil would be sent to a heavy slop tank, including skim oil from the API separator, oil
from oily sludge dewatering, and bottom tank draws from the raw heavy oil tank and reduced
crude storage tank. The recovered oil would be recycled to the crude unit for reprocessing. Any
slop oil emulsion solids that cannot be recycled would be disposed of in a third-party licensed off-
site hazardous waste disposal site. The slop oil emulsion solids are classified as a listed hazardous
waste - KO49. The recovered oil is excluded from RCRA regulations.
Spent Caustic Solution
Caustic would be used throughout the refinery for a number of purposes, including entrained
catalyst removal, sulfur compound conversion, and low pH wastewater neutralization. Examples
of process units where caustic is used include the distillation section of the crude unit and the
isomerization unit. The spent caustic solutions are sent to a spent caustic neutralization tank.
Once neutralized, the solution would be discharged to a third-party licensed off-site disposal site.
Tank Bottom Wastes
Tank bottom wastes that accumulate in storage tanks typically consist of solids found in the
stored material (for example, crude and various intermediate process streams); rust or scale from
tanks, pipes, and other equipment; and heavy hydrocarbons (California Environmental Protection
Agency 2004). Periodic cleaning of the tanks would occur to remove these solids that settle in the
tank over several years of operation. The purpose of the cleaning includes recovery of lost tank
capacity, tank integrity inspection, change in service, and repair. The frequency of tank cleanouts
would depend upon the type of material stored. The storage tanks that typically require more
frequent cleanout are crude oil and heavy and middle distillates. It is currently estimated that
August 2009 2-54 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
cleaning of the tanks may be required every 6 to 9 years. However, a storage tank can be cleaned
out more frequently if it needs repair or refurbishment.
The synthetic crude tank sludge is designated as a "listed" RCRA hazardous waste (K169 - crude
oil storage tank sediment). Therefore, any tank bottoms removed from the synthetic crude storage
tanks would be handled as a hazardous waste. The amount of tank bottoms generated is
minimized by the use of pretreated synthetic crude and fixed tank mixers that help keep solids
from settling.
Whether the tank bottom sludge from the remaining storage tanks is classified as a hazardous
waste would be determined by RCRA characteristic testing. Typically lighter product tank
bottoms (for example, gasoline) are classified as a hazardous waste due to the levels of benzene.
At the refinery, light products may contain benzene levels high enough to cause the bottom
sludge to be designated as a hazardous waste. However, the middle distillates may not contain
benzene and specific metals at levels that would cause the bottom wastes to be considered as a
hazardous waste.
Cleaning of the tanks would entail centrifuging or dewatering of the sludge to minimize the
amount of solid residue. Recovered oil would be returned for processing and waste water would
be sent to the oily water sewer for treatment in the WWTU. Solids would be shipped to a third-
party licensed off-site disposal site.
The production of heavy oil is expected to be less than 1 percent from the hydrocracking process.
The feedstock would have an end boiling point of less than 1,000°F and the heaviest component
would be fed to the hydrocracker. This small bottoms stream would be sent to a user permitted to
burn or blend the material.
Process Equipment Sludge
Periodic cleanout of the residues within various pieces of process equipment is necessary to
maintain the preferred processing efficiencies. Such wastes are typically generated during
maintenance periods, especially during plant turn-arounds. Solid residues that are not listed
hazardous waste that cannot be recycled would be tested to determine whether they are a RCRA
characteristic hazardous waste.
One of the major cleanout activities associated with equipment maintenance is associated with the
heat exchangers. Heat exchangers would be routinely cleaned to maintain their efficiency.
Accumulated residues deposited from the process streams that are either heated or cooled would
be removed. This would be accomplished with the use of hydro-blasting and steam. Cleaning
would occur on a concrete cleaning pad that contains a drain sump that would overflow to the
oily process sewer for treatment in the WWTU. The pad would be designed to collect as much of
the solid residues as possible. These residues would be placed in approved hazardous waste
drums for temporary storage and eventual transport to a third-party licensed off-site hazardous
waste disposal site.
The removed scale and hydrocarbon solids waste generated from this cleaning activity is
classified as hazardous waste KO50 - heat exchanger bundle cleaning sludge. The cleaning of the
heat exchanger is expected to occur every three years during a turn-around. However, excessive
fouling, such as in the crude unit, could require more frequent cleaning for some of the heat
exchangers. The refinery does have the advantage of using synthetic crude as the primary
feedstock, which should reduce the amount of fouling, as compared to the refineries using typical
crude as a feedstock.
August 2009 2-55 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Spent Catalyst
Various catalysts are used throughout the refinery process for a variety of purposes, including
promotion of hydrocarbon conversion reactions (hydrocracking and isomerization), reduction of
sulfur and nitrogen content of certain hydrocarbon streams (hydrotreating), conversion of sulfur,
and conversion of natural gas to hydrogen for use in the hydrotreating and hydrocracking
reactions. Catalysts that are used in these processes lose effectiveness over time and must be
regenerated or replaced. The frequency of replacement with new or regenerated catalyst depends
on the type of catalyst. Most catalysts would be replaced every 3 to 5 years. Replacement
typically coincides with major maintenance periods, such as turn-arounds.
Major spent catalysts to be generated at the refinery include metal-impregnated refining catalyst
generated from processes that treat, crack, and reform hydrocarbon streams. The metals within
the catalyst that create the necessary reactions can result in the spent catalysts being considered
hazardous. Two types of spent catalysts are "listed" hazardous waste (Kl71-spent hydrotreating
catalyst and K172-spent hydrorefining catalyst). The rest of the catalysts are tested to determine
whether they are a RCRA characteristic hazardous waste. Spent catalysts are subject to RCRA
regulation if they are listed or characteristic hazardous waste, but may be recycled or reclaimed as
allowed by RCRA regulations.
2.3.3.2 RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous
Waste
Under Alternative 1, the refinery as designed would be a TSD Facility. Therefore, the refinery
would need to obtain a RCRA TSD permit from EPA. A TSD permit would significantly increase
the regulatory requirements for the proposed refinery project (40 CFR Part 264 including RCRA
corrective action requirements). This would include applicable construction requirements
(including double liners) for all hazardous waste surface impoundments (40 CFR 264.221(c)).
2.3.4 Buffalo Forage Production
The MF£A Nation raises buffalo as an economic enterprise. Currently, forage for the herd of 650
animals is insufficient and MF£A Nation must buy bales of forage from other sources to feed the
herd during the winter.
The primary land use within Section 19 and 20 of the project area is intensive dry land farming
(e.g., cereal row crops - barley and wheat), which may include cattle grazing in the late fall. The
MF£A Nation proposes to use the remaining acreage of the project site to raise forage for the
buffalo herd to reduce dependency on outside sources. Therefore, the acreage would be converted
from a dry land farming crop to a dry land forage crop. The acreage would be seeded initially
with oats and crested wheatgrass and the crop would be swathed and baled. Subsequently, the
property would be seeded to alfalfa and a mixture of grasses and the crop would be swathed and
baled. Buffalo would not be grazing within the property; the forage would be hauled to lands
where the Tribal herd is being managed.
2.4 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, BIA would accept the 468.39-acre project site into trust status, but would
not approve MHA Nation's proposal to construct, operate, and maintain a clean fuels refinery.
Consequently, the entire 468.39-acre project site would continue to be used for agricultural
purposes similar to those that have been occurring on the property for decades. Additionally, the
MF£A Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce feed for their buffalo.
August 2009 2-56 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Alternatively, the MHA Nation could have the land included in the Farm Pasture Leasing
Program as administered by BIA under 25 CFR Part 162.
Under the Farm Pasture Leasing Program, BIA assists Indian tribes and landowners in leasing
their land for agricultural purposes, through either negotiations or advertisement. BIA typically
reviews a negotiated lease for approval, and defers to the landowners' determination that the lease
is in their best interest, to the maximum extent possible. If a lease is granted on the landowners'
behalf, BIA will attempt to obtain a fair annual rental and ensure that the use of the land is
consistent with the landowners' wishes.
2.5 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery
Constructed (DOI Preferred alternative)
Under this alternative, BIA would not accept the 468.39 acres into trust status; however, the
MHA Nation would construct, operate, and maintain a clean fuels refinery on this property (e.g.,
without the trust status). Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would not need BIA's approval
for the clean fuels refinery, but the Project would need to obtain required permits from the EPA
and others. All of the effluent discharge alternatives will be considered for this alternative.
2.6 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Under this alternative, BIA would accept the 468.39 acres into trust for the construction and
operation, and maintenance of a clean fuels refinery; however, the design would be modified
from the MHA Nation's original proposal. The refinery would be reconfigured to minimize
impacts to the jurisdictional wetland; use of tanks instead of ponds for potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater and contaminated process waste water; and use of a sanitary collection tank or
sanitary waste treatment plant instead of a leach field. The refinery would continue to be
regulated as a RCRA LQG. The refinery would be redesigned so that tanks and tank systems are
used for holding and processing of potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater and contaminated
process waste water. When the refinery discharges are regulated by an NPDES permit, and the
RCRA WWTU exemption applies, the refinery would not be regulated as a RCRA TSD Facility.
The proposed septic tank for employee wastewater would also be replaced with either a small
treatment plant or wastewater would be trucked to a municipal WWTP.
The revised design reduces impacts to the jurisdictional wetland by changing the locations of the
utility building, main electrical substation and sulfur plant as shown in Figure 2-15. The ditches
containing the uncontaminated stormwater from the western part of the site would be directed to
one or two collection points adjacent to the east side of the swale. This water would cross the
swale via an underground pipe consistent with minimal impact. The final design would impact
less than 0.1 acre of the jurisdictional wetland due to two roadway crossings. This redesign
eliminates the "future expansion" area shown in Figure 2-7.
The modification of the facility design would change the NPDES discharge permit outfalls: New
Outfalls 002a and 003 would be added.
> Outfall 001 uncontaminated stormwater
> Outfall 002 discharges from the process (refinery) wastewater treatment
unit
> Outfall 002a potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater, treated as needed
> Outfall 003 employee WWTP
August 2009 2-57 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
The potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater holding pond and final effluent holding ponds
would be replaced with a tank system to meet specific regulatory requirements under RCRA
(Figure 2-16). An additional NPDES outfall (002a) would be provided for the discharge of the
potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater from the tank system. The holding ponds for
potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater could generate a RCRA listed waste, F037-petroleum
refinery primary oil/water/solids separation sludge and potentially F038- petroleum refinery
secondary (emulsified) oil/water/solids separation sludge. The potentially contaminated (oily)
stormwater would be directly conveyed to a group of surge tanks located between the process
units and the evaporation pond. These are underground shallow tanks to accommodate gravity
filling following the site gradient. The tanks would be made of double wall steel or equivalent in
compliance with 40 CFR 265 Subpart J. The total capacity of the tanks is 15,000 bbl, but multiple
tanks would be used to minimize individual tank size and the risk of potential leakage. If there is
leakage, then only one tank would be taken out of service for repair, leaving all the others in
service. The tank system would be sized to contain the maximum stormwater flow predicted for a
100-year storm event which is 5 inches in 24 hours. Annual precipitation averages 18 inches/year
with an average of 0.05 inches in 24 hours. The holding tanks would provide the surge capacity to
hold the stormwater for testing before its release to the release tanks, or to the process wastewater
treatment unit, if required. The release tanks would be located near the surge tanks, but the piping
would be segregated for release control. After testing, the water in the release tanks would either
be routed to the wastewater treatment unit, recycled or released to Outfall 002a.
Process (refinery) wastewater would be treated in the wastewater treatment unit as described in
Alternative 1; however, rather than being stored in holding ponds, it would be sent to a series of
final effluent release tanks prior to discharge from Outfall 002. This wastewater could be tested
prior to release and if it does not meet discharge limits it could be routed back to the wastewater
treatment unit for further treatment.
The uncontaminated stormwater would be surface drainage outside the paved and curbed process
areas. This water would be conveyed in surface ditches to the evaporation pond for holding and
testing prior to release to Outfall 001, used for recycling, or to maintain capacity in the firewater
ponds. The average flow here is based on 18 inches/year of precipitation, but the evaporation
pond would be large enough to hold the 5 inches/24 hour storm, the 100 year maximum. The
normal operation would be to recycle this water (after testing) to the plant, and release any excess
(up to the 55 gpm maximum) to Outfall 001. The average recycle rate is 30 gpm along with 10
gpm from the water wells for the total refinery average water needs. If the evaporation pond is
lined with natural clay, some water would have to remain in the pond to maintain liner integrity.
Other surface stormwater outside either those areas that are paved and curbed or within process
areas would continue to follow natural contours.
Sanitary wastewater (e.g., employee restrooms and showers) would be collected in a dedicated
holding tank for removal from the MHA site to a licensed third-party permitted municipal WWTP
(estimated at 1 truck per day holding 3,750 gallons, average 4,500 gallons per week or 1.2 trucks
per week). Alternatively, a modular sanitary WWTP would be installed. Treated wastewater
would be discharge through Outfall 003 and solid waste removed to an offsite approved landfill
site. Lastly, the laboratory waste would be collected in a dedicated holding tank for testing, and
removed by truck to a properly permitted off-site disposal site.
Water stored on site would be maximized in the fall to service the plant recycle needs during
winter. Shortfalls of water will be made up by the water wells. Water inventories would be at a
minimum just prior to the spring thaw.
August 2009 2-58 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.6.1.1 RCRA Generator Classification
Under Alternative 4, the refinery would be classified as a RCRA generator of hazardous waste.
As such, it must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 262. The regulations that the refinery
would comply with based on its generator classification are identified in Table 2-7.
Table 2-7 Hazardous Waste Generation Classification and Applicable Regulations
Generator Quantity Regulation
Large Quantity (LQG) > 1,000 kg/month All Part 262 Requirements
(approximately 2,200 Ibs)
> 1 kg/month acute
(approximately 2.2 Ibs)
> 100 kg residue or contaminated
soil from cleanup of acute
hazardous waste spill)
Small Quantity (LQG) Between 100-1,000 kg/month Part262, Subparts A,B,C (262.34(d) is
(approximately 220-2,200 Ibs) specific to SQGs);and Subparts
E,F,G,H if applicable; and portions of
Subpart D as specified in 262.44.
Conditionally Exempt < 100 kg/month Part 261.5
Small Quantity <1 kg/month of Acute Hazardous
Generator (CESQGs) Waste
<100 kg/month of Acute Spill
Residue or Soil
Source: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2003a
2.6.1.2 Solid Waste
Under Alternative 4, solid waste and hazardous waste would be managed as generally described
under the proposed Alternative 1. Because of the replacement of the potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater holding pond and effluent holding ponds with a tank system, no pond sludges
would be generated. The sludge thickening process would be designed to minimize hazardous
wastes generated for offsite disposal by use of a centrifuge with solvent wash or similar process.
Figure 2-17 shows how wastes generated from the redesigned wastewater treatment unit would be
handled.
2.6.1.3 RCRA Treatment Storage and Disposal (TSD) Facility
Considerations
Under Alternative 4, the refinery would be designed and operated so that hazardous waste is not
treated, stored or disposed of at the site. However, the facility could potentially become a RCRA
TSD if an NPDES permit is not obtained (and the "wastewater treatment unit" exemption at 40
CFR 264.1(g)(6) does not apply), and/or if the wastewater treatment unit is not designed and
operated on a continuous basis according to the requirements for Aggressive Biological
Treatment Units (ABTU) (40 CFR 261.3 l(b)(2)) resulting in "hazardous waste" wastewater being
land applied (Alternatives 4 and B), or disposed of in an UIC well (Alternatives 4 and C). The
facility could also become a TSD in other ways. For example, if hazardous wastes are stored for
greater than 90-days at the refinery, or if certain waste streams are combined or exceed the
toxicity characteristic, the facility could become a TSD. If the facility becomes a TSD, it would
be required to obtain a RCRA TSD permit from EPA. For more information on RCRA
applicability, see the interim final EPA document "Discussion of Regulatory Applicability of
RCRA /NPDES/UIC to Three Affiliated Tribes Refinery Alternatives" (March 2008, technical
report). A TSD permit would significantly increase the regulatory requirements for the proposed
August 2009 2-59 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
refinery project (40 CFR Part 264 including RCRA corrective action requirements). This would
include applicable construction requirements (including double liners) for all hazardous waste
surface impoundments (264.221(c).
2.6.1.4 Decommissioning and Reclamation Phase- Alternative 4
The decommissioning and reclamation phase for this alternative differs from Alternative 1 in that
a RCRA closure plan for all HWMUs (including surface impoundments and tanks) would not be
required. The clean closure requirements under RCRA for areas where hazardous waste is
generated or accumulated would need to be met as in Alternative 1. The site (non-RCRA) closure
plan developed through other agreements between the Federal agencies and the Tribes would
encompass general cleanup and site rehabilitation. RCRA corrective action requirements would
not apply for all releases of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents from all SWMUs
for this Alternative unless conditions present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health
or the environment as applicable under Section 7003 of RCRA
August 2009 2-60 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
'^"ss&t
ma
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.7 Alternative 5 No Action
Alternative 5 is the no action alternative. Under this alternative, BIA would not accept the 468.39
acres into trust status for the refinery. The MHA Nation would continue to own the property
outside of trust status. For this alternative, BIA assumed the refinery would not be constructed
and the entire 468.39-acre project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes similar
to those that have been occurring on the property for decades. This alternative also serves as the
baseline for comparison of the other action alternatives.
2.8 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
As noted earlier, four effluent discharge alternatives were developed for the three refinery
construction alternatives: Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. There may be modifications to the design to
accommodate requirements of the discharge alternative, such as adding additional storage
capacity to holding ponds or tanks.
2.8.1 Alternative A - Proposed Effluent Discharge Action
(EPA Preferred Discharge Alternative)
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would obtain an NPDES permit from EPA for the
discharge of effluent from the refinery. There is a difference in the number of outfalls and the
discharge from those outfalls for each of the construction Alternatives.
Under Alternative 1, there would be two NPDES permitted outfalls. One would be for
uncontaminated (non-oily) waste water which originates from two sources, the boiler system and
stormwater. Waste water from the boiler system (boiler blowdown) would be routed to the WRP
for treatment and recycling back to refinery processes (Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4). This waste
water would be segregated from the contaminated (oily) waste water to minimize production of
hazardous sludge. Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be collected from non-process
areas of the refinery and routed to a 7.48 million gallon evaporation pond. Waste water from the
evaporation pond would be used as makeup water for the fire water system (two reservoirs of
2.25 million gallons each) as needed, recycled back to the refinery processes or when necessary
discharged through an NPDES permitted outfall.
The other NPDES permitted outfall would be for potentially contaminated (oily) waste water.
Wastewater collected from process operations (primarily the SWS) would be routed directly to
the WWTU for treatment and then directed to two effluent holding ponds (700,000 gallons
each/1.4 million gallons total). Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater would be collected
from process areas (i.e. loading area, tank farm (Figure 2-5) and routed directly to a 1.4 million
gallon holding pond. Depending on quality, the waste water from the holding pond would be
directed to the two effluent holding ponds described above or sent to the WWTU for treatment
and then into the effluent holding ponds. The effluent from the holding ponds would be recycled
back to refinery processes as needed, or discharged through a permitted NPDES outfall in this
alternative. All waste water treatment processes would be proven technology and would be
designed to meet quality requirements for recycling back to refinery processes and NPDES
discharge permit requirements
Under Alternative 4, there could be four NPDES discharge permitted outfalls: Outfall 001 for
uncontaminated stormwater, Outfall 002 for wastewater treatment unit, Outfall 002a for
potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater, treated as needed, and Outfall 003 for employee
WWTP.
August 2009 2-67 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
The potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater holding pond and final effluent holding ponds
would be replaced with a tank system to meet specific regulatory requirements under RCRA
(Figure 2-16). An additional NPDES outfall (002a) would be provided for the discharge of the
potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater from the tank system. The potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater would be directly conveyed to a group of surge tanks located between the
process units and the evaporation pond. These are underground shallow tanks to accommodate
gravity filling following the site gradient. The tanks would be made of double wall steel or
equivalent in compliance with 40 CFR 265 Subpart J. The holding tanks would provide the surge
capacity to hold the stormwater for testing before its release to the release tanks, or to the process
wastewater treatment unit, if required. The release tanks would be located near the surge tanks,
but the piping would be segregated for release control. After testing, the water in the release tanks
would either be recycled to process the wastewater treatment unit or be released to Outfall 002a.
Process (refinery) wastewater would be treated in the wastewater treatment unit as described in
Alternative 1; however, rather than being stored in holding ponds, it would be sent to a series of
final effluent release tanks prior to discharge from Outfall 002. This wastewater could be tested
prior to release and if it does not meet discharge limits it could be recycled back to the wastewater
treatment unit for further treatment.
The uncontaminated stormwater would be surface drainage outside the paved and curbed process
areas. This water would be conveyed in surface ditches to the evaporation pond for holding and
testing prior to release to Outfall 001, used for recycling, or to maintain capacity in the firewater
ponds. The normal operation is to recycle this water (after testing) to the plant, and release any
excess (up to the 55 gpm maximum) to Outfall 001. The average recycle rate is 30 gpm along
with 10 gpm from the water wells for the total refinery average water needs. If the evaporation
pond is lined with natural clay, some water would have to remain in the pond to maintain liner
integrity. Other surface stormwater outside either those areas that are paved and curbed or within
process areas would continue to follow natural contours.
A modular sanitary WWTP could be installed. Treated wastewater would be discharge through
Outfall 003 and solids waste removed to an offsite approved landfill site. Lastly, the laboratory
waste would be collected in a dedicated holding tank for testing, and removed by truck to a
properly permitted off-site disposal site.
2.8.2 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES
Permit and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, wastewater would be treated in the WWTU and then stored in the ponds
on the west side of the facility or in release tanks. The MF£A Nation would discharge water as
described for the proposed project action during times when irrigation is not possible. During the
growing season when saturated soil conditions do not exist, the refinery could use treated
wastewater to irrigate trees and forage on the project site. Thus, this alternative is a modification
of Alternative A. With this alternative, the MF£A Nation could either irrigate when possible or
discharge treated wastewater. As in Alternative A, wastewater would be discharged as needed
from an outlet into the wetland in the northwest corner of the project site (Figure 2-7).
The refinery wastewater would be (by definition) a solid waste under RCRA. As such, all
wastewater proposed to be used for irrigation should be treated to meet appropriate standards to
protect human health and the environment. In addition, unless the wastewater is treated
sufficiently, it will continue to be considered a solid waste containing hazardous waste
constituents, and RCRA corrective action requirements could apply for the irrigated land parcel.
August 2009 2-68 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.8.3 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Class I Well
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would discharge all effluent from the WWTU to a Class
I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. This well would dispose of
non-hazardous fluids into isolated formations beneath the lowermost underground source of
drinking water (USDW). Thus, the well would place effluent in porous formations of rocks or a
deep aquifer that is not identified as existing or future USDWs. Because injection wells have the
potential to inject contaminants that may cause underground sources of drinking water to become
contaminated, the UIC Program prevents contamination by setting minimum requirements. These
requirements typically include contamination prevention by keeping injected fluids within the
well and the intended injection zone, direct or indirect injection into an USDW, or otherwise
adversely affect public health. The siting of the UIC well and the construction, operation,
maintenance, monitoring, testing, and closure of the well will consider these minimum
requirements.
2.8.4 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, EPA would not issue any permits for the discharge of effluents from the
proposed refinery. This includes permits for NPDES regulated discharges, discharges to a Class I
non-hazardous UIC well, and discharges of the septic system to a leach field. Thus, no discharges
of water of any kind from a refinery would be permitted under this alternative.
2.9 Summary of RCRA Applicability
The design and operation of the facility would play an important role in determining which
environmental permits would be needed. This is discussed briefly below and in more detail in the
"Discussion of Regulatory Applicability" document (EPA 2008).
This analysis regarding the applicability of RCRA permitting for the various wastewater
treatment scenarios is based upon the desire of the MHA Nation to have the analysis reflect any
and all circumstances where a RCRA permit might be required based on the limited information
available during preliminary design. This includes circumstances where listed and/or
characteristic hazardous waste may be present in the wastewater treatment system due to
incidents such as process upsets or equipment shutdowns, particularly where land-based units are
proposed for wastewater treatment operations, or where land-based practices (e.g. irrigation and
UIC injection well) are proposed for ultimate wastewater disposition. Likewise, the analysis takes
into account the possibility that certain HWMUs might not ultimately qualify for specific
permitting exemptions, based upon possible changes made in final facility design, policy or legal
issues, or any other project specific circumstances.
A RCRA TSD Facility permit would likely or potentially be required for all construction
alternatives except Alternative 4 and A. Alternatives 1 and 3 with any discharge alternative would
need a RCRA TSD permit, because the refinery units generating hazardous waste are surface
impoundments instead of tanks. A RCRA TSD permit would also likely or potentially be needed
for any of the refinery construction alternatives combined with Effluent Discharge Alternatives B
and C, because all or part of the wastewater would not be discharged in accordance with an
NPDES permit. Based on the preliminary design for the facility, the only alternatives
combination which would most clearly not need a TSD permit would be Alternatives 4 and A.
The final determination of RCRA applicability would be based on the final design and the TSD
permit application for the facility. The main factors affecting RCRA applicability are listed
below:
August 2009 2-69 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Alternatives 1, 3
> Alternative 1, 3 and A: Surface impoundments would not meet the RCRA definition of
tanks or tank systems;
> Alternative 1, 3 and B: Surface impoundments would not meet the RCRA definition of
tanks or tank systems, and irrigation (land application) would not likely be covered
under the WWTU because some of the wastewater would not be discharged under an
NPDES permit under CWA; and
> Alternative 1, 3 and C: Surface impoundments would not meet the definition of tanks or
tank systems, and UIC disposal would not likely be covered as the WWTU exemption
applies if discharges are subject to an NPDES permit under CWA.
Alternative 4
> Alternative 4 and A: A RCRA TSD Facility permit would not be required due to the use
of tanks and tank systems in the WWTU in conjunction with an NPDES discharge
permit as this meets the requirements for the WWTU exemption (other exemptions or
considerations may apply);
> Alternative 4 and B: Wastewater would be treated prior to discharge through an NPDES
permit or disposal through irrigation (land application). Because a portion of the
wastewater would not be disposed through a CWA permit, the tanks in the wastewater
treatment system would be unlikely to be covered by the WWTU exemption from the
requirement to obtain a RCRA TSD permit. At petroleum refineries, wastewater
treatment tanks may occasionally manage hazardous waste, requiring a TSD permit
unless the facility qualifies for a WWTU exemption. Therefore, a RCRA TSD permit
could potentially be required.
> Alternative 4 and C: UIC well disposal: For this alternative, process wastewater would
not be disposed of through an NPDES (CWA) permit. Therefore, the tanks in the
wastewater treatment system would be unlikely to be covered by the WWTU exemption
and a RCRA permit may be required.
2.10 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from
Detailed Analysis
Several alternatives were considered for this analysis, but were eliminated from detailed study for
various reasons. These alternatives are listed below. The reasons they were excluded from further
consideration also are described.
August 2009 2-70 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Use of local light sweet crude oil as a feedstock
This alternative was specifically developed to respond to the MHA
Nation's desire to refine oil that it may extract from under the Fort
Berthold Reservation. It also would have accepted other local
supplies of crude oil.
This alternative was dropped from detailed analysis because of
technical considerations. Initially, when the refinery was proposed,
the local supply of light sweet crude oil was declining and was
expected to continue to decline. The refinery needed a dependable
source of oil for at least 20 years. Based on that information this
alternative was dropped. Recently there has been new exploration
and production from the deeper Bakken Formation. However, the
Tribes are still planning to refine synthetic crude oil.
Additionally, the locally available crude oil has several
disadvantages that the refinery would have to overcome.
Processing would require desalting of the oil. This process uses a
substantial amount of water (equivalent to about 5 percent of the
crude feed), and local supplies of water for the refinery are limited.
Also, the refinery would need an injection well to dispose of the
brine that the desalting process would generate. Finally, the local
crude would produce fewer aromatics and less diesel. It also would
have more selenium, other metals, and bottoms requiring disposal.
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Alternative to completely avoid wetlands with pumping.
This alternative was considered to minimize dredging and filling
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands.
The shift of the facility to the east and slightly south as designed
would encroach upon the safety zones for the edge of property,
railroad, and existing homestead. It would require additional
excavation to achieve acceptable surface water drainage and
capture. The drainage would not be all in one direction as presently
designed so a pumping system would need to be installed to move
captured water to the treatment facility. The cost for the facility
construction would increase by approximately $2,000,000 as there
would be additional infrastructure required; more excavation to
achieve acceptable surface water drainage, and a surface water
capture system and pumping to the water treatment unit. There
would also be increased operational costs for the facility from the
pumps.
When considering the need for acceptable surface water drainage,
the use of pumps or alterations of existing gradient would increase
the potential for adverse environmental consequences because of
pump failure, breaching of drainage capture, or ponding of
August 2009
2-1'1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
potentially contaminated water in unprotected areas. This
alternative would also limit future expansion of the facility.
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Discharge of Effluent from the WWTP to a Wetland Treatment
Unit Constructed on the Project Site.
This alternative was considered to provide additional treatment of
nutrients and hydraulic buffering of the effluent before it was
discharged into the existing wetland on the project site.
This alternative was dropped from detailed evaluation because of
uncertainties regarding whether there would be a significant
benefit to the existing wetland. Although constructed wetland can
attenuate flow, it is unclear if attenuation would benefit the
existing wetland. From a water quality standpoint, the wastewater
treatment unit would already meet the permit limits at the end of
the pipe before water is discharged into the existing wetland. Thus,
having a constructed unit would not change the water quality
permit limits that need to be met. Pond/wetland treatment systems
provide little to no treatment in the winter because of low
temperatures. Treatment performance of the constructed wetland
decreases over time without substrate replacement or removing
vegetation every couple of years. There would also be additional
construction costs and siting difficulties in locating another
treatment unit on the site with gravity flow from the existing
treatment units.
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Alternative to minimize impact to wetlands by moving ponds east
of the wetland.
This alternative was considered to minimize dredging and filling
jurisdictional waters of the U.S. including wetlands.
Reducing the fill of the wetland by 100 feet by moving the water
treatment unit and ponds to the east of the swale would encroach
upon the safety setbacks for the tank farm (240 foot separation)
and property line (200 foot separation). This alteration would cost
approximately $930,000 more to construct than the proposed
alternative as two high capacity trash pumps with pump houses and
associated piping would be needed ($588,700), as well as 80,000
cubic yards of additional excavation ($340,000).
There could be an increase in potential adverse environmental
consequences from captured surface water pump failure, breach of
drainage capture systems, or ponding of potentially contaminated
water in unprotected areas. There would also be increased
operational costs for the facility from the pumps.
August 2009
2-72
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Discharge of the WWTP Effluent to the East Fork of Shell Creek
stream channel north of highway 23.
This alternative was considered to move the point of discharge out
of the existing on-site wetland to reduce hydraulic impacts and
changes in function to the 11 acre wetland in the northwest corner
of the site.
This alternative was dropped from detailed evaluation because the
Tribes would prefer not to discharge directly off-site onto land
which the Tribes do not own. There would be additional costs
including construction of a 1-2 mile effluent pipeline
($200,000/mile), pipeline easement and operations/maintenance.
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
Pipe the WWTP Effluent to a Discharge Point in Lake Sakakawea
west of Parshall (about 19 miles) or in the Lower Portion of East
Shell Creek (about 15 miles).
This alternative was considered to reduce hydraulic impacts and
changes in function to the wetland in the northwest corner of the
site.
This alternative was dropped from detailed evaluation because of
the substantial additional costs for constructing and maintaining
the pipeline (15 to 20 miles). Also, the MHA Nation would have to
acquire extensive rights-of-way within which to construct the
pipeline. Preliminary estimates for the pipelines suggest the costs
of construction would be slightly more than $1 million per mile.
The estimate includes construction of 15 to 20 miles of pipeline,
lift station(s) and easement purchases). Maintenance costs the
MHA Nation would incur would be in addition to this cost.
Alternative Considered
Reasons Considered
Reasons Dropped
No Effluent Discharge, Storage and Irrigation
This alternative was considered to reduce hydraulic impacts and
changes in function to the wetland in the northwest corner of the
site and the need for a NPDES permit.
This alternative was dropped from detailed evaluation because of
the technical limitations in meeting a no flow situation to be in
compliance with CWA regulations.
August 2009
2-73
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
2.11 Summary of Environmental Consequences
The matrix presented on Table 2-8 summarily compares the effects to the affected environment
that would occur by implementing each of the four alternatives considered in detail for the MHA
Nation's proposed fee-to-trust and clean fuels refinery and buffalo forage project.
2.12 Summary of Mitigation Measures:
See Chapter 4 Selected Plans and Mitigation Measures.
2.13 Agency-preferred Alternative
On the basis of the analysis documented in the EIS, the comments received during the public
comment period on the DEIS, and other record documents, the DOI and EPA have selected
preferred alternatives for the agencies' respective actions. It should be noted that the decision to
build and operate the refinery rests with the MHA Nation.
DOI
The DOI has identified its preferred alternative as Alternative 3. In Alternative 3, DOI would not
place the land into trust status and the refinery could be constructed by the Tribes. DOI
recommends that the design of the refinery, if constructed, be modified consistent with
Alternative 4. The construction and operation of the proposed oil refinery does not depend on the
land being held in trust by the United States.
As discussed in this FEIS, it is anticipated that there would be spills and leaks of refinery
products, and that over time it is expected that there would be some contamination of soil and
ground water immediately underneath the refinery site. It is DOI policy to minimize the potential
liability of the Department and its bureaus by acquiring real property that is not contaminated.
See 602 Departmental Manual 2 (4). Alternative 3 is consistent with this policy.
EPA
The MHA Nation government will be deciding whether to build and operate the refinery. If the
proposed refinery is constructed, EPA has identified its process water discharge preferred
alternative as Alternative A, the issuance of an NPDES permit for effluent discharges associated
with the refinery.
If the refinery is constructed, EPA recommends implementation of the modified refinery design
as described under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 was developed to reduce impacts to wetlands and
to utilize tanks instead of surface impoundments for wastewater collection and treatment. EPA
also recommends that the mitigation measures developed for Alternative 4, including ground
water monitoring and financial assurance, be implemented by the Tribes.
Upon completion of the wait period for this EIS, the Agencies will issue their final decisions.
Each agency will prepare a ROD, describing the Agencies' respective decisions, the alternatives
considered, and stating whether all practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm
from the alternative selected have been adopted or why such measures were not adopted. The
RODs can be issued no sooner than 30 days following the publication of the Notice of
Availability of the FEIS in the Federal Register.
August 2009 2-74 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative and Resource
Construction & Effluent Alternatives
Alternatives 1 & A
Construction
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternatives
Alternative 4
Alternatives 5
Alternative B
Effluent Alternatives
Alternative C
Alternative D
BIA would accept 469-acre project site into trust. MHA
Nation would construct and operate a refinery on 190
acres of the project site; and produce forage on the
other 279 acres forage for MHA Nation's buffalo.
Wastewater from the refinery would be treated and
discharged into surface waters. EPA would issue an
NPDES permit.
Geology
Impacts to the geologic environment would be limited
to near surface resources. No impacts would be
anticipated to the subsurface geologic environment.
Potential impacts related to geologic resources would
be localized and limited to the time of construction
Groundwater
Water supply for the refinery could cause localized
drawdown of Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer. Shallow
ground water quality immediately underneath the
refinery would be impacted overtime by spills and
leaks from the proposed refinery. Impacts to ground
water would be minimized by designing the refinery to
prevent and contain leaks and spills.
Surface Water
Treated wastewater discharges from the facility would
cause minor changes in existing water quality. The
proposed NPDES permit would require that wastewater
discharges be protective of aquatic life, drinking water,
agriculture and wildlife uses.
Construction and operation of the proposed refinery
would change the quantity and flow pattern of the
drainage from the site. The paving/hardening of the
refinery site would increase runoff and reduce
infiltration.
Spills
It is anticipated that there would be spills and leaks at
the proposed refinery facility. The majority of spills and
leaks would be contained within the facility and would
not impact the environment. However, overtime, it is
expected that there would be some contamination of
soils and groundwater immediately underneath the
refinery site due to leaks and spills. The contamination
would remain generally within the refinery site unless a
major spill occurred or a series of spills and leaks
occurred overtime.
Several spill and emergency response plans would be
required for the refinery to provide preventative
measures and to plan responses for spills and other
emergencies.
BIA would accept the 469-acre
project site into trust status, no
refinery would be constructed.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
BIA would not accept the 469
acres into trust status;
However, the refinery would be
constructed and operated on
the property without the trust
status. EPA would issue
permits.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Alternative 1 redesigned to
avoid wetland impacts and
reduce regulation under
RCRA. BIA would accept the
land into trust and EPA would
issue permits.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
No Action No refinery
constructed. BIA would
not accept the 469
acres into trust status.
No EPA permits issued.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use. No
construction of the refinery and
thus no additional impacts from
spills in the project area.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Wastewater from the refinery would be
treated and either discharged into
surface waters or used for irrigation on
the site. EPA would issue an NPDES
permit for surface water discharges.
No effects to geologic resources
Impacts to ground water would be similar
to Alternatives 1 & A for the portion of
wastewater discharged to surface water.
The remaining treated wastewater would
be land applied and a portion of the land
applied treated wastewater would
eventually infiltrate into ground water
underneath the land application site.
Impacts would be similar to Alternatives
1 & A. Less treated wastewater would
be discharged into surface waters,
reducing flows.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Wastewater from the refinery would be
treated and injected into a well for
disposal drilled on the project site. EPA
would issue a Class I, Non-hazardous
UIC Permit.
This well would dispose of treated
wastewater into isolated formations
beneath the lowermost existing or
potential future underground source of
drinking water.
The injection well for the treated
wastewater would be constructed to
protect any potential or existing sources
of drinking water. The injection zone
would be below and isolated from any
aquifers that could be used for drinking
water.
All refinery wastewater would be
disposed through injection into a deep
underground formation, no impacts to
surface water quality would be
anticipated under except for some storm
water discharges. Water flow rates from
the site would be less than for
Alternatives 1&A.
Impacts from spills in the project area
would be similar to those described
under Alternatives 1 and A due to
construction of the refinery.
No Action. EPA would
not issue any permits
for the discharge of
effluent from the
proposed refinery.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
August 2009
2-75
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative and Resource (continued)
Construction & Effluent Alternatives
Alternatives 1 & A
Construction
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternatives
Alternative 4
Alternatives 5
Alternative B
Effluent Alternatives
Alternative C
Alternative D
Solid and Hazardous Waste
The facility would be a RCRA TSD facility. The RCRA
TSD permit would regulate design, operation,
monitoring, closure, post-closure, financial assurance
and corrective action for all solid waste management
units. The facility would also be a RCRA generator.
Soils
Soils immediately underneath the refinery would be
impacted over time by spills and leaks from the
proposed refinery. Impacts to soils would be
minimized by designing the refinery to prevent and
contain leaks and spills. Upon closure of the facility, it
is anticipated that some soil removal or remediation
would be needed prior to closure.
Vegetation
An estimated 190 acres of cultivated agricultural fields
would be affected by surface disturbance associated
with the refinery footprint over the long-term operation
of the refinery.
Wetlands
There would be a loss of 0.5 acres of jurisdictional
wetland and a loss of 0.3 acres of isolated wetland.
Wetlands would also be affected by increased peak
flows from the site.
Wildlife
Displacement impacts and some changes due to
increased flows in tributary predicted, increased vehicle
collision potential
Threatened and Endangered Species
Construction and operation of the refinery "may affect,
but is not likely to adversely affect" the whooping crane
and piping plover with conservation measures to
minimize the use of refinery retention ponds. Large
cobble rock should be used to line exposed slopes of
all wastewater/storage ponds to discourage plovers.
Any ponds having the potential to hold contaminated
(oily) water should be netted. Power transmission lines
would be constructed to protect raptors and whooping
cranes.
There would be no solid and
hazardous waste impacts
associated with a refinery.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use. No effects to
soil resources from the
refinery's construction and
operation.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
The refinery would be classified
as a RCRA generator of
hazardous waste not a TSD
facility. Impacts would be
similar to Alternatives 1 &AA,
however there would less
regulatory oversight and no
required financial assurance
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
There would be a loss of 0.1
acres of jurisdictional wetland
and a loss of 0.3 acres of
isolated wetland. Wetlands
would also be affected by
increased peak flows from the
site.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
similar to existing
Existing conditions
continue.
The solid and hazardous waste impacts
would be similar to Alternatives 1&A;
however, the refinery site would be
expanded to include the area used for
land application.
The solid hazardous waste impacts
would be similar to Alternatives 1&A.
The injection well could provide an on-
site disposal option for saline wastes
such as brine from water treatment.
Existing conditions
continue.
Soils in area have not been previously
irrigated. An irrigation management plan
would be developed to identify
application rates and wastewater
treatment levels
Crops have not been irrigated before in
this area. There would be some
modification of farming practices and
types of crops.
Flow rates would be less than Alternative
A, reducing hydraulic impacts to
downstream wetlands.
Implementation of this alternative not
affect soil impacts
Existing conditions
continue.
Implementation of this alternative would
not affect vegetation impacts.
Implementation of this alternative would
not affect vegetation impacts.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts would be similar to Alternatives
1&A. Since most of the site is already
used in agricultural crop rotation, land
application of treated wastewater would
effect wildlife.
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Implementation of this alternative would
not affect wildlife impacts.
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
August 2009
2-76
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative and Resource (continued)
Construction & Effluent Alternatives
Alternatives 1 & A
Construction
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternatives
Alternative 4
Alternatives 5
Alternative B
Effluent Alternatives
Alternative C
Alternative D
Cultural Resources
Impacts to cultural resources will be minor. A new rail
siding would be constructed along the historic Soo Line
railroad that runs through the refinery site.
Land Use
Short term impacts for utility corridor construction. MHA
Nation would be able to supplement their existing land
base within the Fort Berthold Reservation Boundaries
and no longer pay taxes to a non-Indian government.
Transportation
The refinery would increase traffic on local roads and
on the rail line by approximately 30 percent. There
would be an increase in the probability of transportation
accidents and petroleum spills along the highways,
pipeline corridors and the rail line.
Aesthetics
The refinery would be visible in the existing landscape
and would be in the foreground to background distance
zones as viewed by people on county roads, Highway
23, rural residences, and Makoti. Night lighting would
increase the distance from which the proposed facilities
would be visible.
Air Quality
Modeling showed that criteria pollutant air emissions
would not exceed the national ambient air standards or
PSD increments. Estimated ambient impacts from
hazardous air pollutants were below the federal risk
based concentrations.
Impacts similar to existing Impacts same as Alternatives
conditions, site would remain in 1&A.
agricultural use.
MHA Nation would be able to
supplement their existing land
base within the Fort Berthold
Reservation boundaries and no
longer pay taxes to a non-
Indian government.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A except the land would not
be exempt from property taxes
paid to Ward County.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
The outfall and irrigation associated with The UIC well associated with this
this alternative would fall within the alternative would fall within the
disturbance footprint of the refinery and disturbance footprint of the refinery and
would cause a change in land use. would not cause a change in land use.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Similar to Alternatives 1 &A
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
No additional effect on air quality.
No additional effect on air quality.
Existing conditions
continue.
August 2009
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 2 Public Participation, Issue Identification, and Alternatives
Table 2-8 Summary of Environmental Impacts by Alternative and Resource (continued)
Construction & Effluent Alternatives
Alternatives 1 & A
Construction
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternatives
Alternative 4
Alternatives 5
Alternative B
Effluent Alternatives
Alternative C
Alternative D
Socioeconomics
Economic benefit for MHA Nation, additional
employment in area
Environmental Justice
Considering both the positive and negative effects of
the project, the communities of concern would not be
classified as disproportionately affected when
compared to other communities on the Reservation or
in the surrounding area.
Health and Safety
With proper operation of the refinery, potential impacts
to the health of local and area communities are
anticipated to be negligible. There would be an
increased risk of a release of chemicals and hazardous
materials to soil, ground water, surface water and air
due to refinery operations. In the event of a
catastrophic spill or fire, facility emissions would be of
concern to workers and the immediate vicinity of the
refinery.
Irreversible or irretrievable commitment
of resources
Removal of ground water, Loss of vegetative cover
until the refinery is decommissioned and reclaimed.
Loss of wildlife habitats for the life of the refinery. Loss
of crop or forage productivity until the refinery is
decommissioned and reclaimed. The addition of an
industrial facility to the rural landscape.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Impacts to groundwater and soil immediately
underneath the refinery site from spills and leaks. Loss
of 0.5 acres of wetlands. Changes in hydrology to the
wetlands and unnamed tributary. Mitigation would be
developed for these impacts such as a wetlands
mitigation plan and groundwater monitoring.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Employment would be the
same as Alternatives 1 &A.
However, the economic benefit
for the MHA nation would be
less if the land is not accepted
in the trust.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
This alternative would not affect
socioeconomics. However, that would
change if inadequately treated
wastewater was land applied.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
This alternative would not affect
socioeconomics.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to existing
conditions, site would remain in
agricultural use.
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Because the aquifer used for disposal
would be completely isolated,
implementation of this alternative would
not result in adverse effects to the EJ
communities in the affected area that
would be disproportionate relative to the
surrounding area.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Existing conditions
continue.
None
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Existing conditions
continue.
None
Impacts same as Alternatives
1&A
Impacts similar to Alternatives
1&A.
Existing conditions
continue.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1&A.
Impacts similar to Alternatives 1 &A.
Existing conditions
continue.
August 2009
2-78
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
This chapter describes the affected environment for the project alternatives. The affected
environment is the portion of the existing environment that could be affected by the project.
The information in Chapter 3 describes existing conditions, before any of the alternatives are
implemented. Chapter 4 describes the changes that are expected to occur from implementing the
alternatives. The information presented here focuses on issues identified through the scoping
process and interdisciplinary analyses.
The affected environment varies for each issue. Both the nature of the issue and components of
the proposed project and alternatives dictate this variation. The following sections concentrate on
providing the specific environmental information necessary to assess the potential effects of the
proposed action and alternatives.
3.1 General Physical Environment
The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation encompasses about 1,583 square miles in portions of six
counties in west-central North Dakota. The counties are Dunn, McKenzie, McLean, Mercer,
Mountrail, and Ward. Surface elevations range from about 1,835 feet above mean sea level
(AMSL) along Lake Sakakawea to more than 2,600 feet AMSL in Dunn County.
The project area occurs at the confluence of two North Dakota ecoregions the Missouri Coteau
Slope and the Northwestern Glaciated Plains (Bryce et al. 1998). Physiographically, this area
consists of nearly level till plains and rolling morainic hills and is also known as the glaciated
Prairie Pothole Region (PPR). The PPR is a unique area of approximately 300,000 square miles
in the United States and Canada that stretches northwest from northern Iowa through southwest
Minnesota, eastern South Dakota, eastern and northern North Dakota, southwest Manitoba, and
south Saskatchewan to southeast and east central Alberta and bordering areas of northern
Montana (Kantrud et al. 1989).
The landscape of the PPR is largely the result of the scouring action of Pleistocene glaciation that
created and maintained numerous shallow depressions (which are classified into various wetland
classes). The numerous seasonal, semi-permanent and permanent wetlands (also known as
potholes or sloughs) capture snowmelt and rainwater or are within reach of shallow subsurface
waters (Samson et al. 1998). Historically, the PPR contained approximately 25 million wetlands,
or an average of about 83 per square mile (Kantrud et al. 1989). Today, the PPR is a major
producer of cereal grains and is the most important area in North America for the production of
waterfowl.
Characteristic vegetation communities in the region include seasonal, semi-permanent and
permanent wetlands, mixed-grass prairie including numerous range sites, wooded draws,
intermittent seasonal drainages, and agricultural/seasonal crop fields.
3.2 Geologic Setting
Sedimentary units on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Figure 3-1) include all rocks above
the Cretaceous-age Pierre Shale, a marine shale that is as much as 2,300 feet thick (Gates and
Macek-Rowland 1998). Correspondingly, in western North Dakota, the top of the Pierre Shale
may be considered the base of the fresh-water-bearing units. Rocks overlaying the Pierre Shale
include, in ascending order, the Cretaceous-age Fox Hills Sandstone and Hell Creek Formation,
August 2009
3-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
the Tertiary-age Fort Union Formation and Golden Valley Formation, and the Quaternary-age
deposits of glacial drift and alluvium (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). The Fox Hills Sandstone
and the Hell Creek Formation were deposited in a deltaic environment. The Fort Union
Formation includes the Ludlow, Tongue River, and Sentinel Butte Members, which are
continental units that were deposited in a generally westward-transgressing sea on an alluvial
plain, and the Cannonball Member, which is a marine equivalent and interfingers with the
Ludlow Member (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). The Golden Valley Formation was deposited
as fluvial point-bar sediments and flood-plain deposits (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
The Williston Basin, a structural feature centered west of the Reservation, affects the thickness of
the bedrock units of Cretaceous age and older. The Tertiary-age units on the Reservation are
relatively horizontal or have westward dips of less than 10 feet per mile, although some small
structures have dips that exceed 150 feet per mile (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Major
structural features on the Reservation include the Nesson Anticline and the Antelope Anticline.
Correlation of the linear features with subsurface data indicates that several faults occur on the
Reservation.
During the Pleistocene, glaciers advanced across central Canada and extended southward over
most of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Rivers that flowed from the Rocky Mountains
northeastward to Hudson Bay were diverted by the glaciers and forced to flow southward into the
Mississippi River Basin. Glacially derived material covers about 50 percent of the Reservation,
mostly north and east of Lake Sakakawea. Large rivers fed by melting glaciers generally
deposited Pleistocene-age sands and gravels on the Reservation. The East Fork of Shell Creek,
Shell Creek, White Shield, New Town, and Sanish buried valleys occur beneath a veneer of
glacial till. Pleistocene-age glacial sediments and Holocene-age fluvial sediments that were
deposited on the underlying, eroded Tongue River and Sentinel Butte Member sediments fill the
buried valleys. Most of the sand and gravel deposits within the buried valleys are horizontally
layered lenses that generally have limited lateral extent.
3.2.1 Geology at Project Site
In February 2005, GeoTrans completed five shallow (35-40 feet in depth) and five deep
monitoring wells (110 to 125 feet deep) within the proposed refinery site (Figure 3-2). Based on
the geologic logs from the five deep wells, the till deposits across the proposed refinery site range
from 105 to more than 125 feet in thickness. Till is a glacial deposit which is characterized as
non-layered and unsorted (i.e., mixture of particle sizes from clays to boulders). Based on the five
deep wells, the thickest till occurs along the eastern boundary of the site. The geologic logs from
the five deep wells indicate that the till is comprised primarily of clay from the surface to depths
of 70 to 110 feet. In all five deep wells the logs describe silty sand to poorly graded sand layer
that occurs beneath the clay. The sandy zones are about five to ten feet thick.
The Fort Union Formation under lays the glacial till layer at a depth of 105 to more than 125 feet
below the ground surface. The Fort Union Formation is largely composed of layers of clay, silt,
clayey sand, and silty sand. In four of the five deep wells, the first lignite deposit in the Fort
Union Formation was encountered between 105 to 110 feet below the surface.
August 2009 3-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
L E GEND
E#i%j Project Sits
Rood
Ft Bcrttwld
FannaUcri -
'urltice rf glacial secinwni
r t-om>i!icin - Sit and CJay F
I -ikr: In rflKhr.rn- 1r< ncnrahare
Coiahart)or FonraDo«i - &STK) am)
tJoundMY
-firr-ili-m - Clny Fairloa
nagh uxtimerit
^
-------
-------
r
now
l!
9
u, >
li
1
H
*
,
& .
1 I II
^.A - ;
^k ID
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.2.2 Stratigraphy
The project site lies within the Williston Basin, one of the largest structural troughs in North
America. The term "Williston Basin" is arbitrarily applied to the Phanerozoic succession in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Dakotas, and eastern Montana. However, in a structural context it
denotes the ellipsoidal depression centered in North Dakota, more or less below the -1,500 meter
(m) contour on the Precambrian basement (Kent and Christopher 1996).
Glaciers deposited most of the rock and sediment exposed at the surface during the Pleistocene.
Marine and non-marine sedimentary rocks underlie the glacial deposits. Crystalline rocks of
Precambrian age underlie the sedimentary rocks. The rocks deposited in the Williston Basin
during the Paleozoic Era and during Triassic and Jurassic time, generally consist of evaporates
and carbonates interbedded with some clastic rocks (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Deposition of clastic rocks predominated from the latter part of the Paleozoic. Throughout the
Paleozoic, the Williston Basin was at times a cratonic basin or a shelf area that bordered a
miogeosyncline farther west. At other times, the area was flooded by seas that followed a trough
extending eastward from the miogeosyncline across the area of the central Montana uplift and the
central Williston Basin. At times, the entire Williston Basin area was above sea level and
subjected to subaerial erosion for relatively short intervals of time. Figure 3-3 presents a
generalized stratigraphic column of near-surface rocks of the Fort Berthold Reservation.
3.2.3 Hydrogeology
The Reservation east and north of the Missouri River is underlain by significant glacial deposits
comprised primarily of till with lesser amounts of sand and gravel deposits (buried valley
deposits). These deposits are collectively referred to as the Coleharbor Group. In places the
glacial deposits exceed 400 feet in thickness, but are generally less than 150 feet thick.
Five significant buried valley deposits have been mapped by Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998).
These include: (1) East Fork Shell Creek, (2) Shell Creek, (3) White Shield, (4) Sanish, and (5)
New Town. The buried valley deposits are composed of Pleistocene-age sands and gravels
deposited by large, glacial-fed rivers. The deposits occur in eroded valleys eroded into the
underlying Tongue River and Sentinel Butte members of the Fort Union Formation. The five
major buried valley deposits within the Reservation are linear, range in width from less than a
mile to 10 miles, and underlie from 8.5 to 48 square miles (Table 3-1).
Table 3-1 Major Buried Valley Aquifers Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
Areal Extent Width Depth
Buried Valley Aquifer (miles2) (miles) (feet)
East Fork Shell Creek
(Parshall)
Shell Creek
White Shield
New Town
Sanish
12
10
48
18
8.5
1 Down to 100
0.75 to 2 Down to 100
2 to 10 Down to 350
1.7 to 4.7 Up to 300
1 Up to 300
Estimated Volume of
Thickness Ground Water Storage
(feet) (acre-feet)
Approx. 20
Up to 100
(generally less)
18 to 226
(average = 100)
10 to 100
25 to 270
48,000
38,000
920,000
170,000
240,000
Source: Wireman 2005
August 2009
3-7
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
System
Quaternary
Tertiary
Series
Holocene
Pleistocene
Eocene
Paleocene
Cretaceous
Geologic Unit
Oahe Formation
Coleharbor Group
Golden Valley
Formation
Fort
Union
Formation
Sentinel
Butte
Member
Tongue
River
Member
Cannonball
Member
Ludlow
Member
Hell Creek Formation
Fox Hills Sandstone
Pierre Shale
Lithology
Silt, sand,
and gravel.
Till, silt,
sand, and
gravel.
Sandstone,
silt, clay,
clay stone,
lignite, and
carbonaceous
shale.
Clay,
clay stone,
shale,
sandstone,
siltstone, and
lignite.
Marine
sandstone,
clay, shale,
and siltstone.
Marine
sandstone,
clay, shale,
and lignite.
Continental
siltstone,
sandstone,
shale, clay,
and lignite.
Siltstone,
sandstone,
shale,
clay stone,
and lignite.
Sandstone,
shale, and
siltstone.
Shale.
Maximum
Thickness
(feet)
60
450
120
425
640
550
350
375
2,300
Aquifers
Contained
within
Geologic
Unit
Buried-
valley
Golden
Valley
Sentinel
Butte
Tongue
River
Fox Hills -
Hell Creek
Figure 3-3 Generalized Geologic Column on Near-surface Rocks of the Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation
August 2009
3-8
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
The Fort Union Formation underlies the glacial deposit. Within the Reservation, the Fort Union
Formation is represented primarily by the Tongue River and Sentinel Butte members. Both of
these members are composed primarily of inter-bedded claystones, siltstones, shale, and lignite.
The Tongue River Member underlies the entire Reservation and crops out southwest of New
Town. The Sentinel Butte Member overlies the Tongue River Member and is the subcrop except
in the valleys of Shell Creek and Deepwater Creek. The Fort Union Formation generally exceeds
1,000 feet in thickness, and the top of the formation is typically identified by the first significant
lignite deposit encountered. The lignite deposits, where thick enough, function as aquifers and
can yield water to domestic wells.
The Fox Hills Formation underlies the Fort Union Formation beneath the entire Reservation. The
Fox Hills Formation is composed primarily of sandstone with lesser amounts of shale and
siltstone. The Formation ranges from 100 to 350 feet thick. Within the Reservation, depths to the
top of the Fox Hills range from about 1,100 to 2,000 feet.
3.2.4 Geologic Hazards
Potential geologic hazards include landslides, subsidence, and seismic activity related to known
or suspected active faults. No known active faults with evidence of Quaternary movement are
present in the project area (U.S. Geological Survey 2004f). No earthquakes of significant
intensity have occurred in North Dakota during historical times (U.S. Geological Survey 2003).
Seismic hazard is commonly expressed in Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of percent gravity
with 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The project area falls at 0 percent gravity,
which indicates virtually zero potential for damages to structures from an earthquake activity
(U.S. Geological Survey 2002).
Landslide potential in the project area is moderate (Federal Emergency Management Agency
2004). In general, landslide potential is greatest in areas where steep slopes occur, particularly
where rock layers dip parallel to the slope, or where erosional undercutting may occur. Slope
gradients in the project area are gentle; however, the few steeper areas may be susceptible to
slumping, sliding, and creeping.
3.3 Ground Water Resources
EPA does not have the statutory authority to regulate ground water quality. To date, the MHA
Nation has not promulgated Tribal standards for ground water, and does not have a ground water
classification system or a ground water discharge permit system. Since the DEIS was published,
the MHA Nation has started developing ground water quality standards.
The project site is within the glaciated Missouri Plateau section of the Great Plains physiographic
province. The Missouri Plateau is subdivided into two districts: the Coteau du Missouri and the
Coteau Slope, of which, the project site is located within the Coteau Slope district. The Coteau
Slope is an area of older ground moraine that is characterized by gently rolling topography
dissected by stream valleys.
Several surficial-outwash and buried-valley fill aquifers store large quantities of ground water
within the Coteau du Missouri and Coteau slope region (Harkness and Wald 2003). Ground water
in the region is contained in aquifers in the glacial drift of Quaternary age, the Fort Union
Formation (Sentinel Butte and Tongue River), Hell Creek Formation, and the Dakota Group of
Cretaceous Age. These glacial deposits range from 0 to 800 feet in thickness and average about
August 2009 3-9 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
165 feet thick (Clayton 1972). The following sections describe these bedrock and buried valley
aquifers.
Within the Reservation, ground water occurs in the till deposits, the buried valley deposits, the
Fort Union Formation and the Fox Hills Formation. All of these geologic units will yield enough
ground water to a well to be considered an aquifer. The Fort Union aquifers (Tongue River and
Sentinel Butte Members) and the till typically yield only enough water for domestic uses. The
buried-valley deposits and the Fox Hills Formation are capable of yielding enough water for
public water supply, irrigation, and industrial use. However, the chemistry of the ground water in
all of these aquifers constrains the use to some extent.
As indicated on Table 3-1, the estimated volume of ground water stored in the five major buried-
valley aquifers within the Reservation is approximately 1,414,000 acre-feet. Well yields from
these aquifers are quite variable and depend on saturated thickness. These aquifers are capable of
yielding more than 300 gpm where there is sufficient saturated thickness. However, yields of less
than 100 gpm are far more common. The East Fork Shell Creek aquifer has been used by the
Town of Parshall to obtain municipal supplies.
The MHA Nation's Environmental Protection Office estimates that more than 700 wells have
been installed on the Reservation. Of these, about 300 are less than 100 feet deep and currently in
use.
Depth to water in the till that underlies the project site ranges from 10 to!5 feet (GeoTrans, Inc.
2005). The ground water in the till appears to flow towards the southwest. GeoTrans (2005)
determined that the horizontal gradient for the May 2005 water levels is about 0.01 feet/foot.
Based on this gradient and hydraulic conductivity values derived from slug tests, GeoTrans
(2005) also estimated horizontal ground water flow velocity in the till to be between 0.4 to 2.4
feet/year.
At least four of the five deep wells encountered the top of the Sentinel Butte Member of the Fort
Union Formation. The geologic log for deep well P-5 does not indicate that the Sentinel Butte
member was encountered. GeoTrans used water levels in these wells to construct a potentiometric
surface map for ground water in the Fort Union Formation beneath the project site. Based on this
map, GeoTrans (2005) determined the direction of ground water flow in the upper part of the Fort
Union is towards the southeast. The calculated horizontal gradient on the potentiometric surface
is 0.0009 feet/foot (GeoTrans, Inc. 2005). Based on this gradient and the hydraulic conductivity
value obtained from a pump test using deep well P-3, GeoTrans calculated a horizontal ground
water flow velocity of 100 feet/year. This well is screened from 95 to 105 feet and is probably
screened in the till. The log for well P-3 indicates that a poorly graded sand occurs from 95 to 103
feet and the first lignite is encountered is at 110 feet. The depth of the first lignite encountered is
typically used to mark the top of the Sentinel Butte member of the Ft. Union formation. In the
other four deep wells, horizontal ground water flow ranged from 0.03 to 0.5 feet/year. Wells P-l,
P-2 and P-4 are screened below the first lignite and no lignite was encountered in well P-5.
Ground-water flow velocities estimated from slug tests conducted on the shallow till wells MW-
1, MW-2, MW-3 and MW-4 ranged from 0.37 to 2.36 ft/year. Geotrans (2006) concludes that,
outside of the sand lens, the surrounding lower permeability of the silts and clays will determine
the overall ground water flow velocity in the upper Fort Union formation of around 0.2 feet per
year (GeoTrans, Inc. 2006).
It is important to note that the potentiometric surface map included in Gates and Macek-Rowland
(1998) indicates a northeast-to-southwest flow direction for the Tongue River east of the Missouri
August 2009 3-10 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
River. The Tongue River formation is the next deepest layer of the Fort Union formation or
group. As discussed above the upper layer of the Fort Union formation (Sentinel Butte formation)
flows towards the southeast, a 90° difference in flow direction.
3.3.1 Hydraulic Conductivity
Slug tests and baildown tests from wells on the project site showed that the hydraulic
conductivity values in the water table wells ranged from 5x10-5 cm/sec to 3x10-6 cm/sec
(GeoTrans, Inc. 2005). The values represent clay till in which all the water table wells are
screened. The hydraulic conductivity values ranged from 2x10-2 cm/sec to 1x10-5 cm/sec. The
higher hydraulic conductivity was from a well that was screened in a sand layer. Conversely, the
other wells were screened in much finer grained material within the Fort Union Formation,
resulting in lower hydraulic conductivities.
The average linear ground water flow velocity was calculated for each of the wells using the
horizontal gradient and the average hydraulic conductivity for each well. The calculated ground
water velocity ranges from 0.4 to 2.4 feet per year for the clay till. The calculated ground water
velocity in the Fort Union Formation ranges from 0.2 to 100 feet per year, with the upper end of
that range due to the sand lens. However, because of the limited lateral extent of the sand lens, the
surrounding low permeability of the silts and clays will determine the overall ground water flow
velocity in this formation. Based on water level elevations in the ten monitoring wells on the
project site, a strong downward vertical gradient exists between the till and the Fort Union
Formation. Thus to the extent that vertical ground water flow occurs through the till, the direction
of the flow will be downward.
3.3.2 Bedrock Aquifers
Bedrock aquifers include Fox Hills-Hell Creek, Tongue River, and Sentinel Butte. These three
aquifers are estimated to store 93 million acre-feet under the Reservation boundary (Gates and
Macek-Rowland 1998).
The hydraulic characteristics of the ground water aquifers have been investigated by pumping
tests and slug tests in monitoring wells previously installed throughout the Reservation. Data
from these pumping and slug tests provide estimates of hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity,
and storativity.
Hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity are measures of the permeability of an aquifer.
Storativity is the volume of water an aquifer releases from or takes into storage per unit surface
area of the aquifer per unit change in head.
Fox Hills-Hell Creek
The Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer underlies the entire Reservation and ranges from 100 to 350
feet in thickness under the Reservation. The Fox Hills Sandstone consists mainly of brown shale
and massive, fossiliferous, and white marine sandstone (Armstrong 1971, Gates and Macek-
Rowland 1998). Conversely, the Hell Creek Formation primarily consists of light-gray sands and
clay of both fluvial and marine sediment origin (Armstrong 1971, Gates and Macek-Rowland
1998). Sandstone beds in the upper Fox Hills Sandstone and the lower Hell Creek Formation are
apparently connected hydrologically (Armstrong 1971). Therefore, the water-producing interval
within the two formations is considered a single aquifer.
This aquifer is composed mainly of very fine- to medium-grained sandstone interbedded with
siltstone and shale (Armstrong 1971). The elevation of the base of the aquifer ranges from about
August 2009 3-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
295 to 877 feet AMSL (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Transmissivity of the aquifer ranges
from about 180 to 260 feet squared per day (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Based on an areal
extent of 1,583 square miles, an average cumulative thickness of 200 feet, and an assumed
porosity of 25 percent, the volume of water stored in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer is about 51
million acre-feet (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). The potentiometric surface of the Fox Hills-
Hell Creek aquifer suggests general flow is from northwest to southeast (Gates and Macek-
Rowland 1998).
Production from wells completed in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek varies with location. Wells within
Mountrail County could yield production as low as 3 gpm (Armstrong 1971). In contrast, yields
of 200 to 400 gpm have been reported in Dunn County (Klausing 1979 as cited in Gates and
Macek-Rowland 1998).
Direct recharge of the aquifer occurs outside of the Reservation where the aquifer crops out in the
extreme southwestern corner of North Dakota and in eastern Montana (Gates and Macek-
Rowland 1998). Within the Reservation, recharge results from downward movement of ground
water from overlying aquifers. Discharge occurs by lateral movement of water to adjacent areas,
upward leakage to overlying aquifers, flowing wells, and well pumpage (Gates and Macek-
Rowland 1998).
The Fox Hills and Hell Creek aquifers are being considered as water sources for the proposed
project. According to Schmid (2004), very few deep wells have been drilled in this region of the
Reservation. This is due in part to two primary reasons: the topographical relief of lands on the
north side of Lake Sakakawea is not suited for irrigated agricultural crops and the small, rural
populations that occur in this area of the Reservation make use of the abundant, shallow surficial
glacial aquifers as local water supply sources. Therefore, the demand for irrigation water and
local water supply is relatively low in this portion of the Reservation.
A search was conducted on the North Dakota State Water Commission (NDSWC) website
database to determine if any wells have been completed in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer near
the project area. The search revealed that only one well (152-093-26BCC see Table 3-2) was
completed in the Fox Hills or Hell Creek aquifers within Mountrail County and no wells were
identified in Ward County. According to Wanek (2004), NDSWC has not updated its database for
wells in either Mountrail or Ward County. Therefore, an additional search of the Wald and Gates
(1995) report and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) website database (U.S. Geological Survey
2004e) was conducted. The results of both searches suggest that 40 wells have been drilled into
the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer within Reservation lands (Table 3-2). Figure 3-4 shows their
approximate location and proximity to the project site. A review of Figure 3-4 shows that well
153-088-33 is the closest proximity deep-water well (7.7 miles).
Tongue River
The Tongue River aquifer underlies the entire Reservation and crops out southwest of the New
Town. The aquifer is composed mainly of claystones and siltstones and has widely distributed
pockets of sandstone or lignite layers. Although claystone and siltstone are the dominant
sediments in the Tongue River Member, lignite beds (which are a major source of ground water
on the Reservation) are common and may be as thick as 15 feet (Gates and Macek-Rowland
1998). Hydraulic conductivity in the Tongue River aquifer underlying Dunn County ranges from
0.01 to 0.95 foot per day (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Based on an areal extent of 1,583
square miles, an average cumulative thickness of 80 feet, and an assumed porosity of 30 percent,
the volume of water stored in the Tongue River aquifer is about 24 million acre-feet of water
(Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
August 2009 3-12 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Yields from water wells in the aquifer vary and depend on the zones in which the wells are
completed. Yields range from 10 to 200 gpm (Klausing 1979 and Croft 1985 as cited in Gates and
Macek-Rowland 1998). The potentiometric surface of the Tongue River aquifer suggests general
flow is toward the Missouri River or Lake Sakakawea (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Table 3-2 Record of Wells and Test Holes Completed within Fox Hills and Hell Creek
Aquifer on Reservation Lands
ro#
153-094-32CDBD
153-094-23CCC1
153-088-35
151-096-36AAA2
151-095-30ACA3
151-095-30ABD2
151-095-04DBD2
151-091-11BBC
151-090-29BBC
150-095-08BDBD
150-095-05BBA22
149-095-09CDD
1 49-094- 14BA
149-089-14CBB
148-095-22CCA
148-089-33CCA2
148-087-33BBB
148-087-15DCD3
147-095-26BBB1
147-095-24AAC
147-095-14AAA
147-095-13CCC3
147-095-13CCC2
147-095-13CCC12
147-095-12CAD
147-094-36BAD2
147-094-35CBB3
147-094-35CAA2
147-094-34BAD
147-094-33DB2
147-094-26BCB
147-093-35CBC33
147-093-34DBB
147-093-33DAC
147-091-35BDA3
146-094-08DAD2
146-094-05DCC
146-094-05CBD
146-094-04BBC2
146-093-03CDD
146-092-15BBB
USGS ID
480132102475301
480311102442501
-
475141102535701
475220102530001
475226102530001
475529102502702
475504102175601
475227102140801
474942102520901
475049102522102
474400102504501
474349102403601
474326102022501
473711102463101
473526102015201
473607101464201
473800101443701
473152102452301
473237102430801
473334102441501
473246102440403
473250102440602
473250102440601
473354102433701
473053102360001
473034102452301
473032102371501
473054102383001
473031102393201
473139102374201
473027102300303
473028102304601
473024102314001
473045102141701
472840102402702
472917102390001
472932102412401
472958102401801
472919102305301
472820102234101
Depth
drilled (feet)
1,590
1,860
1,560
1,300
1,500
1,470
1,620
1,340
1,620
1,580
1,460
1,740
1,750
1,370
1,455
1,390
1,320
1,160
-
-
1,430
2,130
1,950
160
1,420
1,460
1,560
1,610
1,510
-
1,510
1,420
1,300
1,400
1,550
1,730
-
1,410
-
1,525
1,760
Depth of
well (feet)
1,524
1,767
1,523
-
1,460
1,400
1,432
1,340
1,620
1,560
-
1,564
1,745
1,370
1,430
1,390
1,320
1,160
1,850
1,580
1,430
1,980
1,930
-
1,410
1,450
1,560
1,610
1,502
1,660
1,500
1,320
1,300
1,390
1,550
1,730
1,500
1,410
1,600
1,525
1,610
Year of
Construction.
09-29-89
08-21-80
05-28-1997
12-08-81
06-15-83
-
06-30-81
04-15-85
10-19-82
07-15-83
-
7-17-84
07-21-70
05-02-85
-
10-22-86
08-21-86
09-09-82
1969
1969
1968
05-22-79
1971
-
1969
05-27-89
06-08-89
10-09-74
1968
1969
1969
10-14-89
06-20-89
05-19-89
09-00-70
10-23-74
1972
1968
1969
07-15-72
11-22-88
Aquifer code1
211FXHL
211HCFH
211HCFH
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211HCFH
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
211FXHL
Elevation of
Land Surface
2,266
2,186
-
2,490
2,316
2,320
2,309
1,880
2,150
2,319
2,380
2,226
2,160
1,920
1,925
1,940
2,005
1,910
2,280
2,000
1,980
2,420
2,420
2,420
1,880
2,000
2,150
2,270
1,980
2,210
1,940
1,860
1,860
2,220
2,190
1,965
1,960
1,910
1,980
2,160
1,930
August 2009
3-13
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Notes:
1. Aquifer codes: 211FXHL Fox Hills; 211HCFH Hell Creek Formation
2. No data available
3. Only water quality or water level data available, but not both datasets.
Sources: Wald and Gates 1995, U.S. Geological Survey 2004e, North Dakota State Water Commission 2004
Based on the hydraulic heads of both the overlying Sentinel Butte aquifer and the underlying Fox
Hills-Hell Creek aquifer, recharge occurs from leakage and recharge (Gates and Macek-Rowland
1998). Discharge from the Tongue River aquifer is by lateral movement of water to adjacent
areas, base flow into streams, and well discharge (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Sentinel Butte
The Sentinel Butte aquifer underlies most of the Reservation. The aquifer is composed mainly of
interbedded claystones, siltstones, shale, fractured lignite, and poorly consolidated sandstone
(Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). The sandstone beds (which occur at depths ranging from 10 to
400 feet) are composed mainly of fine sand interbedded in a matrix of clay and silt and range in
thickness from a few feet to about 120 feet. The lignite beds are limited in lateral extent and yield
only local water supplies (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Transmissivity within a well
completed in sandstone in the Sentinel Butte aquifer near Plaza is about 400 square feet per day
(Armstrong 1971). Based on an areal extent of 914 square miles, an average cumulative thickness
of 100 feet, and an assumed porosity of 30 percent, the volume of water stored in the aquifer is
about 18 million acre-feet of water (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Yields from water wells in the aquifer vary and depend on the zones in which the wells are
completed. Yields from wells completed in sandstones range from 1 to 100 gpm. In contrast,
yields from wells completed in lignite beds are generally about 1 gpm (Armstrong 1971).
Recharge occurs primarily by infiltration of precipitation. Conversely, discharge is by lateral
movement of water to adjacent areas, downward seepage into the Tongue River aquifer, seepage
into streams and springs, and wells (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
3.3.3 Buried-Valley Aquifers
The East Fork Shell Creek, Shell Creek, White Shield, New Town, and Sanish aquifers occur
within buried valleys and store about 1,414,000 acre-feet of water within the Reservation (Gates
and Macek-Rowland 1998). Five buried-valley aquifers occur in the general vicinity of the
project site. They are the East Fork Shell Creek, Shell Creek, Ryder Ridge, Hiddenwood Lake,
and Vang aquifers (Figure 3-5).
Yields from the above-mentioned aquifers are highly variable and water from these sources is
typically very hard. The East Fork of Shell Creek aquifer was previously used by Parshall as their
local water supply and yields from this aquifer may be as high 150 gpm, but typically will be less
than 50 gpm (Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc. 2002). The area also has two deep aquifers, the
Dakota aquifer and the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer. Both are very deep aquifers, as the Dakota
aquifer ranges from 3,505 feet to 5,210 feet and Fox Hills at 2,100 feet below the land surface
(Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc. 2002). Yield from the Dakota is as high as 320 gpm and yield
from the Fox Hills/Hell Creek is as much as 60 gpm (Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc. 2002).
A file search of well logs records near the project area was conducted in the NDSWC's offices.
Based on a search of approximately 60 to 70 well logs, seven wells were identified that may have
relevant baseline data useful for comparison analyses (Table 3-3).
August 2009 3-14 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
LEGEND
Ralraad
Slate ttgnwfty
County Boundary
MHA NATION
ANDREFINERYEIS
FIGUWE3-*
*V?fHW W£ FQXHNJ.S
HELL CRGE?. AQUIFERS
A Well LauflOtl
UHA Nation
Site
-------
-------
<>
*^ '' '
i, ** -'
^ I 5* .v*
Legend
-H-- Bo ind :
^^"» Slate Highway
Area of Detail
Aquifer Yteld in
1 CO ID £03
is ID 1Q
Surface 0 La 25
jft
** *--*.*?-
4
: Amislroojl 1971; Pellyjnt-in and H Jlchin&ciri 1971
MHA NATION FtE-TO-TRUST
AND REFIMERTEIS
NSUftfi 3-5
MPJNTWUt AMP WfttD COLMTEt, HDMW,
IH* «M30a
I FU I HfW rp
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-3 Summary of Wells Data Relevant to the Project Site
Well ID
152-87-10
152-87-26
152-87-27
152-87-31
152-88-04
153-88-23
153-88-35
Date Drilled
01-1990
05-1988
10-1981
08-2001
04-1981
06-1982
05-1997
Well
Depth
(feet)
240
296
158
189
88
160
1,543
Static Water
Level
(feet)
35
30
27
-
25
31
155
Pumped Gallons
per Minute
33
5
30
6
37
80
32
Pumped Water
Level
(feet)
55
65
70
80
55
100
1,200
Source: Schmid 2004
Well numbers 152-87-10, 152-87-26, 152-87-27, 152-87-31, 152-88-04, and 152-88-23 have
been completed in various sand lenses in the underlying glacial aquifers (Schmid 2004). These
sand lenses vary in depth, recharge, and volume of water. Therefore, the exploration of these sand
layers should be analyzed as sources of reliable water supply at the project site. Schmid (2004)
estimated that three to four wells completed within these sand lenses should be able to produce
40+ gpm. Because the boundaries of the underlying aquifers and subsequent sand lenses are not
extensively mapped, a modeling drawdown analysis was not conducted. However, a review of
static water levels and associated draw down levels for the wells in Table 3-3 show that these
shallow wells are capable of producing water quantities that may be required throughout the year.
Shell Creek
The Shell Creek aquifer lies within abroad, deep buried valley northwest of Parshall (Figure 3-5).
The Shell Creek aquifer is composed of sand and gravel lenses that are surrounded by less
permeable till. Flow in the aquifer is down gradient towards the Missouri River, which generally
corresponds to the topography of the drainage basin. The aquifer has an areal extent of about 10
square miles and ranges from % to 2 miles in width (Armstrong 1971, Gates and Macek-Rowland
1998). Available data suggest that the aquifer's thickness is as much as 100 feet (Armstrong
1971). Assuming an areal extent of 10 square miles, an average cumulative thickness of 20 feet,
and a porosity of 30 percent, the volume of water stored in the aquifer is about 38,000 acre-feet
(Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Although very few wells have been drilled in the aquifer, transmissivity at well 155-89-25ACB1
was evaluated using the Theis method. This testing suggests a transmissivity of about 90,000
gallons per day (gpd) per foot at the test well and about 138,000 gpd at a nearby observation well
(Armstrong 1971). The storage coefficient was calculated at 0.0004. Based on these results,
Armstrong (1971) concluded that pumping rates as high as 300 gpm probably could be
maintained over an irrigation season.
Recharge to the aquifer is from direct precipitation, underflow through adjoining outwashes, and
inflow from the adjacent Fort Union sediments (Armstrong 1971). Flow of ground water
generally follows the topography of the drainage basin.
August 2009
3-19
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
East Fork Shell Creek
The East Fork Shell Creek aquifer consists of glaciofluvial sediments deposited in buried valleys.
The East Fork Shell Creek aquifer underlies East Fork of Shell Creek and has an areal extent of
about 12 square miles and width of about one mile (Armstrong 1971). The aquifer is composed of
sand and gravel lenses that vary in thickness, have unknown lateral extent, and are surrounded by
less permeable till (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). The sand and gravel lenses occur at various
depths down to 100 feet. The aquifer is underlain directly by the Tongue River Member, which
was eroded into a rugged topography before or during glaciation.
According to Armstrong (1971), the specific capacity of well 152-090-25DBC2 in the East Fork
Shell Creek aquifer is 11 gpm per drawdown, indicating a transmissivity of about 2,950 square
feet per day. Additionally, Schmid (1962) determined a similar transmissivity of 3,350 square feet
per day and a storage coefficient of 0.0043 at well 152-090-25DBC1. Based on an areal extent of
12 square miles, an average cumulative thickness of 20 feet, and an assumed porosity of 30
percent, the volume of water stored in the East Fork Shell Creek aquifer is about 46,000 acre-feet
(Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
Recharge is primarily from direct precipitation, seepage from stream flow in times of maximum
runoff in the East Fork of Shell Creek, and from inflow from the Sentinel Butte Formation
(Armstrong 1971). Flow of ground water generally follows the topography of the drainage basin.
Ryder Ridge
The Ryder Ridge aquifer extends from just west of Ryder, northwestward across T152N, R87W,
and into Mountrail County approximately 9 miles (Figure 3-5). West of Makoti, the aquifer
apparently overlies the Hiddenwood Lake aquifer. The Ryder Ridge aquifer has a core of water-
bearing sand and gravel that reaches a total thickness of 55 feet, and material ranges in size from
fine sand to fine gravel (Pettyjohn and Hutchinson 1971).
The USGS monitored ground water levels in the aquifer at test well 151-086-05CBB (USGS
475540101431201) for a 1-year period of record (1966). The ground water level in the aquifer
was observed at 27 feet below ground surface (U.S. Geological Survey 2004b). No wells were
known to produce water from the Ryder Ridge aquifer (Pettyjohn and Hutchinson 1971).
Hiddenwood Lake
The Hiddenwood Lake aquifer is a valley-fill deposit that was cut into the bedrock at least 130
feet below the upland surface (Pettyjohn 1968). It extends from McLean County northward
through Hiddenwood Lake to Makoti in southwestern Ward County (Figure 3-5). The aquifer
material consists of fine to coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, which ranges between 9 to 45
feet in thickness, including a few thin layers of clay (Pettyjohn and Hutchinson 1971). This is
overlain by at least 66 feet of glacial drift, predominantly lake deposits, in its southern end, and
generally by more than 100 feet of glacial till in its northern end (Pettyjohn 1968).
The USGS monitored ground water levels in the aquifer at test well 152-087-28DAA (USGS
475729101483401) for a 30-year period of record (1965 to 1995). As shown on Figure 3-6,
ground water levels in the aquifer have ranged from a low of 29 feet below ground surface to a
high of 22 feet below ground surface (U.S. Geological Survey 2004a).
August 2009 3-20 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Vang
The Vang aquifer extends southwestward from the west-central part of T153N, R85W through
T153N, R86W and T152N, R87W, and into Mountrail County approximately 14 miles (Figure 3-
5). The City of Makoti obtains its local water supply from two wells completed in this aquifer.
The aquifer is a collapsed-outwash deposit that partly fills a glacial drainage way that averages
about 1,000 feet in width to slightly more than 2 miles in length (Pettyjohn and Hutchinson
1971). The aquifer material ranges in size from fine sand to coarse gravel and ranges in thickness
from 0 to 28 feet. The estimated average permeability of the entire deposit is approximately 1,500
gpd (Pettyjohn and Hutchinson 1971). In addition, the aquifer provides water to a few domestic
and stock wells, and in several small areas, wells could produce an estimate of 150 gpm
(Pettyjohn and Hutchinson 1971).
The USGS monitored ground water levels in the aquifer at test well 152-087-16AAA for a 28-
year period of record (1966 to 1994). As observed in Figure 3-7, ground water levels in the
aquifer have ranged from a low of 10.5 feet below ground surface to a high of 5.5 feet below
ground surface (U.S. Geological Survey 2004c).
3.3.4 Ground Water Quality
The USGS conducted a study of water resources of the Reservation during May 1990 through
November 1992 (Wald and Gates 1995). Water quality data were collected from 293 water
samples from wells and springs, and additional trace element data were collected from 225 wells.
In addition, Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) prepared a water resources report of the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation. The 1998 report detailed distribution, quantity, and quality of water
on the Reservation. Finally, GeoTrans and EPA completed water quality sampling events in 2005.
3.3.4.1 Bedrock Aquifers
Fox Hills Formation
Because the Fox Hills Formation is quite deep in this part of North Dakota, ground water that
occurs in the aquifer has had a long residence time. This results in relatively high concentrations
of Total Dissolved Solid (TDS). TDS concentrations typically exceed 1,500 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). With respect to the common cations in ground water, dissolved sodium concentrations
commonly exceed 500 mg/L, and dissolved boron concentrations commonly exceed 1,000 (ig/L.
With respect to common anions, bicarbonate and alkalinity concentrations typically exceed 1,200
mg/L (as CaCO3), chloride concentrations commonly exceed 100 mg/L, and locally sulfate
concentrations exceed 500 mg/L. Ground water in the Fox Hills is a sodium-bicarbonate type of
water.
August 2009 3-21 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
21.0
o
o
<2 22.0
3
3 23.0
o
33
-° 24.0
09
<2 25.0
c
H
. 26.0
o
2 27.0
L
t)
^ 28.0
HE
| 29.0
o
L
13 30.0
19
USGS 475729101483401 152-087-28Dflfl
.\?
;' "t 4/ "V 4-
4'- * ' * -.KVS& ' " ,'
v" <^ * £'"?"""" &, ' ,'
'$ ^ ;
»' ':&> I
* J \* >
^ ' ' '*^»s:j'
&': .""',«: ^'
4^,'
i
B5 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20
DflTES; 06/17/1965 to 01/08/2004 23; 59
^
D
2008.0 |
o
55
2007.0 |
IB
200G.O J
o
2005.0 c
ft,
2004.0 IB
o
2003.0 L.
o
IB
2002.0 3
t^
o
2001.0 ^
jj
H
05 * SB
Figure 3-6 Ground Water Levels Hiddenwood Lake Aquifer
5.0
0)
o
(B
t»
^
W *
3
O
S 7.0
j
0)
*^
S 8.0
H
D
j 9.0
L
OJ
jj
IB
? 10.0
"O
c
o
L
"= 11.0
USGS 475934101483101 152-087-16flflfl
<:«> ', *
tv. _
If '': *
f, ' ' ii "
-;; * ~ ".-.' "I ;'.
4\ *;T. /si ;i> ; !'* 'f 's*
1 ;': W?i; V> ^ i :^. -
';& c; " ;' * '"*'" i AT t 5^'Xl ; ',>
i, 'i "! ^ A ij t ', A .' " *' ^ sv
"'^» '; '"" '' """ ,\
'"' "*' V' ^' ' *'*'* '
-»> ''" "' "M,.
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
The available water chemistry data for the Fox Hills formation in west-central North Dakota do
not indicate any common exceedances of primary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). Because
of the high sodium concentrations, ground water in the Fox Hills Formation typically has a very
high sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) with values typically exceeding 80. The combination of high
salinity (measured as TDS) and high SAR indicates that ground water from the Fox Hills
Formation is unsuitable for irrigation.
Because of the significant depth to the top of the aquifer, not many wells are constructed in this
aquifer within the Reservation. However, the City of Plaza recently finished a deep well within
the aquifer to use as a public water source. According to Rogers (2004), Plaza historically relied
on shallow wells for its local water supply. In the early 1990s, one of the wells was abandoned
and the remaining two active wells produced water with copper and lead levels above NDDH
standards (Rogers 2004). Because of reliable water quality concerns, Plaza constructed a deep
water well in 1997 to alleviate this problem. Well 153-088-35 (Well #4 for example) was
completed to a depth of 1,560 feet in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer. The well produces
approximately 40 gpm and is the primary water supply for Plaza's 170 residents (Rogers 2004).
Plaza does rely on the two shallow wells during peak use periods when make-up water is needed.
Annual water usage by the town averages about 7 million gallons annually.
According to the Well Driller's Report, Well 153-088-35 was completed in a vacant lot within
the city limit boundary (Greystone 2004). The well is a 6-inch-diameter casing extending from 2+
feet to 1,398 feet, and 3-inch-diameter casing from 1,366 to 1,523 feet. At the time of well
completion, the static water level was 155 feet below the surface. Data from a well pump test
show that pumping water at 32 gpm for 3 hours reduced the water level to 1,200 feet below land
surface (Greystone 2004).
The NDDH, Division of Water Quality completed a wellhead protection area delineation for the
Plaza well field in 2000 (Greystone 2004). In general, the wellhead protection area encompasses
212 acres. The local land use is a mixture of local residences and commercial business within the
city limits. Agricultural crops surround the city on all sides. Plaza is also included within an
active oil field.
The NDSWC's website database was queried for data on the quality of water in well 153-088-
35; however, no data were available for this well. Plaza does conduct annual water tests to
comply with the SDWA.
Fort Union Formation
The chemistry of the ground water in the two members of the Fort Union Formation is similar.
Ground water in both members varies from a sodium-bicarbonate to a mixed
calcium/magnesium/sodium-sulfate type. This reflects the dissolution of cations from the rocks
that comprise the Fort Union. TDS concentrations presented in Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998)
range from 133 to 4,230 mg/L (135 wells) and commonly exceed the secondary MCL of 500
mg/L. Ground water from many wells in the Fort Union exceeds the secondary MCL for iron,
manganese, and sulfate. The SAR for ground water in the Tongue River member is high. In
combination with high salinity values, this indicates that the ground water in the Tongue River is
unsuitable for irrigation. The SAR for ground water in the Sentinel Butte member is low. In
combination with high salinity values, this indicates that ground water from the Sentinel Butte
member is suitable for irrigating soils with high permeability.
August 2009 3-23 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
It is likely that at least a few hundred domestic wells within the Reservation are withdrawing
water from the Fort Union Formation. Well yields that are sufficient for domestic/stock use are
common.
Tongue River
Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) summarized water quality data collected from 52 wells within
the Tongue River aquifer between 1952 and 1992. Background water quality in the aquifer is
slightly basic with pH values ranging from 6.7 to 9.1, with a median of 8.2. Water in the aquifer
varies from a sodium-bicarbonate type to a mixed calcium/magnesium/sodium-sulfate type.
Concentrations of dissolved solids ranged from 817 to 4,660 mg/L and had a mean of 2,110
mg/L. In addition, these sampled values for dissolved solids range from slightly saline to
moderately saline. Sampled fluoride levels ranged from 0.2 to 8.4 mg/L, and nitrate levels ranged
0.11 to 5.9 mg/L (Greystone 2004).
Sentinel Butte
Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) summarized water quality data collected from 83 wells within
the Sentinel Butte aquifer between 1950 and 1992. Based on available data, background water
quality in the aquifer is slightly basic with pH values ranging from 6.7 to 8.9, with a median of
7.7. Water in the aquifer varies from a sodium bicarbonate type to a mixed
calcium/magnesium/sodium-sulfate type. Dissolved solids concentrations ranged from 133 to
4,230 mg/L, and a mean of 1,300 mg/L. The mean sampled values for dissolved solids occur in
the slightly saline range (Greystone 2004).
3.3.4.2 Buried-Valley Aquifers
Though the buried-valley aquifers are the most productive (and most accessible) aquifers within
the Reservation, their use is limited because, except for the White Shield aquifer, they are located
along the northern border of the Reservation and close to Lake Sakakawea. Most people in this
part of the Reservation receive water from a public water supply that obtains source water from
Lake Sakakawea.
The sediments that comprise the buried-valley deposits are from the underlying formations. As a
result, the chemistry of the ground water in these deposits is similar to that in the underlying Fort
Union Formation. Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) present chemistry data for 34 wells
constructed in the five major buried-valley aquifers within the Reservation. Ground water in the
East Fork Shell Creek aquifer, the Shell Creek aquifer, and the White Shield aquifer is a sodium-
bicarbonate/sulfate type. Ground water in the New Town and Sanish aquifers is a mixed
calcium/sodium/magnesium-bicarbonate/sulfate type. Concentrations of TDSs range from 459 to
4,440 mg/L. Concentrations of iron, manganese, and sulfate often exceed the secondary MCL.
The use of ground water from the buried-valley aquifers for irrigation is constrained by the high
salinity. However, only ground water from the East Fork Shell Creek aquifer has a high SAR.
Ground waters from the White Shield, New Town, and Sanish buried-valley aquifers have low
SAR values. Ground water from all but the East Fork of Shell Creek aquifer can be used to
irrigate soils with moderate to high permeability.
Shell Creek
Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) summarized water quality data collected from four wells
within the Shell Creek buried-valley aquifer between 1977 and 1990. Generally, water in the
Shell Creek aquifer is a sodium bicarbonate sulfate type. Mean dissolved solids concentrations
were 1,470 mg/L in water from the Shell Creek aquifer. Background water quality in the aquifer
August 2009 3-24 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
is slightly basic with pH values ranging from 7.3 to 8.4, with a median of 8.2. Dissolved solids
concentrations ranged from 757 to 2,030 mg/L, and a mean of 1,470 mg/L (Greystone 2004). The
mean sampled values for dissolved solids occur in the slightly saline range.
East Fork Shell Creek
Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) summarized water quality data collected from five wells
within the East Fork Shell Creek buried-valley aquifer between 1962 and 1990. Generally, water
in the aquifer is a sodium sulfate bicarbonate type. Dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from
2,470 to 4,440 mg/L, with a mean of 3,220 mg/L. Dissolved iron concentrations ranged from less
than 10 to 1,700 mg/L, with a mean of 880 mg/L and a median of 910 mg/L (Greystone 2004).
Ryder Ridge
The USGS monitored and performed water quality analyses for test well 151-086-05CBB
(USGS 475540101431201) during the 1966 calendar year. Water sampled from this site indicated
that it was a moderately hard sodium sulfate type. The water had a pH of 7.5 and a specific
conductance of 1,640 (j, S/cm. In addition, the sulfate (672 mg/L) and salinity (288 mg/L) levels
were relatively high (Greystone 2004). Based on the single data set of sampled parameters, water
within this aquifer would be classified as poor to moderate quality.
Hiddenwood Lake
The USGS monitored and performed water quality analyses for test well 152-087-28DAA
(USGS 475729101483401) in 1965, 1971, 1988, and 1992. Generally, water in the aquifer is a
sodium sulfate bicarbonate type with high quantities of sulfate, iron, and dissolved solids.
Dissolved-solids concentrations ranged from 4,740 to 4,960 mg/L. Dissolved iron concentrations
ranged from 400 to 2,500 mg/L (Greystone 2004). Based on the sampled parameters, water
within this aquifer is of very poor quality for any industrial use or as drinking water.
Vang
The USGS monitored and performed water quality analyses within the Vang aquifer from both
test well 152-087-16AAA (USGS 475934101483101) during the 1966 calendar year and test
well 152-087-18DDD (USGS 475847101510401) during the 1988 and 1992 calendar years.
Generally, water in the aquifer is a hard calcium bicarbonate type. Dissolved-solids
concentrations ranged from 2,470 to 4,440 mg/L. Dissolved iron concentrations ranged from
2,700 to 14,000 mg/L. Iron concentrations of this magnitude would most likely cause staining in
clothes and plumbing fixtures (Greystone 2004).
3.3.4.3 Project Site Ground Water Chemistry
The ten ground water monitoring wells installed in February 2005 have each been sampled. In
February 2005, all ten wells were sampled and the samples analyzed for basic cations/anions,
RCRA dissolved metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium and
silver), seven polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), 19 common pesticides, and 78 VOCs and
polynuclear aromatics (PNAs). All ten wells were sampled again in May 2005, and the samples
were analyzed only for the suite of VOCs and PNAs.
Chemistry data from the GeoTrans (2005) quarterly sampling events indicate the following:
> Ground water in the till deposits beneath the proposed refinery site is mainly a calcium-
bicarbonate/calcium-sulfate type of water. Ground water in the underlying Fort Union
Formation is mainly a sodium-bicarbonate/sodium bicarbonate type of water;
August 2009 3-25 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
> All PCBs were at non-detectable levels in all samples;
> RCRA metal concentrations were below MCLs in all samples;
> Very low concentrations of some VOCs were detected in some samples; however, the
duplicate samples were non-detectable;
> All samples were non-detectable for the 19 pesticides; and
> TDS concentrations were high for all wells. Concentrations from samples collected
from the five till wells (MW-1 to MW-5) ranged from 450 to 4,200 mg/L with a mean
value of 2,280 mg/L. Concentrations for the Fort Union wells ranged from 2,500 to
4,500 mg/L with a mean value of 3,860 (ig/L. Sodium concentrations for the ten wells
ranged from 14 to 860 (ig/L with a mean value of 355 mg/L. SAR values were not
calculated from these data, but with the high sodium and TDS concentrations it is
highly likely that SAR values are high and that most of the water beneath the proposed
refinery site is not suitable for irrigation without treatment.
To supplement the chemistry database, EPA Region 8 sampled five of the ten wells for stable
water isotopes in August 2005. Two samples were also collected from the pothole wetland on the
western boundary of the refinery site and one sample from the perennial reach of the East Fork of
Shell Creek about 15 miles northwest of the refinery site. Preliminary results are shown in Delta
18 O values in shallow ground waters are typically close to values for the weighted average of
annual precipitation (Clark and Fritz 1997 as cited in Wireman 2005). Furthermore, the delta 18
O values for precipitation are more depleted (more negative) with increasing latitude. The delta
18 O values shown for ground water samples in Table 3-4 (MW-4, MW-3, MW-1, MW-2, P-5)
are typical for precipitation in west-central North Dakota. These data suggest that the till is
recharged by direct infiltration of precipitation.
A general summary of ground water in the till deposits and underlying Fort Union Formation
beneath the proposed refinery site reveals that it is suitable for drinking water and stock watering
but is not suitable for irrigation. Generally, the deep wells in the Fort Union Formation had higher
TDS, total alkalinity, and sodium as compared to the shallow wells in the Coleharbor Formation.
Table 3-4 Preliminary data for stable water isotopes obtained from analysis of
samples collected in August 2005
Location
South inlet to wetland
North outlet from wetland
MW^
MW-3
MW-1
MW-2
P-5
East Fork Shell Creek
Delta 1S 0
-4.85
-5.16
-16.56
-13.63
-15.05
-13.70
-16.34
-10.66
Deuterium
-41.5
-42.8
- 129.4
Cond. too high
-117.7
Cond. too high
Cond. too high
Cond. too high
Source: Wireman 2005
August 2009 3-26 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.4 Surface Water Resources
The project site is located near the edges of the Coteau Slope and Coteau du Missouri. The
Missouri Coteau is primarily east of the project site and is characterized as a rolling, hilly area
that has numerous prairie potholes and lakes and generally lacks streams. The average 20-mile
width of this area, which extends from east-central South Dakota northwestward into western
Saskatchewan, is the continental divide between drainage into Hudson Bay and the Gulf of
Mexico. Conversely, the Coteau Slope gradients westward from the Missouri Coteau and is
characterized by several streams that are tributary to the Missouri River.
Drainage on the Coteau Slope is generally well developed, although there are a few local poorly
drained areas and sub-basins. The four principal tributaries that drain the Coteau Slope in
Mountrail and Ward Counties include the White Earth River, Little Knife River, Shell Creek, and
East Fork of Shell Creek. These tributaries are generally incised and drain sub-basins and local
topographical depressions that are interspersed within the glaciated topography. Surface flow in
the region is generally southwesterly toward the Missouri River basin. Perennial, intermittent, and
ephemeral streams generally originate in plains and open high hills at elevations ranging from
1,835 to 2,600 feet. Riverine wetlands associated with drainage basins in Mountrail and Ward
Counties cover approximately 612 acres and 2,424 acres, respectively (Reynolds et al. 1996).
Surface water resources of the Reservation consist of many ephemeral streams and the Missouri
River. Major streams near the project site include Shell Creek and the East Fork of Shell Creek
(Figure 3-8). These streams are generally ephemeral, have extended periods without flow, and are
tributary to the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea). A large number of unnamed, ephemeral
streams originating from deeply eroded, small drainage basins also flow into the Missouri River.
Lake Sakakawea is the largest surface-water body in the region and most prominent feature
within the Reservation. Lake Sakakawea was formed in 1953 by impoundment (Garrison Dam) of
the Missouri River downstream of the Reservation. The lake averages between 2 and 3 miles in
width and is 6 miles wide at its widest point. Its maximum depth is 180 feet at the face of the
dam. At normal operating pool (1,850 feet AMSL), the lake covers 368,000 acres, has 1,300
miles of shoreline, and stores nearly 23 million acre-feet of water. Areas of complex glacial
moraines bound the lake on the north and east, whereas outcrops of bedrock with scattered
patches of glacial-remnant material typify the south and west. Rugged, deeply eroded badlands,
formed when rivers eroded the glacial deposits and bedrock, occur in area south and west of the
lake. The drainage area of the lake is about 181,400 square miles.
3.4.1 Applicable Regulatory Requirements Clean
Water Act
3.4.1.1 Section 402 NPDES Permitting Requirements
Section 402 of the CWA establishes the NPDES regulatory program. Pursuant to Section 402,
point sources discharging pollutants into "waters of the U.S." must obtain NPDES permits from
the appropriate governmental body. EPA issues NPDES permits on the Fort Berthold Reservation
because the MF£A Nation has not applied for, and EPA has not approved the Tribes for
"Treatment as a State" for purposes of Section 402. NPDES permits set limits on the amount of
various pollutants that a source can discharge in a given time. The proposed project will require
an NPDES permit for discharges of process water and storm water associated with facility
operation. In addition, the proposed project will require an NPDES permit for discharges of
August 2009 3-27 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
stormwater associated with construction of the facility. The draft NPDES discharge permit for
facility operations is attached in Appendix C.
3.4.1.2 Section 404 Permitting Requirement for Discharges to
Waters of the U.S.
Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the Secretary of the Army, acting through the USAGE, and in
consultation with EPA, to issue permits where required for discharge of dredged or fill material
into the "waters of the United States," including certain wetlands, provided that the applicant
demonstrates that the project design is the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative.
The USAGE will issue any such permits only after compliance with the USAGE regulations (33
CFR 320 et seq.) and the CWA 404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 CFR 230, et seq.). 33 CFR 331 sets
forth the CWA Section 404 permit appeal process. The USAGE has determined the construction
of the proposed project will require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material pursuant
to CWA Section 404 and its implementing regulations for discharges into certain wetlands.
3.4.1.3 Section 401 Certification Requirement
Section 401 of the CWA requires certification by the appropriate governmental body that any
activity covered by a Federal license or permit, including, but not limited to the construction or
operation of facilities which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, will comply
with the applicable provisions of CWA Sections 301, 302, 303, 306 and 307. This includes any
CWA Section 402 permits issued by EPA, or Section 404 permits issued by USAGE.
EPA issues the Section 401 certification for discharges in Indian country where a Tribe has not
received "Treatment as a State" status for Section 401 certification. EPA may grant, condition, or
deny Section 401 certification for such federally permitted or licensed activities. The decision is
based on determination from data submitted by an applicant (and any other available information)
of whether the proposed activity will comply with the requirements of the applicable sections of
the Act. EPA may thus deny certification because the applicant has not demonstrated that the
project will comply with those requirements. Or EPA may place whatever limitations or
conditions on the certification it determines are necessary to ensure compliance with those
provisions.
For any permits issued for the proposed project, including Section 402 and Section 404 permits,
Section 401 certification must be obtained from EPA.
3.4.2 Water Quality Regulatory Requirements
Water quality standards are the foundation of the water-quality-based control program mandated
by the CWA. Water quality standards define the goals for a water body by designating its uses,
setting criteria to protect those uses, and establishing provisions to protect water quality from
pollutants. A water quality standard consists of four basic elements:
(1) designated uses of the water body (e.g., recreation, water supply, aquatic life, agriculture),
(2) water quality criteria to protect designated uses (numeric pollutant concentrations and
narrative requirements),
(3) antidegradation policy to maintain and protect existing uses and high quality waters, and
August 2009 3-28 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
v
Legend
| I Site Boundary
-"- Railroad
Stale Highway
County Boundary
Road
LakejWeUarid
Rivet/Stream
Reservation Boundary
Area of Detail
MHA NATION FEE-TIMRUST
AND REFINERY EIS
FIGURE 3-8
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES ota THE
PRQJEC T Si TEAND EAMROWS
. M CV>KPTA
Fi tr I nSlKH i" wlisi i
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
(4) general policies addressing implementation issues (e.g., low flows, variances, mixing
zones).
The MHA Nation adopted Tribal water quality standards in 2000 to protect public health and
welfare, and enhance the quality of water on the Reservation. Specifically, the MHA Nation
adopted the Water Quality Standards for the Three Affiliated Tribes Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation for all surface waters within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation. It is also the
intent of the MHA Nation that the adopted standards will be sufficient to protect any federally
listed threatened or endangered species occurring on the Reservation. The Tribes' water quality
standards specify Designated Uses to be achieved and protected for all Reservation surface
waters. Those uses (including, but not limited to, aquatic life, recreation, agriculture, and public
water supply) are assigned to individual waters within Reservation boundaries. Additionally,
narrative Tribal water quality standards are applied to all Reservation surface water resources.
Tribal standards for the protection of wetlands, and antidegradation policies are included in the
adopted water quality standards and are intended to apply to all Reservation surface waters.
Hence, the Tribal water quality standards are designed to protect the Tribes uses of their waters;
specifically protect water quality for endangered species and wetlands; and contain
antidegradation policies ensuring maintenance of existing water quality.
The proposed project discharge would drain to the East Fork of Shell Creek, flowing initially
through the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, then through the State of North Dakota, and
subsequently back through the Reservation. A surface discharge would eventually reach the
Missouri River via Lake Sakakawea. Under the CWA, the permitted discharge must include
effluent limitations as stringent as necessary to meet the State of North Dakota surface water
quality standards where the water crosses the boundary onto non-Indian country lands. EPA's
CWA § 304(a) criteria recommendations form the basis for North Dakota's numeric criteria.
Although EPA has not approved water quality standards for the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
waters, EPA considered the Tribal and State standards in determining appropriate effluent
limitations for the NPDES permit. The specific water quality standards and criteria are shown in
the Statement of Basis for the NPDES discharge permit attached in Appendix C.
3.4.2.1 Designated Uses East Fork of Shell Creek
The East Fork of Shell Creek flows through both the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and the
State of North Dakota, and therefore designated uses under each must be considered. It is
important to note that the designated uses may be specified as a goal for the water body segment
whether the use is currently being attained or not. Designated uses for the portions of the East
Fork of Shell Creek that are within the boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
include: I - public water supply, primary IIA - contact recreation, IIB - secondary contact
recreation, IIIA - coldwater aquatic life, IV - industrial water supply, V - agriculture, and VI -
navigation.
For those areas of the East Fork of Shell Creek that are outside the Reservation, it is classified as
a Class III surface water in North Dakota pursuant to 33-16-02.1-09 of the Standards of Quality
for Waters of the State (North Dakota Century Code Chapters 61-28 and 23-33; specifically,
sections 61-28-04 and 23-33-05, respectively). In general, Class III streams are characterized as
having low average flows and, generally, prolonged periods of no flow. The streams are of
limited seasonal value for recreation, fish, and aquatic biota. Finally, the quality of the water in
this surface water class is typically suitable for agricultural uses such as livestock watering,
industrial use, and in some circumstances irrigation.
August 2009 3-31 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
It is important to note that the MHA Nation water quality standards have not been federally
approved by EPA for CWA purposes. Also, although EPA has approved North Dakota water
quality standards for waters within the State of North Dakota, EPA has not approved the State's
standards for waters that are within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1151. In
addition, EPA has not approved a non-federal NPDES permit program for the Reservation under
CWA Section 402. Therefore, EPA administers the CWA on the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation.
3.4.2.2 Impaired Water Bodies
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states and authorized tribes to periodically prepare a list of
all surface waters for which beneficial uses of the water (for example, drinking, recreation,
aquatic habitat, and industrial uses) are impaired by pollutants. Waters placed on the 303(d) list
are prioritized for the preparation of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL), which identify the
maximum amount of a pollutant that can be released into a water body so as not to impair uses of
the water, and allocate that amount among various sources. While EPA has not approved water
quality standards for the waters on the Reservation, EPA considers the Tribe's and State's
standards in determining appropriate designated uses for the East Fork of Shell Creek. Any
impairment evaluation conducted by the State of North Dakota is applicable only to those waters
where the State water quality standards apply (i.e. not on any waters within the Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation).
A review of the CWA Section 303(d) TMDL Waters in the Missouri River Basin (North Dakota
Department of Health 2003) reveals that both the East Fork of Shell Creek downstream to Lake
Sakakawea (ND-10110101-072-S_00) and Unnamed Tributaries to the East Fork of Shell Creek
(ND-10110101-073-S_00) were delisted in 2002. Rationale for delisting was based on lack of
sufficient credible data and/or information to make a use support determination (North Dakota
Department of Health 2003). In addition, the previous claims of impairment for recreational
activity were based on data that was older than 5 years (North Dakota Department of Health
2003).
Clean Water Act Oil Pollution Act Regulatory Requirements
The CWA, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, and its implementing regulations, require certain
facilities that store and use oil to prepare and submit plans to ensure the facilities put in place
containment and other countermeasures that should prevent oil spills that could reach navigable
waters (SPCC Plans) and plans to respond to a worst case discharge of oil and to a substantial
threat of such a discharge (FRP). EPA regulations define who must prepare and submit SPCC
plans and FRP plans and what must be included in the plan. See 40 CFR 112. The proposed
project falls within the regulatory criteria of 40 CFR 112, therefore the facility must prepare both
SPCC and FRP plans prior to operation.
3.4.3 Applicable Regulatory Requirements Safe Drinking
Water Act
EPA implements the SDWA in Indian country if no other entity has been authorized to do so. All
public water systems on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation must comply with the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR) promulgated pursuant to the SDWA. The SDWA
was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's
public water systems. The law was amended in 1986, and again in 1996 with further requirements
to protect drinking water and its sources. The SDWA authorizes the EPA to set national health-
based drinking water standards to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made
August 2009 3-32 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
contaminants. The NPDWR, based on these health-related criteria, protect public health by
limiting the levels of contaminants allowed in drinking water.
Public Water Systems are those systems that have at least fifteen service connections or regularly
serve an average of at least twenty-five individuals daily at least 60 days out of the year. 42
U.S.C. Section 300f(4). If the proposed facility meets the definition of a Public Water Supply
System, EPA will regulate the facility pursuant to the SDWA. Regulated public water systems are
classified into the following categories: community, non-transient non-community and transient
non-community water systems.
A non-community water system means a public water system that is not a community water
system. A non-community water system is either a "transient non-community water system" or a
"non-transient non-community water system." A non-transient non-community water system
means a public water system that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at
least 25 of the same persons over 6 months of the year. A transient non-community water system
means a non-community water system that does not regularly serve at least 25 of the same
persons over six months of the year. Monitoring and reporting requirements differ based on the
classification of a regulated water system, and whether the water system uses ground water or
surface water.
3.4.4 Characteristics of Surface Drainage Systems
Primary drainages in proximity to the project site include Shell Creek, East Fork of Shell Creek,
and Deepwater Creek drainages, which occur within the northern and eastern parts of the
Reservation. These three streams are characterized by incised channels within glacial sediments,
small stream slopes, and relatively low basin elevations. All three streams are tributary to the
Missouri River/Lake Sakakawea.
The project site is in the East Fork of Shell Creek basin (Figure 3-9). The East Fork of Shell
Creek is the nearest principal tributary to the project site and drains a watershed of 467 square
miles, of which 125 square miles are within the Reservation (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998).
The East Fork of Shell Creek is characterized as a larger basin with flat stream slopes that
typically has high flows characterized by rapidly rising flows and gradually receding flows
(Macek-Rowland and Lent 1996). The upper portion of the creek is predominantly a Rosgen E
channel type, and the upper stream gradient is about 2 percent, with wetted widths averaging
around 6 feet (Confluence Consulting, Inc. 2001).
A Rosgen E channel is typically a meandering stream characterized by narrow channel width, low
width-to-depth ratio, high entrenchment ratio, broad floodplain, high sinuosity, low slope gradient
and cohesive stream banks retained in place by dense stands of woody shrubs and/or grass like
vegetation.
The East Fork of Shell Creek is primarily regulated by periods of snowmelt, direct precipitation,
surface runoff, and ground water discharge from seeps and springs. Surface runoff in the
undrained or poorly drained basins within the watershed generally draws off into depressions or
small individual basins commonly referred to as sloughs or prairie potholes. Many of these
depressions represent small individual basins; however, some fill up, reach capacity, and
overflow into well-developed basins interspersed throughout the region. Tributary streams that
originate in the plains and open high hills generally are ephemeral, flowing primarily during
spring runoff generally following winters with above average snowfall. USGS discharge data
indicate that this stream is ephemeral and has many days of no flow during the 1991 through
2002 period of record (Harkness et al. 2003).
August 2009 3-33 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
An unnamed tributary, which is characterized as a small, intermittent stream, flows north through
the lowest topographical area within the western margin of Section 19 until its confluence with a
large semi-permanent wetland. It is important to denote that a significant lineal length of the
streambed within Section 19 has been channelized. The channel originates within a large semi-
permanent wetland located in the southern !/> of the section. The tributary continues north (under
highway 23) for % mile until its confluence with the East Fork of Shell Creek. Flow in the
tributary is charged primarily by spring snowmelt runoff. Depending upon the saturation of the
area and elevation of standing water in upstream areas, the tributary's drainage area is
approximately 11,470 acres or 17 square miles. Shallow-subsurface flow (water movement
immediately beneath the land surface) would likely be towards the nearest surface depression,
channel or swale. The ground water table at the site is estimated at 30 to 50 feet below the
surface. As demonstrated by water level data from the Geotrans wells ground water in the till
flows generally to the southwest at the project site.
3.4.5 Stream Flow
Stream flow characteristics depend on the specific features unique to each drainage basin and
sub-basin. These features typically include geology, topography, vegetative cover, size, climate,
and land use. Major contributions to stream flows in the project site include direct precipitation
and surface runoff, springs and seeps, and ground water discharge. Conversely, evaporation,
evapotranspiration, and infiltration cause decreases in stream flow.
Statistics on stream flow have been compiled from USGS stream gauging stations at Parshall to
provide a perspective of perennial stream flow within the project site. Specifically, the USGS
monitors stream gage station 063325232 (established June 1991) on the East Fork of Shell Creek
near Parshall, North Dakota prior to discharging into the Missouri River/Lake Sakakawea (Figure
3-8). There are no upstream dams within the watershed; therefore, subsequent discharges do not
influence surface flows within the watershed.
The average annual runoff within the East Fork of Shell Creek watershed for the 11-year period
of record (1991 to 2002) was 4,660 acre-feet (Harkness et al. 2003). Surface annual mean flows
range from a low of 2.19 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 1992 to a high of 15.1 cfs in 1999. The
annual mean for the period of record is 6.4 cfs (Harkness et al. 2003). Figure 3-10 clearly shows
the variation in flows that occur in the East Fork of Shell Creek. Peak stream flows also varied
substantially over the period of record. The maximum recorded peak flow of 1,170 cfs was record
on March 27, 1999 (Harkness et al. 2003). The lowest peak flow was 31 cfs, which occurred on
May 12, 2000 (U.S. Geological Survey 2004d).
Monthly mean flow rates reported by USGS for the available periods of record are presented on
Figure 3-11. The data clearly show that peak flows in the East Fork of Shell Creek basin are
usually the result of spring runoff or intense spring or summer thunderstorms that occur over the
basin. Most of the runoff occurs during March and April. Base or low flows occur during the
winter months.
2 The East Fork of Shell Creek was converted to continuous record gaging station in June 1991. The new
gaging site 06332524 was subsequently moved upstream to reflect a new site.
August 2009 3-34 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Conflliecice
Sampling Point
US6S SJream Gage
^ S«at& Highway
County Boundary
Road
+
Source. Cgics and Macek.Rowlaid.
MHA NATION FEE.TO-TRUST
AND REFINERY EIS
&LSTFQffK<2f &HFU
Ort~tSf K3H
'> « ihrt n=
J
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.4.6 Surface Water Quality
The chemical composition of surface water changes continuously, as water quality in surface
streams is commonly a function of stream flow. Alternatively, water quality in most surface
drainages varies inversely with stream flow. Most changes in water quality are related to the
amount of water and source of water flowing in a stream at a given time. The timing of
precipitation events, adjacent land uses, geology, and elevation directly influence surface water
quality.
Figure 3-10 Hydrograph for Measured Daily Mean Stream Flow, Measured Stream
Flow, and Estimated Stream Flow for the East Fork of Shell Creek
u
LJ
tn
K
U
0-
800
u
M
aa
600
e 400
200
;-->..?"*-;,-
1992
199-1 1996 1998 2000
DflTES; 07/01/1991 to 09/30/2002
2002
EXPLRNRTION
x
Stream flows resulting from snowmelt and spring precipitation events generally result in higher
water quality. This is primarily because of the limited amount and time of contact with exposed
soils and rocks; therefore, these waters generally have only small amounts of dissolved minerals.
Conversely, stream flows occurring during the growing season typically have lower water quality.
This may be due in part to the collection of solids and inert organic material from surface erosion
and the collection of phosphorous and nitrogen from pesticide treated agricultural fields.
Generally, most surface waters within the area are primarily sodium sulfate type waters (e.g.,
alkaline with moderate to high levels of hardness).
Ambient Water Quality East Fork of Shell Creek
The USGS has periodically monitored water quality data within the East Fork of Shell Creek at
stream gage station 06332523. In addition, Gates and Macek-Rowland (1998) sampled select
locations within the watershed over a period of record from 1990 to 1991 and 1991 to 2002.
Finally, Confluence Consulting (2001) conducted water quality sampling at three stream reaches
within the East Fork of Shell Creek. Summaries for these selected water quality data are
presented in Greystone 2004.
Based on available data, background surface water quality in the East Fork of Shell Creek is
slightly basic with pH values ranging from 7.8 to 9.9. In addition, the stream exhibits moderate to
high concentrations of TDSs (206 to 3,040 mg/L). Dissolved oxygen levels are varied over the
August 2009
3-37
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
11-year period of record, but it is important to note that most measurements are well above the
water quality standard for dissolved oxygen of 5 mg/L. The water within the stream is
characterized as a sodium sulfate bicarbonate type and the overall water quality of the stream
system is inferior for most domestic uses.
A review of the values collected from water samples within the East Fork of Shell Creek show
that most are usually found in the slightly saline range with some samples occurring in the
moderately saline range.
Arsenic and lead concentrations were analyzed from several samples in the East Fork of Shell
Creek. Concentrations of lead are generally low (0 to 1.94 ug/L) whereas arsenic concentrations
(0 to 9 (j, g/L) have exceeded both the aquatic and human health maximum limit concentrations.
Field pH values collected over the 11-year sampling period of record have ranged from a low of
7.8 to a high of 9.9 (standard units). The median values fall within the maximum numeric criteria
(7.0 to 9.0), and generally reflect moderate to good water quality.
Sulfate values collected and analyzed over the 11-year sampling period of record ranged from a
low of 36 mg/L to a high of 1,540 mg/L.
Sample values for chloride analyzed over the 11-year sampling period of record have ranged from
a low of 1.5 mg/L to a high of 52 mg/L. Therefore, no exceedances of chloride levels were
collected within this period of record.
3.4.6.1 Physical, Chemical, and Biological Integrity of East Fork of
Shell Creek
Confluence Consulting (2001) assessed the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of streams
at 16 sites on six streams (including the East Fork of Shell Creek see Figure 3-9) within the
Reservation using the environmental monitoring and assessment program protocols developed by
the EPA. The assessment involved three biological assemblages (fish, macroinvertebrates, and
periphyton), analysis of select physicochemical parameters, and qualitative and quantitative
assessments of stream morphology and riparian conditions. The analysis provided a means to
estimate the extent of human influences on streams within the Reservation.
The following description of East Fork of Shell Creek aquatic resources was taken directly from
the Biological, Physical, and Chemical Integrity of Select Streams on the Fort Berthold
Reservation, North Dakota (Confluence Consulting, Inc. 2001).
3.4.6.2 Lower East Fork Shell Creek (2A)
Indicators of biological, chemical, and physical integrity suggest moderate impairment of
beneficial uses at this site. Several physicochemical water quality parameters, including nutrients
and specific conductance, were higher than ecoregion reference values. Nutrient loading could be
from natural sources or agricultural activities in the basin. Furthermore, this site is below
municipal lagoons for the town of Parshall, which may also contribute nutrients. Specific
conductance at this level precludes use of this water for irrigation purposes.
August 2009 3-38 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
no
110
100
60
\m
1996
1997
1998
1999
2001
SB?
Jin
"et
tf jy
Jun
jui
Aog
.
Oct
Nav
MHA NATION FEI-TO-TRUflT
AMD REFINERY CIS
r/vij«tJGRAr-V* f 0*f W 'lil
S7RFAM Fl CW ,
IflST rCOTK 0# SHEit CREEK
ii.-
-
.
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Biological assemblages also provide indications of moderate impairment. Dominance by
pollution-tolerant diatoms is further indication of nutrient enrichment. A ranking of 14 out of 16
stream reaches sampled for macroinvertebrates suggests significant impairment of invertebrate
communities. Low richness values, low diversity, and high numbers of tolerant individuals
contributed to this ranking. Likewise, the fish metrics indicated low diversity and a
preponderance of pollution-tolerant species. The site also ranked 14th in terms offish assemblage.
Habitat conditions were influenced largely by beaver activities and a road crossing. Beavers
impounded the flow for much of the reach, and a large scour pool occurred under the bridge. The
monotonous habitat was possibly related to the low diversity offish.
In summary, biological communities and water quality samples at lower East Fork Shell Creek
suggest moderate impairment of aquatic life, warm water fishery, and agricultural uses. Nutrient
loading is implicated as a cause of impairment. More investigation is needed to assess the role of
agricultural chemicals in shaping biological communities at this site.
3.4.6.3 Middle East Fork of Shell Creek
Conditions at Middle East Fork Shell Creek indicate minor to moderate impairment of physical,
chemical, and biological integrity. Physicochemical parameters demonstrated elevated
concentrations of nutrients and dissolved solids at this site. These relatively high values may be
caused by either natural sources or human activities.
Measures of biological integrity varied with the assemblage. Diatom associations scored within
the range of good biological integrity, with minor impairment caused by slightly elevated
pollution and siltation indexes. The site ranked seventh out of 16 stream reaches in terms of
macroinvertebrates. Macroinvertebrate communities demonstrated good richness and relatively
high diversity, although the proportion of non-insect taxa was relatively high because of large
numbers of snails and ostracods. The near lentic conditions in the lower half of this reach were
probably responsible for the abundances of these taxa.
Several factors in this site's fish assemblage suggest moderate impairment. First, taxa richness
was low, with only two species represented (fathead minnow and brook stickleback). In addition,
the fish here displayed the highest level of observed abnormalities. Eye problems were the most
prevalent, although tumors were also observed. These could be the result of several factors.
Nutrient loading could increase primary productivity and decomposition so that supersaturation
of gases exerts pressure on eyes. Another potential cause of abnormalities is the presence of toxic
chemicals. This site had the greatest degree of human influence of all sites, including excessive
amounts of trash and a railroad crossing, both of which are potential sources of toxic chemicals.
Nevertheless, diatoms did not demonstrate indications of toxicity through abnormal cells.
Land use at this site varied at a fence line near the midpoint. The downstream half was grazed by
horses and had an unusually wide and shallow channel. Poor sediment transport capacity in this
section resulted in a substrate dominated by deep mud and dense filamentous algae. The upper
half was not grazed as intensively and retained riffle pool morphology and more diverse substrate
composition.
In summary, this site warrants a determination of moderate impairment and partial support of
warm-water fishery, aquatic life, agriculture, and aesthetics beneficial uses. Additional
investigation is recommended to evaluate causes offish abnormalities.
August 2009 3-41 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.4.6.4 Upper East Fork of Shell Creek
This site presents a scenario of least impaired habitat conditions but fair to poor biological
integrity based on periphyton, macroinvertebrate, and fish samples. There were numerous
indications of high-quality habitat. For example, this site scored the highest of all sites on the
rapid habitat assessment questionnaire. This site was characterized by a narrow, deep channel
with some of the most diverse substrate composition of all sites evaluated. The channel was
classified as a Rosgen E channel type. Cover features for fish included undercut banks and
overhanging vegetation. The riparian area was dominated by herbaceous species, and grazing
pressure was light. Impairment of biota in the presence of good habitat suggests that water quality
is the primary factor limiting beneficial uses. As discussed below, agricultural chemicals are a
possible source of impairment at this site.
In contrast to the other assemblages, algal associations demonstrated a few indications of
excellent biological diversity. This was most apparent in the high diversity of diatoms and low
proportion of the dominant species. Still, the pollution index was the highest of all sites sampled,
suggesting nutrient loading from either natural sources or human activities.
Ranking of macroinvertebrate assemblages indicate this site is among the most impaired, with a
ranking of 13th out of the 16 stream reaches sampled. The dominance by non-insect taxa despite
diversity of substrate particles and substantial flow suggests toxic conditions. Pesticides in this
heavily farmed basin are a potential source of impairment. Pesticides are usually specific to
arthropods (including insects), and do not affect other invertebrates such as snails, worms, and
amphipods.
Fish populations at this site rated relatively low in light of the high-scoring habitat conditions.
Fish at this site consisted of low numbers of two species, fathead minnow and brook stickleback,
resulting in a rank of ninth out of 16. While brook stickleback are considered moderately tolerant
to pollution, they can withstand relatively high levels of dissolved solids. Their tolerance of
agricultural chemicals is unknown.
Generally, the site demonstrates moderate to severe impairment of fish and macroinvertebrate
communities, despite least impaired habitat conditions. Nutrient loading, herbicides, and
pesticides may be a factor in limiting these assemblages. Further investigation into sources of
impairment is recommended.
In summary, East Fork Shell Creek demonstrated indications of slight to severe impairment.
Several lines of evidence at the three sampling sites indicated nutrient loading from either human
activities or natural sources. In addition, low proportions of insects suggest that pesticides may be
affecting aquatic life at two sites. Further evidence of toxic chemicals included high proportions
of tumors and other abnormalities on fish and low diversity offish species.
3.4.7 Water Supply
Water supplies for domestic and municipal uses are obtained from both surface water and ground
water sources. Lake Sakakawea is the source of Public Water Supply for Newton and Parshall.
The Towns of Makoti and Plaza obtain public water supplies from buried valley aquifers and the
Fox Hill Formation. Many residents of the MHA Nation obtain domestic water supplies from
wells constructed in the surficial deposits, primarily till. More than 700 domestic wells occur
within the Reservation. The water contained in the till typically has relatively high TDS and may
exceed secondary MCLs; however, the water quality does not preclude its use for drinking water.
August 2009 3-42 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
The till cannot yield sufficient quantities of water for a public water supply but does yield
sufficient quantities for domestic water supply.
3.4.7.1 Immediate Surroundings of the Project Site
Six residences occur within 1 mile of the project site. All of these are isolated rural residences
that are part of the agricultural operations surrounding the project site. Local residents in the area
typically use the wells for their livestock only. Residents purchase and haul water, using a cistern
system for household water use. In addition, most residents separately haul in water for drinking
and cooking.
Horace Pipe (2006), an employee of the MHA Nation, gathered information about the sources of
water for two of these residences. The following is a summary of the contacts.
> The farm residence just north of Highway 23 has a well that is 103 feet. This well is
only used to water their horses. They haul water for drinking and all household
activities (washing, cooking, and plumbing). The water has a lot of TDS and is
brownish-red colored.
> The farm residence to the south of the refinery site has a well that was completed
August 8, 2001 at a depth of 189 feet. This residence also hauls water and the well
water is used for cattle and horses.
3.4.7.2 Makoti
Makoti does not operate a water treatment plant. Residents within the town obtain water from two
ground water wells completed in the Vang aquifer at depths of 22 and 41 feet below the surface
(Wavra 2004, North Dakota Department of Health 2000). The two wells (152-086-18baa and
152-086-18abb) are located in Section 18, T152N, R86W, about 3 miles northeast of Makoti.
According to the Safe Drinking Water Information System (U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency 2004), approximately 145 residents are served water by these two wells. The two wells
produce an annual average of 9.2 million gallons or about 28 acre-feet (North Dakota Department
of Health 2000). Residential homes outside of the town boundary use either cisterns or domestic
wells.
3.4.7.3 Plaza
Residents within the town of Plaza obtain water from three ground water wells: well #1, well #2,
and well #4. Well #1 and well #2 are completed at depths of 88 and 91 feet below the ground
surface. In 1997, well #4 was constructed within Section 35, T153N, R88W at a depth of 1,560
feet below the ground surface. Well#4 is finished in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer and yields
about 45 gpm (Rogers 2004). Well#4 fills most of the local water needs; however, well #1 and
well #2 are used when make-up water is needed during high usage periods. Plaza also has an
inactive well (Wavra 2004).
Plaza operates a water treatment plant that utilizes greensand filtration process and potassium
permanganate treatment to facilitate removal of iron and manganese. In addition, water is
chlorinated prior to distribution. The City of Plaza treats about 7 million gallons per year (North
Dakota Department of Health 2002). According to the Safe Drinking Water Information System
(U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 2004), about 170 residents are served by these three
wells. Homes outside of the town boundary use either cisterns or domestic wells.
August 2009 3-43 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.4.7.4 Parshall
The town of Parshall is the community closest to the project site that is served by a public water
system. Rural residents in the area use either domestic wells or cisterns. The Parshall water
supply uses an intake at Parshall Bay on Lake Sakakawea. The water treatment plant has the
capacity to produce approximately 575,000 gallons of water per day, although current average
daily use is approximately 360,000 gallons or 63 percent of operational capacity (Bartlett and
West Engineers, Inc. 2002).
3.5 Soils
Soils within the project area have developed on till plains and moraines in a climatic regime
characterized by cold winters, warm summers, and low to moderate precipitation. The soils have
developed in four kinds of parent material: glacial till, glacial lacustrine deposits, glacial outwash,
and postglacial alluvium. Slopes range from nearly level to very steep with deeper soils found in
the less steeply sloping areas. Approximately % of the land use is cropland with the remaining 1A
used as rangeland within the two counties. Remnant native grassland is predominantly mixed-
grass prairie that is used for grazing and wildlife habitat.
The following section lists the dominant soil series for all the associations in the project area, and
the general characteristics of the soils are listed below for each series. A brief description of the
general physical characteristics for wind erosion hazard, poor revegetation potential, and prime
farmland and hydric soils also follows. This information was derived from both the Soil Survey of
Ward County, North Dakota (Howey et al. 1974) and Soil Survey ofMountrail County, North
Dakota (VanderBusch 1991).
3.5.1 Soil Mapping Units
The following section contains detailed descriptions of the soil mapping associations and
series/units identified in the project area using the Soil Survey of Ward County, North Dakota
(Howey et al. 1974) and Soil Survey ofMountrail County, North Dakota (VanderBusch 1991).
The Williams-Hamerly-Bowbells and Williams-Zahl associations are dominant throughout the
project area, and subsequently include Williams, Parnell, Bowbells, Zahl, Hamerly, Manning, and
Wabek soil series/units. Figure 3-12 shows the areal distribution of soil mapping units within the
project site.
3.5.1.1 Williams - Hamerly - Bowbells Association
This association consists of level and nearly level soils on flats, rises, and in swales on till plains.
A characteristic landscape would consist of rolling hills intermixed with depressions and knolls
with slopes ranging between 0 and 3 percent. Williams series soils are typically located on the
flats and rises, Hamerly on flats adjacent to the depressions, and Bowbells occurring in the swales
and flats. Minor soil series occurring within this association typically consist of Tonka and
Parnell, which are poorly and very poorly drained and most often occur in both shallow and deep
depressions, respectively.
This association is well-suited for cultivated crops primarily small grains, but some areas are used
for range and pasture. The Tonka and Parnell soils are primarily associated with palustrine
wetlands, which are best suited for wetland habitats.
August 2009 3-44 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
HHftN*T10f4 Fffi-TO-TRlHT
JB
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.5.1.2 Hamerly Series
The Hamerly series consists of deep, level and undulating, moderately well drained soils that
formed in glacial till, and the corresponding range site is primarily categorized as silty. These
soils are adjacent to intermittently ponded closed depressions. Permeability is moderately slow,
and these soils typically have a seasonally perched water table that delays tillage. Shrink-swell
potential is low to moderate.
Hamerly loam, 0 -5 percent slopes (Hf) - This soil is found in the areas around rims and low
swales of potholes. The areas of deposits are small and irregularly shaped and typically include
other series. Permeability is moderately slow (0.2 to 0.63 inches/hour), and surface runoff is slow
to medium. The land capability for crop cultivation is moderately limited due to potential erosion
from wind.
Tonka silt loam (3) - This deep, level, poorly drained soil is in shallow depressions on till plains,
moraines, and lake plains. Permeability is slow (0.06 to 2.0 inches/hour), runoff is generally
ponded, and the seasonal high water table is generally 0.5 foot above to 1 foot below the surface.
The land capability for crop cultivation is moderately limited due to potential impacts from water.
Vallers loam, saline (4) - This soil is deep, level, poorly drained, moderately saline, highly
calcareous and typically associated with drainage ways on till plains. Permeability is moderately
slow (0.6 to 6.0 inches/hour), runoff is slow, and the seasonal high water table is usually within a
depth of 1 foot. The land capability for crop cultivation is severely limited due to potential
erosion from wind.
Hamerly - Tonka complex, 0-3 percent slopes (17) - These deep soils are located on till plains.
The level and nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is typically found on flat areas
surrounding depressions. Permeability is moderately slow (0.6 to 2.0 inches/hour), and runoff is
slow. The land capability for crop cultivation is moderately limited due to potential erosion from
wind.
3.5.1.3 BowbelI Series
The Bowbell series consists of deep, level and gently sloping, moderately well drained soils that
formed in glacial till and local alluvium derived from till, and the corresponding range site is
primarily categorized as silty. These soils are typically found on upland till plains and
permeability is moderate to a depth of about 36 inches (and moderately slow below that depth).
These soils receive additional moisture from snow accumulation and runoff from adjacent slopes.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate.
Bowbells-Tonka loams, 0-2 percent slopes (BoB) - This complex consists of nearly level soils
in shallow swales on till plains. Bowbells loam makes up about 75 to 90 percent of the complex
with the remainder encompassing Tonka silt loam. Bowbells is belter drained and is on the higher
parts of the swales and concave depressions, while the Tonka soil is in the low depressions that
are flooded by water from adjacent areas. Permeability is moderate to a depth of 18 inches: 0.63
to 2.0 inches/hour, and surface runoff is slow. The land capability for crop cultivation is
moderately limited due to a slight potential erosion from wind.
3.5.1.4 Williams - Zahl Association
This association consists of undulating and gently rolling soils on side slopes, shoulder slopes,
summits, low ridges, and knolls on till plains. A characteristic landscape within this association
August 2009 3-47 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
would typically be dotted with depressions, swales, and flats with slopes ranging between 3 and 9
percent. The Williams series occur on the side slopes and summits, contrasted by the Zahl series
on the shoulder slopes, low ridges, and knolls. Minor soil series within this association typically
consist of Bowbells series within the swales, Farnuf on the flats, Parnell and Tonka within the
depressions, and Vebar on the side slopes.
Williams Series
Williams loam, gently undulating, 2 to 4 percent slopes (W1B) - This soil is in areas
characterized by low knolls, ridges, and smooth slopes. Permeability is moderate (0.2 to 0.63
inches/hour), and runoff is slow to moderate. The land capability for crop cultivation is
moderately limited due to a slight potential erosion from wind.
Williams loam, undulating, 4 to 6 percent slopes (W1C) - This soil is on irregular knolls, ridges,
and side slopes around potholes, swales and valley sides. Slopes are generally short, permeability
is moderate (0.2 to 0.63 inches/hour), and runoff is medium. The land capability for crop
cultivation is moderately limited due to a slight potential erosion from wind.
Williams - Zahl loams, 3-6 percent slopes (23B) - This soil is deep, undulating, well drained
and primarily located on till plains. The Williams soil is typically on the side slopes and summits,
while the Zahl soil generally occurs on the knolls, ridges, and shoulder slopes. Permeability is
moderately slow (0.2 to 2.0 inches/hour), and runoff is medium. The land capability for crop
cultivation is moderately to very severely limited due to a slight potential erosion from wind.
Williams - Zahl loams, 6 to 9 percent slopes (24C) - These deep soils are generally associated
with gently rolling, and well drained areas of the till plains. The Williams soils are typically
found on the side slopes and summits, while the Zahl soils are most commonly associated with
the shoulder slopes and knolls. Permeability is moderately slow (0.2 to 2.0 inches/hour), and
runoff is rapid. The land capability for crop cultivation is severely to very severely limited due to
a slight potential erosion from wind.
Zahl - Williams loams, 9 to 25 percent slopes (24E) - These deep, rolling and hilly, and well-
drained soils are primarily located on moraines. The Zahl soils are most commonly found on the
shoulder slopes and summits, while the Williams soils are typically associated with the slopes and
summits. Permeability is moderately slow (0.6 to 2.0 inches/hour), and runoff is very rapid. The
land is unsuited for crop cultivation.
Zahl Series
The Zahl series consists of deep, rolling to steep, well-drained soils that formed in loamy glacial
till, and the corresponding range site are primarily categorized as silty or thin silty. These soils are
typically found on glacial moraines and slope breaks. Shrink-swell potential is moderate, and the
engineering index classification is A-6(ll) and A-7-6(13) for the Bkl and C horizons,
respectively.
Zahl-Max loams, rolling 6 to 9 percent slopes (ZmC) - This complex is found on hilltops and
slope breaks. Zahl loam makes up 50 to 75 percent of the complex, and Max loam makes up the
remaining 25 to 50 percent. In general, the Zahl soil is located on hilltops and crests of side
slopes, while the Max soil is on the smoother and lower parts of the side slopes. Permeability is
moderate (0.63 to 2.0 inches/hour) to a depth of about 15 inches and moderately slow below that
depth, and runoff is rapid. The land capability for crop cultivation is severely limited due to a
slight potential erosion from wind.
August 2009 3-48 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.5.1.5 Manning Series
The Manning series consists of level to rolling, well drained soils that formed in moderately
coarse textured material that is underlain by sand and gravel, primarily at a depth of 12 to 24
inches. Permeability is moderately rapid to a depth of about 24 inches and is very rapid below
that depth. The corresponding range site is primarily categorized as sandy and/or shallow to
gravel. Shrink-swell potential is low, and the engineering index classification is A-2-4(0) and A-
2-4(0) for the Bw2 and Cl horizons, respectively.
Manning sandy loam, 1 to 6 percent slopes (49B) - This is a deep, nearly level, gently sloping,
and excessively drained soil typically located on flats and rises on outwash plains and terraces.
Permeability is moderately rapid (2.0 to 6.3 inches/hour) in the upper part of the Manning soil
and very rapid in the lower part (>20.0 inches/hour). Runoff is slow and the sand and gravel layer
typically restricts the depth to which plant roots can penetrate. The land capability for crop
cultivation is moderately limited due to potential erosion from wind.
3.5.1.6 Parnell Series
The Parnell Series consists of deep, level, poorly drained soils that formed in fine-textured
formed in glacial alluvium, and the corresponding range site is primarily categorized as wetland.
Shrink-swell potential is high, and the engineering index classification for the 3 to 16-inch
horizon is A-7-5(19), 16 to 30-inch horizon is A-7-5(20), and 36 - 60-inch horizon is A-7-6(20).
Parnell silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes (Pa) - This soil is in basins and depressions and is
usually inundated by water (for example, ponded) until mid-summer or later. It may sometimes
be ponded all year after a series of wet seasons, but after a series of dry years, it may pond only
for a few days following heavy rains. Permeability is slow (0.06 to 2.0 inches/hour), and runoff is
slow. The land capability for crop cultivation is moderately limited due to potential impacts from
water.
3.5.1.7 Wabek Series
The Wabex series consists of level to hilly, excessively drained soils that formed in sand and
gravel outwash material, and the corresponding range site is primarily categorized as very
shallow. These soils are primarily associated with outwash plains. Permeability is very rapid
below the surface layer. Shrink-swell potential is low, and the engineering index classification is
A-l-b(O) for the C horizon.
Wabek loam, 1 to 35 percent slopes (54E) - This is a deep, nearly level to steep, excessively
drained soil that is primarily located on flats, knolls, and ridges on outwash plains and terraces.
Permeability is very rapid (2.0 to >20 inches/hour) and runoff is rapid. As with the Manning soil,
the sand and gravel layer typically restricts the depth to which plant roots can penetrate. The land
capability for crop cultivation is severely limited due to steep slope and stony soil. This also
limits construction potential.
3.5.2 Poor Revegetation Potential
Soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if used for
agriculture, and response to management. Capability classes are divided into eight groups
(Roman Numerals I through VIII), with Class I soils having few limitations and Class VIII soils
having multiple limitations that prevent commercial crop production. Therefore, Class VII and
Class VIII soils are determined to have poor revegetation potential. Soils with poor revegetation
August 2009 3-49 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
potential were identified using the land capability classification given in the County soil surveys.
Table 3-5 details soils with poor revegetation potential in the project area.
Table 3-5 Soil Series with Poor Revegetation Potential
Series/Unit
Wabek loam
Zahl - Williams
Slope
1 to 35 percent
9 to 25 percent
Class
Class VII
Class Vile
3.6 Vegetation
Five cover types were identified in the project area: palustrine emergent wetlands, riverine
wetlands, mixed-grass prairie, agricultural lands, and developed land. These broad categories
often represent several vegetation community types that are generally defined by both species
composition and relative abundance. The acres of occurrence and relative distribution of
vegetation types within the project area are presented on Table 3-6. The vegetative community
types described below generally correlate with wildlife habitat types.
Table 3-6 Summary of Cover Types Identified for the Project Site
Classification
Wetlands
Agricultural Land
Mixed-grass Prairie
Developed
Total
Areal Extent
(acres)
34
373
48
5
460
3.6.1 Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977) directs each federal agency to
provide leadership and take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands,
and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the
agency's responsibilities for: (1) acquiring, managing, and disposing of federal land and facilities;
(2) providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvement; and (3)
conducting federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water
and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.
Wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of
soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its
surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). In general, wetlands are areas where water covers the soil or is
present either at or near the surface of the soil all year or for varying periods during the year,
including during the growing season. Saturation with water largely determines how the soil
develops and the types of plant and animal communities living in and on the soil. Wetlands may
support both aquatic and terrestrial species. The prolonged presence of water creates conditions
that favor the growth of specially adapted plants and promote the development of characteristic
wetlands soils.
Wetlands and their associated habitats are grouped into classifications that provide several
functions and values unique to each wetland complex. Wetlands perform many important
August 2009 3-50 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
hydrologic functions, such as floodwater storage, maintaining stream flows, slowing and storing
floodwaters, stabilizing stream banks, nutrient removal and uptake, and ground water recharge.
A number of wetland classification systems have been developed, but the Cowardin et al. (1979)
classification method is the most widely recognized system. Using the Cowardin et al. 1979,
system of wetland classification, one type of wetlands was identified on the project site
palustrine. The following sections describe these wetlands.
3.6.1.1 Palustrine Wetlands
Palustrine wetlands are non-tidal and tidal-freshwater wetlands in which vegetation is
predominantly trees (forested wetlands); shrubs (scrub-shrub wetlands); persistent or non-
persistent emergent, erect, rooted herbaceous plants (persistent- and non-persistent-emergent
wetlands); or submersed and (or) floating plants (aquatic beds). Also included in this category are
intermittently to permanently flooded open-water bodies of less than 20 acres in which water is
less than 6.6 feet deep.
Palustrine wetlands can be further divided based on the dominant plant life form or the
physiography and composition of the substrate (e.g., aquatic bed, emergent, forested, scrub-shrub,
unconsolidated bottom, or unconsolidated shore) and the seasonal water regime (e.g.,
intermittently exposed, semi-permanently flooded, seasonally flooded, saturated, or temporarily
flooded) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Palustrine wetlands within the project area occur in a variety of forms, sizes, depths, and
type/classification. The wetlands can range from a few feet across and only inches deep, to basins
500 acres in size with depths of more than 10 feet. Most of the plants within the small to medium
sized seasonal wetlands contain facultative wetland (FACW) species interspersed with a few
obligate (OBL) species in the deeper portions of the basin.
In the higher elevation margins (typically unfarmed) of the basins, facultative (FAC) and to a
lesser degree, facultative upland (FACU) plant species are the dominant constituents within the
plant community. These species typically include smooth brome (Bromus inermis), kochia
(Kochia scoparia), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), meadow foxtail (Alopecurus pratensis),
quackgrass (Efymus canadensis), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), and goldenrod (Solidago
missouriensis). Conversely, in the saturated portions of the basin, characteristic FACW and OBL
vegetation primarily consists of reed canarygrass (Phalaris arundinacea), curly dock (Rumex
crispus), needle spike rush (Eleocharis acicularis), Baltic rush (Juncus balticus), American
sloughgrass (Beckmannia syzigachne), smartweed (Polygonum persicarid), beggarticks (Bidens
frondosa), bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), and wooly sedge (Carex lanuginosa).
Wetlands within this region possess unique environmental and biotic characteristics that add to
the overall regional diversity and production of the aquatic invertebrates and the vertebrate
wildlife that depend upon them as a food source. The PPR is a unique area that is of critical
importance to migratory birds in North America. Wetlands within the region also support
countless recreational opportunities such as hunting, fishing, trapping, bird watching, and
photography. They also provide valuable livestock water and produce an abundance of forage.
Hydrology for wetlands follows a yearly cycle, beginning with the spring snow melt runoff
draining into the depressional basins and ponding (depth of inundation is highly dependent on the
amount of snow cover). Through the summer months, wetlands may receive direct precipitation
and subsequent runoff from their surrounding watershed(s), while simultaneously exporting water
through evapotranspiration and losing surface water through seepage. By late summer, the
August 2009 3-51 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
wetlands are generally drawn down or dry and enter the fall and winter months in a condition that
prepares them to repeat the cycle the following spring.
Plant communities within prairie wetlands are dynamic and continually changing as a result of
short- and long-term fluctuations in water levels, salinity, and anthropogenic disturbance
(Kantrud et al. 1989). In general, marsh sediments and seed banks are exposed during drought
periods. During this dry marsh phase, seeds of many mud flat annual and emergent plant species
germinate on exposed mudflats, with annual species usually forming the dominant component
(Davis and Brinson 1980). When water returns, the annuals are lost but the emergent macrophytes
survive and expand by vegetative propagation (e.g., regenerating marsh). Depth and duration of
the flooding period, combined with the tolerances of the individual species will determine how
wetland communities develop overtime. The resulting vegetation communities established within
most area seasonal and semi-permanent wetlands consists of a mixture of tall grasses and forbs
intermixed with a combination of emergent macrophytes.
3.6.1.2 Types, Distribution, and Area! Extent of Wetlands on the
Project Site
According to the FWS Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) (which reclassified
and processed original National Wetland Inventory data into basin class coverages that include
temporary, seasonal, semi-permanent, lake and riverine, total wetland acreages by basin classes),
both Mountrail and Ward Counties have 140,005 and 191,833 acres of wetlands, respectively
(Reynolds et al. 1996).
The numerous topographical depressions and basins that capture snowmelt and rainwater or are
within reach of subsurface waters generally support palustrine emergent wetlands (freshwater
marshes, wet meadows, prairie potholes, and sloughs). In Mountrail County, temporary and
seasonal basin classes (which correspond to palustrine wetlands) cover approximately 40,120
acres, or about 28 percent of the total wetland acreage, while in Ward County, they cover
approximately 103,128 acres, or about 54 percent of the total wetland acreage (Reynolds et al.
1996). Extensive tracts of palustrine wetlands exist throughout the two counties in isolated
depressions within mixed-grass prairies and agricultural fields; in lowlands adjacent to drainages,
rivers, and lakes; and adjacent to springs or seeps. In the region, riverine wetlands occur in much
less frequency than palustrine wetlands. In Mountrail and Ward Counties, riverine wetlands cover
approximately 612 acres and 2,424 acres, respectively (Reynolds et al. 1996).
Sixteen wetlands were delineated within Sections 19 and 20 of the project site. Wetlands occupy
a total of 33.6 acres within the project study area (Figure 3-13). Table 3-7 provides an acreage
summary.
As detailed in Table 3-7, seasonal, temporarily flooded wetlands (PEMA and PEMC) were the
most dominant wetland types delineated on the project site. Most of these wetlands are
characterized as depressional basins that are generally less than 1.5 acre in size. One large,
seasonal, persistent wetland (PEMF#2) was identified within the northwest corner of the Project
Site within Section 19.
Project Site - PEMF #2 Wetland
Wetland PEMF#2 will be directly affected by the proposed project. This wetland is located in the
northwest corner of the site and is associated with the lowest elevation contour within the NW%
of Section 19. The source of water to this feature is primarily from spring runoff of snowmelt and
precipitation from the adjacent local watershed. Additional water is supplied by a north to south
August 2009 3-52 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
drainage channel that empties into the southern boundary of the wetland. The watershed for
wetland PEMF #2 is approximately 400 acres. This wetland is approximately 11.7 acres in size
and was classified as a palustrine emergent semi-permanently flooded. This wetland was
generally characterized by a predominance of emergent and obligate wetland vegetation on the
outer margins and contains areas of open water (during spring and wet years) within the center
portion of this basin. Additionally, this delineated wetland drains into a culvert constructed under
Highway 23 that is tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek. A distinct band of mixed-grass
prairie immediately borders the basin associated within this wetland.
Table 3-7 Summary of Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Inventoried on
the Project Site
Location/Identifier1'2
Section 19
PEMC #1
PEMF #2
PEM/ABF #3
PEMC #4
Section 20
PEMA#1
PEMA #2
PEMA #3
PEMC #4
PEMC #5
PEMC #6
PEMA #7
PEMA #8
PEMA #9
PEMA #10
PEMA #11
PEMA #12
Total
Areal Extent (acres)
2.5
11.7
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.7
3.1
6.0
1.7
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.1
1.0
33.6
Notes:
1. Wetland classifications followed the Cowardin et al (1979) Classification System.
2. PEMA = Palustrine-Emergent-Temporarily Flooded, PEMC = Palustrine-Emergent-Seasonally Flooded,
PEMF = Palustrine-Emergent-Semi-permanently flooded, and PEM/ABF = Palustrine-Emergent-Aquatic-
Bed-Semi-permanently flooded.
The USAGE has determined that wetland PEMF#2 is subject to CWA jurisdiction. Wetland
PEMF#2 includes the pond wetland and the connected swale. The other wetlands (Figure 3-13)
are isolated and not determined to be Jurisdictional wetlands.
PEMF #2 Wetland Hydrology
During mid-August 2005 (when the isotope samples were collected), there was no discharge from
the wetland (Wireman 2005). Isotope samples were collected from the up-gradient end (south)
and the down-gradient end (north) of the wetland. The delta ISO values shown for the two
wetland locations are much more enriched in 18 O (-4.85 and -5.16) than the ground water in the
till and underlying Fort Union Formation (Wireman 2005). This enrichment is caused by
extensive evaporation of water in the wetland. These values are also a strong indication that the
wetland does not receive ground water discharge (Wireman 2005).
August 2009 3-53 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.6.2 Mixed-Grass Prairie
The mixed-grass prairie ecoregion occupies the northern limits of the boreal forests of Manitoba,
Saskatchewan and Alberta, south to north-central Nebraska, and was historically one of the
largest ecosystems in North America, originally covering about 69 million hectares or 171 million
acres (Samson et al. 1998). Within both Ward and Mountrail Counties, most of the remaining
mixed-grass prairie is used for rangeland3. A substantial amount of the remnant mixed-grass
prairie occurs on hills or very steep slopes, well drained or excessively drained soils, and
moderately well drained to poorly drained alkali soils. These lands and subsequent soils are
generally unsuited or, at best, poorly suited for producing cultivated agricultural crops. Mixed-
grass prairie landscapes are further divided into ecological range sites for the purposes of
inventory, evaluation, and management. An ecological range site, as defined for rangeland, is a
distinctive kind of land with specific physical characteristics that differs from other kinds of land
in its ability to produce a distinctive kind and amount of vegetation (Butler et al. 1997).
Ecological range sites have characteristic soils that have developed over time throughout the soil
development process. Also, an ecological range site has a characteristic hydrology, particularly
infiltration and runoff that has developed over time. The development of the hydrology is
influenced by development of the soil and plant community. Therefore, the ecological range site
descriptions contain information about soils, physical features, climatic features, associated
hydrologic features, plant communities possible on the site, plant community dynamics, annual
production estimates and distribution of production throughout the year, associated animal
communities, associated and similar sites, and interpretations for management (Butler et al.
1997).
Ecological range sites are distinctive types of rangeland identifiable by a characteristic plant
community that changes with the growing season (for example, cool season and warm season).
An ecological range site is recognized and described based on the characteristics that differentiate
it from other sites in its ability to produce and support a characteristic plant community.
Ecological range sites are based on soil data compiled in soil surveys. Soil surveys for both Ward
and Mountrail Counties classify the following ecological range sites as occurring within the
region: clayey, claypan, limy sub-irrigated, overflow, saline lowland, sandy, shallow, silty, thin
claypan, thin upland, very shallow, and wet meadow.
3.6.3 Agricultural Land
Agricultural land may be defined broadly as land used primarily for production of cultivated
crops. However, pasture and other cultivated land may be infrequently included in this
classification.
3 Rangeland is defined as a kind of land on which the historic climax vegetation was predominantly
grasses, grass-like plants, forbs, or shrubs and is a primary source of forage for domestic livestock and for
wildlife (Butler et al. 1997).
August 2009 3-54 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
In 1997, Ward County had 1,172 farms. The average size farm had 1,030 acres, with a median
size of 700 acres (National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997). In 1997, 829 farms harvested
11,144,094 bushels of wheat for grain on 512,545 planted acres (National Agricultural Statistics
Service 1997). The average wheat for grain production is equal to about 21.7 bushels per acre.
Durum wheat accounted for the second highest harvested crop. In 1997, 665 farms planted
332,340 acres that produced 7,337,044 bushels (National Agricultural Statistics Service 1997).
This translates into 22.1 bushels per acre. The average market value of agricultural products sold
per farm in 1997 within Ward County amounted to $70,742 (National Agricultural Statistics
Service 1997). This value is well below the statewide average per farm of $124,424.
According to the 2002 agricultural statistics for Ward County, each acre planted in barley yields
and average of 59.1 bushels. An estimated 400 acres of the project site are planted with malt
barley, which would have a potential yield of 23,600 bushels (North Dakota Agricultural
Statistics Service 2002). As of January 16, 2003, the average price for malt-barley grown in North
Dakota was $2.10 per bushel. At this price, barley grown on the project site would sell for an
estimated $49,500.
3.6.4 Developed Land
Developed land is composed of areas of intensive use with much of the land covered by
constructed structures (for example, houses, outbuildings, and retail buildings). Included in this
category are towns and cities; transportation infrastructure ROW including roads and railways;
communication facilities; and areas such as those occupied by agricultural, industrial and
commercial complexes; and industrial infrastructure that may, in some instances, be isolated from
the urban areas.
3.6.5 Existing Disturbance
The agricultural value of the two "ecoregions" has tremendously affected prairie grasslands and
wetlands, and the resulting landscape has been substantially altered since settlement in the late
1800s. Economic incentives to convert natural landscapes to agriculture have been intensive and
resulted in the loss of significant amounts of mixed grass prairie grassland and wetland habitats.
Wetland drainage (both surface and tile) to enhance agricultural production has been the primary
factor resulting in the loss of wetlands in this region (Euliss et al. 1999).
Substantial areas of vegetation have been altered from their natural condition by past and current
human activities. The primary surface disturbing activities for native vegetation communities are
agriculture, intensive grazing, haying, oil and gas development, sand and gravel mining, road and
railroad construction, and rural and urban development. Prior to the land use conversion, this
extent of the northern prairie was predominantly mixed-grass prairie, which consisted of a
mixture of cool and warm season mid-grasses (and, to a lesser extent, short and tall grasses),
broad-leaved annual and perennial forbs, intermixed with numerous legumes.
August 2009 3-57 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.7 Wildlife
Common Wildlife
The vegetative communities described above serve as reproduction, nesting, cover, shelter, and
foraging/feeding habitats for a variety of wildlife species. Wildlife within this area is closely
associated with the remnant mixed-grass prairie and wetlands including areas of open water.
Agricultural land is the most common habitat type, while wetlands and mixed grass prairie make
up a small percentage of the total land within the project area. However, the grasslands and
wetlands are the most biologically diverse areas and support a greater density of northern prairie
species.
3.7.1 Mammals
A number of terrestrial mammalian species may occur in the project area. Big game mammals,
such as pronghorn antelope (Antilocapm americana), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk
(Cervus elaphanid) and other prairie-adapted species primarily occur as transients because of the
conversion to agricultural lands from prairie grassland. Mammals adapted to agricultural habitats,
such as the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes
vulpes}, raccoon (Procyon rotor), and other small mammals are likely to occur in the project area.
These mammals typically use agricultural lands for forage and use wetlands and shelterbelts for
shelter.
Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), raccoon (Procyon rotor), and mink (Mustela visori) proliferate
within wetlands, and beaver (Castor canadensis) may occur along watercourses. Grasslands and
agricultural fields are anticipated to have varying densities of western harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys megalotis), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), meadow jumping mouse
(Zapus hudsonius), western jumping mouse (Zapus princeps), and long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frenatd). Badger (Taxidea taxus) and striped skunk {Mephitis mephitis) are also expected to occur
throughout the area.
3.7.2 Avifauna (Birds)
Three hundred and sixty-five species of birds occur or potentially occur in the various habitats
present in North Dakota (Faanes and Stewart 1982). Of the 365 bird species, 207 species are
known to nest or have nested in the State, 95 occur primarily as migrants, 28 are accidental and
21 are occasional species that have been observed in North Dakota (Faanes and Stewart 1982).
Birds occurring throughout the project area include raptors, waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds,
gallinaceous birds, and migrants.
Passerine
The open and sparsely vegetated agricultural fields of the project area do not typically support
diverse species of birds because most passerines are usually associated with the remnant tracts of
mixed-grass prairie grasslands and the structurally taller and denser riparian and woodland
habitats. In general, bird diversity increases in the project area during the spring and fall when
neotropical migrants pass through the general area in route to summer breeding or wintering
grounds.
The occurrence of the various species of passerine birds inhabiting the area corresponds to the
habitat types present. In agricultural areas, narrow strips of weedy habitats frequently border
cropland and hayland fields and tracts of grazed prairie. These usually occur along fencerows,
section lines, roadsides, and railroad rights-of-way. Vegetation in these situations is often
composed of native prairie grasses and forbs in combination with many coarse, introduced weeds
August 2009 3-58 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
including species of grass and forbs that are characteristic of sites with disturbed soils. Occasional
native trees or shrubs are also present.
Common passerine species that may occur within the agricultural fields include western
meadowlark (Sturnella neglectd), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), western kingbird
(Tyrannus verticalis), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), and horned lark (Eremophila
alpestris). Common grassland species may include bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), savannah
sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis), clay-colored sparrow (Spizella pallidd), grasshopper
sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), chestnut-collared longspur (Calcarius ornatus), and lark
bunting (Calamospiza melanocorys). Riparian and woodland passerine species may include
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), lazuli bunting (Passerina amoena), common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), least flycatcher (Empidonax minimus),
house wren (Troglodytes aedori), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), red-eyed vireo (Vireo
olivaceus), and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechid). Passerine birds associated with the various
types of wetland vegetation may include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), marsh
wren (Cistothorus palustris), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), and yellow-headed
blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus).
Gallinaceous Birds
Gallinaceous birds are upland birds that are ground-dwelling, usually quite secretive, and often
found in small flocks. These birds are commonly hunted as game birds. Gallinaceous birds that
occur throughout the project area include the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), gray
partridge (Perdix perdix), and sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus).
Raptors
Species typically associated with grasslands and agricultural fields include the northern harrier
(Circus cyaneus), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and
American kestrel (Falco sparverius). The great-horned owl (Bubo virginianus) is also a common
resident of the region. One of the most common raptors in the area, the northern harrier, is a
ground-nesting species.
Waterfowl and Shorebirds
Wetlands habitats in North Dakota include natural ponds and lakes, man-made ponds, reservoirs,
natural fluviatile wetlands, and road ditches and drainage channels that support a breeding
avifauna as rich and varied as the wetlands themselves. Most of these wetland-associated birds
are short-distance migrants, wintering primarily north of the United States-Mexico border
(Stewart 1975). Also, many wetlands in the region are important fall staging and rest areas during
the migrations. The shallow, open wetlands associated with cultivated fields are used as forage
sources by spring and fall migrant waterfowl (Kantrud 1990).
Wetlands are critical to this area, and they support a very rich and varied breeding avifauna.
Almost 40 percent of the species on the North Dakota bird list use wetlands (Faanes and Stewart
1982). In addition, of the 223 species with known or inferred breeding status in North Dakota, 57
(26 percent) are marsh or aquatic birds other than waterfowl (Faanes and Stewart 1982). Finally,
Stewart (1975) identified 63 breeding bird species as wetland associates in North Dakota alone.
The gadwall (Anas strepera), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos}, northern pintail (Anas acutd), and
blue-winged teal (Anas discors) are the most commonly observed species of waterfowl. The
American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and lesser
yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) are the most common wading birds expected to occur in the project
August 2009 3-59 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
area. The upland sandpiper (Bartmmia longicaudd), Wilson's phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor),
willet (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa), black tern (Chlidonias
niger), and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) are common shorebirds.
3.7.3 Amphibians and Reptiles
North Dakota does not support a diverse array of reptiles and amphibians. The semi-arid climate
provides only marginal conditions for amphibian breeding and hibernation, whereas the low
winter temperatures and the short growing season appear to be primary limiting factors for
reptiles. According to Hoberg and Gause (1992), the herpetofauna of North Dakota includes 25
species (11 amphibians and 14 reptiles). Of these, only the tiger salamander (Ambystoma
tigrinum), American toad (Bufo americanus), Great Plains toad (B. cognatus), Dakota toad (B.
hemiophrys), Rocky Mountain toad (B. woodhousei), chorus frog (Pseudacris nigritd), leopard
frog (Rena pipiens), wood frog (R. sylvaticd), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), plains garter
snake (Thamnophis radix), and red-sided garter snake (T. sirtalis) use prairie basin wetlands. The
only species intimately associated with wetlands are the tiger salamander, leopard frog, and
chorus frog.
3.7.4 Fish
According to Kantrud et al. (1989), fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and brook
sticklebacks (Culaea inconstans) are the only two native fishes that can tolerate shallow water
depths (less than 5 feet), low concentrations of dissolved oxygen, and occasionally high
concentrations of sulfates and bicarbonates found in these wetlands. They also noted that most
wetlands in the region lie in closed drainage basins, thereby limiting dispersal offish.
3.7.5 Invertebrates
According to Cvancara (1983), the aquatic mollusks of North Dakota consist of 44 species, of
which 13 are mussels, nine are pill clams, and 22 are snails. Characteristic groups of wetland
invertebrates can be associated with four major habitat types. These groups include benthic
invertebrates that live in mud or in association with the mud-water interface, pelagic invertebrates
that occupy the water column, macrophyte associated invertebrates that live in or on vascular
plants in association with periphyton communities, and neustonic invertebrates that live on the
surface film.
3.7.6 Special-Status Species
Several species that occur or potentially occur within the project area are classified as federally
threatened or endangered because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of
habitat loss or population decline. These species receive specific protection defined in the ESA of
1973, as amended. Other species have been designated as candidate or sensitive on the basis of
adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged
expertise. Table 3-8 summarizes the known occurrence or potential occurrence of each species
within Ward and Mountrail Counties.
3.7.6.1 Whooping Crane
Historically, the primary breeding range of whooping cranes extended from Alberta to Manitoba
south to Illinois. Whooping cranes are believed to have wintered along the Atlantic coast, the
southern U.S., and down into central Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Whooping
cranes were extirpated from north-central U.S. by the 1890s and from Saskatchewan by 1929.
August 2009 3-60 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Currently, the Aransas-Wood Buffalo flock remains the only self-sustaining wild population and
migratory group. The breeding pairs nest almost exclusively within the borders of Wood Buffalo
National Park in Northwest Territories, Canada. The wintering grounds are found within and near
the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge in Texas.
The 2,400-mile migration route between the Wood Buffalo National Park and Aransas National
Wildlife Refuge generally cuts across northeastern Alberta and southwestern Saskatchewan,
through northeastern Montana, the western half of North Dakota, central South Dakota, Nebraska
and Oklahoma and east-central Texas. The primary migration route through Nebraska is a narrow
swath approximately 140 miles wide. Migration may take 2 to 6 weeks. During the fall 2003
migration, seven observations of whooping cranes in North Dakota were confirmed (Stehn
2004b). During the spring 2004 migration, nine observations of whooping cranes in North Dakota
were confirmed (Stehn 2004a).
Whooping cranes breed and nest in wetlands along lake margins or among rushes and sedges in
marshes and meadows. The water in these wetlands ranges in depth from 8 to 10 inches (20 to 25
cm) to as much as 18 inches (46 cm) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Many of the ponds
have border growths of bulrushes and cattails, which occasionally cover entire bays and arms of
the larger lakes. Nesting has also been reported on muskrat houses and on damp prairie sites.
Whooping cranes feed on crabs, crayfish, frogs, and other small aquatic life as well as plants.
Whooping cranes use native grasslands, wet meadows, and agricultural lands as upland feeding
areas. They prefer sites with minimal human disturbance.
3.7.6.2 Bald Eagle
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was listed as endangered on February 14, 1978, in all
of the conterminous United States with the exception of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Oregon, and Washington, where it was classified as threatened (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1978). On July 12, 1995, the FWS reclassified the bald eagle from endangered to threatened
throughout its range in the lower 48 states (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). On July 6,
1999, the bald eagle was proposed for delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999), and this
proposal was made effective August 8, 2007, (72 Federal Register 37345-37372). While the bald
eagle has been removed from the list of threatened and endangered species, it is still afforded
special protections under the Bald Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and is a
special status species for many states, tribes and agencies.
Table 3-8 Federal Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Occur or
Potentially Occur in the Project Area
Species
Federal Listing Status
Habitat
Critical Habitat
Interior least tern (Sterna May 28, 1985; Endangered
antillarum)
Whooping crane (Grus
Americana)
Pallid sturgeon
(Scaphirhynchus albus)
(50 Federal Register 11784-
21792)
March 11, 1967; Endangered
(32 Federal Register 4001)
September 6, 1990;
Endangered (55 Federal
Register 36641-36647)
Nests along midstream sandbars of the None designated.
Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers.
Migrates through west and central None designated.
counties during the spring and fall.
Prefers to roost on wetlands and
stockdams with good visibility.
Known only to occur in the Missouri None designated.
and Yellowstone Rivers.
August 2009
3-61
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Species
Federal Listing Status
Habitat
Critical Habitat
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus)
Piping plover
(Charadrius melodus)
February 14, 1978;
Threatened (43 Federal
Register 6233) Delisted
August 8, 2007 (42 Federal
Register 37346-37372)
December 11, 1985;
Threatened (Federal
Register 50726-50734)
Migrates spring and fall statewide, but None designated.
primarily along the major river
Nests on midstream sandbars of the
Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers and
along shorelines of saline wetlands.
Gray wolf (Canis lupus) Threatened
Dakota skipper (Hesperia Candidate
dacotae)
Occasional visitor in North Dakota
and is most frequently observed in the
Turtle Mountains area.
Found in native mixed-grass prairie None designated
containing a high diversity of
wildflowers and grasses. Primary
habitat includes two prairie types: 1)
low (wet) prairie dominated by
bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell,
and smooth camas; 2) upland (dry)
prairie on ridges and hillsides
dominated by bluestem grasses,
needlegrasses, pale purple and upright
coneflowers and blanketflower.
September 11,2002 (67 Federal Register
57637-57717)
Critical habitat includes prairie alkali
wetlands and surrounding shoreline,
including 200 feet (61 meters) of uplands
above the high water mark; river
channels and associated sandbars, and
islands; reservoirs and their sparsely
vegetated shorelines, peninsulas, and
islands; and inland lakes and their
sparsely vegetated shorelines and
peninsulas.
None designated.
Source: Towner, 2003.
Bald eagles occur throughout North America from Alaska to Newfoundland and from the
southern tip of Florida to southern California. The bald eagle is a bird of aquatic ecosystems. It
frequents estuaries, large lakes, reservoirs, major rivers, and some seacoast habitats.
Bald eagles usually nest in trees near water, but are known to nest on cliffs and (rarely) on the
ground. Nest sites are usually in large trees near shorelines in relatively remote areas that are free
of disturbance. The trees must be sturdy and open to support a nest that is often 5 feet wide and 3
feet deep. Adults tend to use the same breeding areas year after year and often use the same nest,
though a breeding area may include one or more alternate nests.
In winter, bald eagles often congregate at specific wintering sites that are generally close to open
water and offer good perch trees and night roosts. Bald eagles tend to nest and roost away from
residential development and human activity.
Fish and waterfowl are the primary sources of food where eagles occur along rivers and lakes.
Big game and livestock carrion, as well as larger rodents (for example, prairie dogs) can also be
important dietary components where these resources are available (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Feeding areas, diurnal perches, and night roosts are fundamental elements of bald eagle winter
habitats. Although eagles can fly as far as 15 miles (24 kilometers) to and from these elements,
August 2009
3-62
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
they primarily occur where all three elements are available in comparatively close proximity
(Swisher 1964). The availability of food is probably the single most important factor in the winter
distribution and abundance of the eagle (Steenhof 1978). The population of the bald eagles within
the region is expected to increase during the winter, when migrating individuals and winter
residents use roosts sites and suitable foraging areas. Winter roost sites are typically associated
with large cottonwood galleries located near areas of open water along the Missouri River.
This species is becoming a more common breeding resident in North Dakota, using mixed
coniferous and mature cottonwood riparian areas near large lakes or rivers as nesting habitat
(Collins 2004). The bald eagle is a documented breeder and winter resident along the Missouri
River, primarily between Garrison and Bismarck (Collins 2004). Nesting bald eagles are fairly
common along the Missouri River between Bismarck and Garrison, as nine to ten pairs are known
to nest along this stretch of river (Collins 2004). Depending on the amount of open water and
availability of prey, the winter population along the Missouri River has varied between two and
60 individuals (Collins 2004).
The occurrence of winter roosts or nests in the project area has not been documented (Collins
2004). Data from the Breeding Bird Survey Trend Analysis indicate a non-significant trend for
populations of this species in North Dakota during the period between 1966 and 2003 (Sauer et
al. 2004). However, the trend for the United States during the same period is highly significant
and positive.
3.7.6.3 Pallid Sturgeon
The pallid sturgeon was listed as endangered on September 6, 1990. Historically, the sturgeon
was found in the Missouri River from Fort Benton, Montana, to St. Louis, Missouri; in the
Mississippi River from above St. Louis to the Gulf of Mexico; and in the lower reaches of other
large tributaries, such as the Yellowstone, Platte, Kansas, Ohio, Arkansas, Red, and Sunflower
Rivers; and in the first 60 miles of the Atchafalaya River (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).
Dams on the Missouri River now fragment populations of the sturgeon.
Preferred habitat includes large rivers with high turbidity and a natural flow. The pallid sturgeon
occurs in strong current over firm gravel or sandy substrate (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1989). It feeds opportunistically on aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, eggs of other
fish, and sometimes other fish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1989).
Potential pallid sturgeon habitat occurs in the Yellowstone and Missouri Rivers in North Dakota
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). However, the project site does not contain suitable habitat
or occurrences of the pallid sturgeon.
3.7.6.4 Piping Plover
Piping plovers are known to breed in the Great Plains and Great Lakes region, and along the
Atlantic Coast (Newfoundland to North Carolina). They winter on the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Coasts from North Carolina to Mexico and in the Bahamas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2004). In the Great Plains, it appears that the piping plover formerly was more widely
distributed than it is today. Historically, breeding piping plovers occurred in at least 28 North
Dakota counties. Plovers were observed in 20 counties during the 1990s (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2004).
Piping plovers historically nest on prairie alkali lakes and along the Missouri River, Yellowstone,
and Niobrara Rivers in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
August 2009 3-63 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Service 2004). Piping plover breeding habitat is composed of open, sparsely vegetated areas with
alkali or unconsolidated substrate. In north-central North America, piping plovers nest on alkali
wetlands, gravel shorelines, and river sandbars in the Great Plains. Several studies have suggested
that beach width may affect habitat use by piping plovers breeding on inland lakes. Recorded
minimum nest-to-water distances have ranged from 10 to 40 meters at various studies sites in the
Great Plains. In addition, the amount and distribution of beach vegetation affects piping plover
habitat selection and reproductive success. Substrate composition may also affect habitat
selection by piping plovers and influence nest success.
Piping plovers nesting on the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara, Yellowstone, and other rivers use
reservoir beaches and large, dry, barren sandbars in wide, open channel beds. Vegetative cover on
nesting islands is usually less than 25 percent (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).
Open, wet, sandy areas provide feeding habitat for plovers on river systems and throughout most
of the birds' nesting range. Piping plovers feed primarily on exposed substrates by pecking for
invertebrates at or just below the surface (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). The plover's diet
consists of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates. Breeding
territories of piping plovers generally include a feeding area such as a pond, slough, or lakeshore
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).
FWS designated critical habitat for the Great Plains breeding population of piping plovers on
September 11, 2002. North Dakota, Nebraska, and South Dakota contain critical habitat for the
piping plover. Habitat included in the federal designation includes midstream sandbars of the
Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers and along shorelines of saline wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2004). North Dakota is the most important State in the U.S. Great Plains for nesting
piping plovers. The State's population of piping plovers was 496 breeding pairs in 1991 and 399
breeding pairs in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Several areas of designated piping
plover critical habitat are located within a 7-mile radius of the project site. The closest area of
critical habitat (Section 9, T. 152N., R 87W., Ward County) is approximately 3 miles northeast of
the project site.
3.7.6.5 Interior Least Tern
The interior least tern nests along the major tributaries throughout the interior U.S. from Montana
to Texas and New Mexico to Louisiana (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). In North Dakota,
interior least terns occur throughout the Yellowstone and Missouri River drainages.
The interior least tern has distinct breeding and wintering areas. Most breeding occurs on the
interior rivers. The occurrence of breeding interior least terns is localized and is highly dependent
on the presence of dry, exposed sandbars, and favorable river flows that support a forage fish
supply and that isolate the sandbars from the riverbanks. Characteristic riverine nesting sites are
dry, flat, sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars within a wide, unobstructed, water-filled river
channel. The population is thought to winter on beaches along the Central American coast and
along the northern coast of South America from Venezuela to northeastern Brazil.
The interior least tern population was estimated at about 7,000 individuals around 1990 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). In North Dakota, the least tern is found mainly on the Missouri
River from Garrison Dam south to Lake Oahe and on the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers
upstream of Lake Sakakawea. Approximately 100 pairs breed in North Dakota (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2004).
August 2009 3-64 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.7.6.6 Gray Wolf
On March 9, 1978, gray wolves were listed as endangered in the lower 48 states and threatened in
Minnesota (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). The Great Lakes population of gray wolves has
been downlisted to a threatened status. In North America, gray wolves once ranged from coast to
coast and from Canada to Mexico (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Today, the gray wolf is
extirpated from the lower 48 states with the exceptions of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Montana, Idaho, Washington, and an experimental population in Wyoming.
Historically, the gray wolf occupied almost all habitats in North America, including the Great
Plains. In modern times, the gray wolf has been restricted to habitats with low densities of roads
and people. Habitat for the gray wolf in North Dakota includes the forested areas in north central
and northeast North Dakota. However, they may appear anywhere throughout the State (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2004).
Gray wolves are a territorial, pack species that will keep other gray wolves and coyotes out of
their 50- to 100-square-mile home range. Indirectly, wolves support a wide variety of other
animals. Ravens, foxes, wolverines, vultures, and bears will feed on the remains of animals killed
by wolves. Wolf prey includes antelope, elk, and mountain goats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2004).
The gray wolf is an occasional visitor in North Dakota and has been most frequently observed in
the Turtle Mountains area, which is in north-central North Dakota along the Canadian border. The
gray wolf has also been observed in McKenzie and Williams Counties (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2004). The high densities of roads and humans in the eastern portion of North Dakota
suggest that the rate of human-caused wolf mortality will remain high. The western portion of the
state provides low densities of roads and humans; however, the non-forested habitat throughout
this region makes wolves highly vulnerable to humans. The presence of wolves in most of North
Dakota will likely remain sporadic and will only consist of occasional dispersed animals from
Minnesota and Manitoba (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).
3.7.6.7 Dakota Skipper
The Dakota skipper likely occurred throughout a relatively unbroken area of grassland in the
north-central United States and south-central Canada. Currently, populations of the butterfly are
restricted to small patches of natural habitat where they form metapopulations. A metapopulation
is a set of local populations within some larger area where dispersal from one local population to
at least some other patches is possible. Extant metapopulations of Dakota skippers are found in
high-quality native prairie tracts that contain a high diversity of wildflowers and grasses. Habitats
include two prairie types: 1) low (wet) prairie dominated by bluestem grasses, wood lily, harebell,
and smooth camas; and 2) upland (dry) prairie dominated by bluestem grasses, needlegrass,
coneflowers (Echinacea spp.), and blanket flower (Gaillardia spp.).
Nectar provides the Dakota skipper with both water and food and is crucial for the survival of
both sexes during the flight period. Dakota skippers appear to prefer plants, such as purple
coneflowers, whose nectar cannot be obtained by insects without a relatively long, slender
feeding tube (proboscis). In the absence of preferred plant species, Dakota skippers attempt to
obtain sufficient nectar from less preferred plants. Its current distribution straddles the border
between tall-grass prairie ecoregions to the east and mixed-grass prairie ecoregions to the west.
In North Dakota, metapopulations exist in the north-central and southeastern regions.
Specifically, Dakota skippers have been reported from 43 sites in 17 North Dakota counties, of
August 2009 3-65 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
which at least 11 sites and three county records have been extirpated since the 1980s and early
1990s. Of the 32 extant or possibly extant sites in North Dakota, 17 occur within two complexes:
Towner-Karlsruhe in McHenry County (13 sites) and Sheyenne Grasslands in Ransom and
Richland Counties. The other 15 sites presumed extant are isolated from other sites. Land
ownership of extant sites is largely private (19 sites); North Dakota Department of Lands owns
five sites, FWS, U.S. Forest Service, and The Nature Conservancy each own two sites, and the
state highway department owns one site. The extant metapopulation closest to the project site is
the Eagle Nest Butte population in McKenzie County, which is more than 50 miles southwest of
the project area. This population occurs on the very western edge of the Dakota skipper range, but
it may be too small and isolated to be secure (Cochrane and Delphey 2002).
3.7.7 Sensitive Communities
Sensitive habitats/communities are those that are considered rare in the region, support sensitive
species of plants and animals, and/or which are subject to regulatory protection through various
federal, state, or local policies or regulations. In the case of sensitive habitats within the region,
The Nature Conservancy, in a preliminary survey, identified rare plant assemblages across the
Great Plains (Ostlie et al. 1997). Of the 633 assemblages in the Great Plains, 107 (17 percent) are
considered rare (Ostlie et al. 1997). Great Plains forest assemblages include 16 rare assemblages
that are largely cottonwood and oak floodplain forests on the eastern and western edges of the
plains (Ostlie et al. 1997). Nineteen rare shrub land assemblages include many sagebrush,
hawthorn, and willow species, and 13 rare grassland assemblages occur in the mixed-grass
prairie.
3.8 Cultural Resources
3.8.1 Cultural Context
When European fur traders first entered what is now North Dakota, the area was occupied by
several distinct Indian groups that were already involved at varying levels in the fur trade. The
groups represented two adaptations to the plains environment. The Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara
lived in relatively permanent earthlodge villages near the Missouri River. These groups
maintained extensive gardens and hunted individually or in small groups. Some of their larger
villages were already hubs in the fur trade, and European traders adopted a few of those locations.
In contrast, the Dakota, Lakota, Assiniboine, and Cheyenne were nomadic groups that focused on
bison products for international trade and subsistence. When the horse became available in some
numbers in the early 1800s, these nomadic groups quickly adapted this animal as a symbol of
wealth and as an advantage in warfare and hunting. They also developed or expanded a pattern of
raiding their trading competitors who had settled in villages.
All of the Native groups, settled or nomadic, focused their productive efforts on accumulating
meat and hides of bison and other animals to trade for valued and exotic European trade goods.
Emerging industries, in turn, depended on bison hides for belts and whale oil for lubrication.
3.8.2 Prehistoric Context
The project area is within the Middle Missouri subarea of the Plains culture area. Evidence of
Native American occupation of North Dakota can be traced back to the withdrawal of the last
major ice advance of the Pleistocene about 12,000 years ago. The chronology of the Middle
Missouri subarea is divided into four cultural periods: Paleoindian (11, 500 to 8,000 years ago);
August 2009 3-66 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Archaic (8,000 to 2,000 years ago); Woodland (2,000 to 1,000 years ago); and Plains Village
(1,000 to 100 years ago).
Prehistoric cultural resources are scarce in pothole till plains areas like the present project area.
Furthermore, these settings have little Holocene deposition that might contain buried cultural
materials, and most have been cultivated.
Interaction between the Native tribes and European traders in the fur trade had been mostly
peaceful. Armed skirmishes and raids involving trade goods and trading rights were often
between tribes or between European trading groups. But conflicts increased as Euroamerican
settlement moved west, emigrant wagon trains began leaving larger corridors of devegetation
across the landscape, and the American government began seeking a route for a Pacific railroad.
In the 1850s, increasing large emigrant wagon trains and military outposts disrupted the bison
herds that the tribes had come to depend on for trade. By the 1860s, armed conflicts were
increasingly breaking out, and Euroamericans began to settle in the plains in ever-increasing
numbers, not just passing through to the west coast.
The Fort Berthold Indian Reservation was established early in this process under the Fort Laramie
Treaty of 1851. However, the reservation boundaries have changed several times since then. First,
a large tract was conveyed to the U.S. Government for roads, highways, and telegraphs pursuant
to the Fort Berthold Agreement of July 27, 1866. Later, President Ulysses S. Grant established a
far smaller reservation by Executive Order of April 12, 1870. Further, pursuant to the Agreement
of December 14, 1886, a large tract was removed from the Reservation in exchange for an annual
payment of $80,000.00 for ten years and individual allotments. Congress ratified this 1886
Agreement by the Act of March 3, 1891. Finally, in 1949, the federal government took 156,000
acres of prime bottomland for the Garrison Dam and Reservoir Project to create the reservoir
known as Lake Sakakawea. In addition to flooding traditional communities and prime agricultural
land, the reservoir divided the reservation. Lake Sakakawea can only be crossed at the Four Bears
Bridges west of New Town on State Highway 23 and about 60 miles east-southeast along the
Garrison Dam in Pick City on State Highway 200.
3.8.3 Historic Context
Sustained Euroamerican settlement in North Dakota began with the organization of the Dakota
Territory in 1861 and accelerated with the completion of the Northern Pacific Railway to the
Missouri River in 1872. Stimulated by the Homestead Act of 1862 and an operational railroad to
eastern markets, farming expanded in North Dakota. Additional railroads entered the state in the
late 1870s and the 1880s, and there were additional booms in settlement. Many of these waves of
immigrants were distinctive ethnic groups, including many of Scandinavian or Germanic origin.
North Dakota was predominantly a farm-market economy.
The Allotment Act of 1888 allotted homestead-like lots of Indian land to Indian families. After
the allotments to Indian families lands deemed excess were opened to non-Indians. Over the
years, interactions between the Allotment Act and the various Homestead Acts and some other
actions have reduced individual and tribal holdings on the reservation leaving much of the area
east of the Missouri River fee status land. The project site and large portions of the project area
are fee status lands instead of lands held in trust by the U.S. government for individual Indians or
Indian Tribes.
The Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Sault Ste. Marie Railway (MStP&SSM) was known by the trade
name Soo Line Railway. The main line of the Soo Line was completed from Fairmont, in the
southeast corner of North Dakota, to Portal on the Canadian border in 1893. The line west to
August 2009 3-67 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Wishek and northwest to Garrison was completed around 1900. The branch line from Max to
Plaza, which crosses through the property, was built in 1910. Makoti was established along the
Soo Line, now the C.P.R., in 1911.
From 1905 through 1911, many land parcels in the area of the branch line were obtained as cash
entry homesteads, anticipating the benefits of a railroad line. There was another brief peak in cash
entries in 1914, after the line was completed to Plaza. After construction of the railroad began
from Max, between 1910 and 1920, there were a few conventional homestead entries each year in
the project area. At the project site, the northwest quarter of Section 20 and the northeast quarter
of Section 19 were obtained by cash entries in 1914. The northwest quarter of Section 19 was
patented in 1918, under the original Homestead Act of 1862.
Much of the rural settlement and development of agriculture took place in this area after the
construction of the railroad to Plaza. In addition, the years between 1905 and 1920 represented a
comparatively moist period on the northern plains, and many immigrants were seeking new starts
in life by entering the agricultural market. The droughts and economic depression of the 1920s
and 1930s devastated the state's economy. Many banks closed and farms failed. Surviving farms
had to expand in size and mechanize their operations.
The location of the project area near Makoti and Plaza provided access to major agricultural
markets by way of the railroad. On the project site, the northeast quarter of Section 19 is higher
and better drained than the quarter sections to the east and west. Farm buildings with a windbreak
of trees to the northwest are still present on this parcel. It is likely that this farm complex, some
outlying farming-related features, and, possibly, some remains of failed homesteads will
constitute the bulk of cultural resources on the project site.
Along the pipeline and power line corridors, most of the farm complexes and windbreaks visible
on topographic maps or aerial photographs are located 1,000 feet or more from the proposed
corridors. However, there is one complex along the pipeline corridor and three along the eastern
power line corridor that are much closer to the project. These areas are likely to have historical
resources similar to the project site. The farm complex along the pipeline corridor (T152N,
R88W, Section 11) is within a parcel adjacent to the railroad that was homesteaded by cash entry
in 1914. The three along the power line (T152N, R87W, Sections 13, 14, and 15) were all cash
entries in 1905, 1906, and 1907. These locations along highway 23 have good access to the
railroad at Makoti. The area of T152N, R86W crossed by the power line corridor has many more
pothole ponds and lakes than the rest of the project area and is not likely to have prehistoric or
historic cultural resources because of the presence of water.
The small towns along the Soo Line north of Garrison and west of Drake owe their existence to
the branch line to Plaza. In the 1950s, an additional branch line was built from the west end of the
project area at Prairie Junction, west to Parshall and New Town. With the expansion of railroads
and settlement, North Dakota's coal reserves also became important for in-state consumption and
eventually for large-scale export. In more recent years, oil and gas development has also become
a major element of the North Dakota economy.
3.8.4 National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies take into
account the effects of a federal undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that
is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. According to Section 301 of the
act, "undertaking" means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including (a) those carried out by or on behalf
August 2009 3-68 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
of the agency, (b) those carried out with federal financial assistance, (c) those requiring a federal
permit license, or approval, and (d) those subject to state or local regulation administered
pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency. Section 106 compliance also applies to
non-federal lands when federal funding, licensing, permitting, and approval are required.
A records search for the project site was completed through the North Dakota State Historical
Society. The records search indicated that no cultural resource investigations and no known sites
are on file for the project area. A search of the land patent records of the General Land Office for
the project area yielded 71 patent entries filed between 1905 and 1920. Fifty of these 71 patent
entries were cash entries.
The project area is in an area of upland glacial till dotted with ponds and pothole lakes. The soils
of the area are dominated by Williams series loams with local pockets of Bowbells, Parnell,
Tonka, and Zahl-Max series loams (Howey et al. 1974: map 127). Williams series loams form on
areas of deep, level to undulating glacial loam. The other soil series form in poorly to moderately
well drained swales, basins and depressions in the till plain, including drainage ways and
potholes. These soils are generally good for cultivation, but support a comparatively low diversity
of natural resources. These conditions would generally correspond to a low potential for
prehistoric cultural resources.
Unrecorded historic resources on the project site are the historic Soo Line Railway, a farm
complex in Section 19, and, possibly, the remains of two failed farms. In the larger project area,
there are also at least four farm complexes close to the pipeline and power line corridors.
Additional rural agrarian resources may also be present. The potential for prehistoric resources in
the project area is low.
3.9 Land Use
3.9.1 Project Area
Land uses within the project area include agriculture, transportation facilities, and rural
residential. Agriculture in Mountrail and Ward Counties consists of field crops, such as barley,
wheat, and corn (Souris Basin Planning Council 2002). Barley accounts for the majority of crops
produced in the project area.
Six residences occur within 1 mile of the project site. All of these are isolated rural residences
that are part of the agricultural operations surrounding the project site. Table 3-9 shows the
distance and direction of each residence from the boundary of the project site.
Table 3-9 Residences within 1 Mile of Project Site Boundary
1
1
1
2
1
Number of Residences
Distance (miles)
0.42
0.57
0.60
0.91
0.98
Direction
E-NE
S
N
E-SE
W
Transportation facilities include a network of interstate and state highways and county roads.
These facilities are discussed in more detail in the Transportation section. The proposed pipeline
corridor would be located along the short line C.P.R. to the intersection of 62nd Avenue. The
August 2009 3-69 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
corridor is located along 62nd Avenue north of the railroad. The short line connects to the main
line northeast of the project site, and provides freight stops at grain elevators in Parshall and New
Town. 62nd Avenue north of the short line is a gravel-surfaced county road (North Dakota
Geographic Information Systems 2004). Cropland is the dominant land use along the road ROW.
The proposed power line corridor is located along highway 23 and 59th Avenue, which is a
gravel-surface county road. Cropland is the dominant land use along the road rights-of-way.
3.9.2 Project Site
Land uses within the project site include agriculture, transportation facilities, and rural residential.
The project site has been used for barley and forage production. Secondary uses of the site are
transportation and rural residential. A branch line of the C.P.R. crosses the project site. A single
residence and outbuildings used in farming operations are located within the project site. Some
hunting may occur on the project site or in the general area during the fall months.
According to the 2002 agricultural statistics for Ward County, each acre planted in barley yields
and average of 59.1 bushels. An estimated 400 acres of the project site are planted with malt
barley, which would have a potential yield of 23,600 bushels (North Dakota Agricultural
Statistics Service 2002). As of January 16, 2003, the average price for malt-barley grown in North
Dakota was $2.10 per bushel. At this price, barley grown on the project site would sell for an
estimated $49,500.
3.10 Transportation
The analysis area for transportation includes roads and railroads in the transportation system that
may serve as primary or alternative transportation routes for the construction and operation of the
proposed refinery. The regional transportation system that serves the project area includes an
established network of interstate and state highways and county roads. These roads provide
access to U.S. Highway 83 (U.S. 83) and Interstate 94 (1-94), which are key routes for hauling
freight and they connect communities in North Dakota with regional economic centers in the
United States and Canada.
Roads that provide access to the project site and to U.S. 83 and 1-94 include U.S. 85, highway 23,
and highway 200. The project site is bounded on the north by highway 23, which would be the
primary access route for the site, highway 23 connects the site with U.S 83 to the east. U.S. 83 is
the primary north-south transportation route in central North Dakota and connects with Minot to
the north, and 1-94 and Bismarck to the south. Highway 23 also connects with highway 22, which
provides an alternate connection with 1-94 to the south. Highway 22 north of the town of Killdeer
to the McKenzie County line is the Killdeer Scenic Byway and provides scenic views of the
Killdeer Mountains and the Little Missouri River breaks.
The North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT) measures annual average daily traffic
(AADT) on federal and state highways in North Dakota. Not surprisingly, U.S. 83 has the highest
AADT for roads in the project area (Table 3-10). The relatively high AADT on highway 200 at
Hazen is a result of traffic associated with the coal mines and other facilities present around
Hazen.
August 2009 3-70 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-10 Highway Access, Annual Average Daily Traffic, 2003
Highway Segment
U.S. 83 north of junction with highway 23
U.S. 83 north of junction with highway 200
U.S. 85 south of Watford City (highway 23)
Highway 23 between Makoti and highway 37
Highway 23 at intersection with U.S. 83
Highway 22 north of Killdeer (and highway 200)
Highway 200 at Killdeer
Highway 200 at Hazen
Highway 200A at intersection with U.S. 83
AADT
4,400
2,900
2,250
1,550
1,175
1,000
500
3,400
1,110
Commercial Truck
Traffic (# of vehicles)
700
470
525
180
160
95
75
300
190
Source: North Dakota Department of Transportation 2003
Lake Sakakawea bisects the Reservation, which limits the north-south flow of traffic between
these portions of the Reservation. The only crossing of Lake Sakakawea on the Reservation is the
Four Bears Bridge (highway 23), which is west of New Town in the northwest corner of the
Reservation. The southern crossing is almost 100 miles south east along the Garrison Dam on
highway 200. North south travel on the west side of the Reservation is primarily along highway
22. North south travel on the east side of Lake Sakakawea is along U.S. 83.
In 2003, the NDDOT began replacing the Four Bears Bridge, which was built in 1955. The new
Four Bears Bridge was constructed 100 feet north of the old bridge and was scheduled completed
in 2005. Following completion of the new bridge, NDDOT demolished the old bridge. The new
bridge is designed to accommodate more traffic than the old bridge, and it has two 12-foot-wide
driving lanes with 8-foot-wide shoulders and a 10-foot-wide walkway. The new bridge replaces
the old 20-foot-wide roadway that had a vertical clearance at the portals of 15 feet, 7 inches.
NDDOT has developed restrictions for loads and sizes of vehicles for state highways. General
restrictions for width, height, length, weight, and loads are shown on Table 3-11. These
restrictions apply to all vehicles on state highways unless otherwise stated.
August 2009 3-71 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-11 North Dakota General Vehicular Size and Load Restrictions
Parameter Restrictions
Width Total outside width of vehicle may not exceed 8 feet, 6 inches.
Loads may not extend beyond fender lines on the left side of the vehicle or more
than 12 inches beyond the right fender lines.
Height Maximum height for vehicles is 14 feet.
Length A single-unit vehicle may not exceed 60 feet in length.
A towed vehicle may not exceed a length of 60 feet.
A three- or four-unit combination may not exceed 75 feet in length.
Equipment designed to move buildings is exempt from length restrictions.
Weight Single axle - maximum load of 20,000 Ibs. or a wheel load of 10,000 Ibs.
Tandem axle - maximum load of 19,000 Ibs. per axle but gross weight of a tandem
grouping may not exceed 34,000 Ibs. or 48,000 Ibs. on a grouping of three or more
axles.
Maximum gross weight on state highways is 105,000 Ibs., unless posted for less.
Maximum gross weight on interstate highways is 80,000 Ibs. without a permit.
The wheel load may not exceed 550 pounds per inch of tire width. Wheel load must
not exceed one-half
Vehicles may not be operated in excess of the registered gross weight. The
minimum gross weight for which a vehicle can be registered is double the unloaded
weight of the vehicle.
Load1 In daylight hours, tie a 12-inch-square red cloth to the end of the load.
At night or in times of poor visibility, attach a red light on the end of the load. The
light must be visible for 600 feet.
No load may extend beyond the fender lines on the left side of vehicle, or more than
12 inches beyond right fender lines.
Note:
L Requirements are for loads projecting 4 or more feet beyond rear of the vehicle.
Table 3-12 summarizes load restrictions for specific state highways that are in the transportation
project area. Loads that exceed the North Dakota size and load restrictions require special transit
permits. Restrictions on oversized loads include limiting travel on highways to certain times and
requiring the use of special equipment, such as "wide load" signs, flashing lights, and flags. Pilot
vehicles or police escorts may be required for some oversized loads.
A branch line of the C.P.R. crosses the project site. The line through the project site connects
freight stops at grain elevators in local communities, including New Town, Parshall, Plaza, and
Makoti, to C.P.R.'s main line at a point near Velva, which is east of the project area and U.S. 83.
C.P.R. transports freight in Canada and the Midwestern United States and the lines in North
Dakota provide transportation to Minneapolis to the southeast and Canada to the north. The only
shipper on the line is the Plaza-Makoti Equity Elevator, located at Plaza. The elevator annually
ships 500 to 800 carloads of grain via C.P.R. on an as-needed basis. (Surface Transportation
Board 1997)
August 2009 3-72 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-12 Load Restrictions for Highways in the Project Area
Load restriction on gross weight
Three axles or more on divisible loads
Highway
U.S. 83
U.S. 85
Highway 23
Highway 22
Highway 200
Highway 200A
Load weight
restricted by:
Legal weight
Legal weight
Class A load restriction
No. 1 Load restriction
Class A load restriction
No. 1 Load restriction
Single axle not to
exceed (Ibs/axle)
20,000
20,000
18,000
15,000
18,000
15,000
Tandem axles not to Individual axles not Axle group not to
exceed (Ibs/axle)
17,000
17,000
16,000
15,000
16,000
15,000
to exceed (Ibs/axle)
17,000
17,000
14,000
12,000
14,000
12,000
exceed (Ibs)
48,000
48,000
42,000
36,000
42,000
36,000
3.11 Aesthetics
The affected viewshed for the visual resource assessment is the refinery site and the surrounding
area that is within a 6-mile radius of the site. This area includes most if not all of the potential
viewing areas from which the proposed refinery may be visible. Communities included in the
viewshed are Makoti and Plaza. Makoti is 2 miles southeast of the project site's boundary and
Plaza is slightly more than 5 miles northwest of the project site.
No unique lands, unique vistas, or other special areas that require protection of scenic resources
occur at or near the project site. The site does not occupy public lands that are managed for visual
resources. The project site and the surrounding area east consist of flat to gently rolling, glaciated,
hummocky landscape. Topographic relief is generally less than 25 feet.
Typical views are expansive panoramas that are irregularly interrupted by vegetation, topography,
or man-made structures. The dominant vegetation types in the wetland areas that are not
cultivated are grasses and forbs. Predominant vegetation colors in early spring are green and gray
green, changing to buff/ochre as grasses and forbs cure in the summer and fall. Trees and shrubs
are sparse, located intermittently along drainages and wetland areas.
The affected viewshed has been highly modified by agricultural and other human activities, and is
characterized by a rural/agricultural landscape setting. Existing visual modification to the natural
setting of the affected viewshed consists of agriculture, transportation facilities, utilities, oil
development, and rural residential uses. The quality of the landscape is low because of the lack of
variety and contrast in landform, vegetation, and interesting features, and because the
characteristic rural/agricultural setting is common throughout the affected viewshed and the
surrounding alluvial plain. The sensitivity level, which is a measure of public concern for quality,
is low because of the small number of people that would view the refinery site and because there
are no significant scenic resources near the refinery site. The nearest location that would provide
views of the plant site to a significant number of people is more than two miles from the site.
Most of the land within the analysis area and in the general region is cropland planted with
barley, wheat, and other dryland crops. Other agricultural modifications include grain silos and
other farm structures.
Transportation facilities in the analysis area consist of paved highways, unpaved local roads, and
a railroad. The refinery site is bound on the north side by highway 23. Other roads in the analysis
area are unpaved BIA or county roads. The C.P.R. crosses through the project site.
August 2009 3-73 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Isolated rural residences are scattered throughout the analysis area at an approximate density of
one to two residences per 640-acre section. These residences are generally associated with other
agricultural structures. The Town of Makoti is located about 2.5 miles southeast of the project site
along the C.P.R. corridor.
Oil wells are located primarily in the northwest quadrant of the analysis area. Some of the wells
are abandoned.
Sensitive viewpoints consist of locations from which a significant number of people who have a
concern for scenic resources will view a landscape, or will be exposed to project activities.
Sensitive viewpoints are generally located on transportation routes, residential areas, and
recreational use areas. There are recreational or other special management areas that provide
views of the refinery site.
The primary views of the refinery site would be from Highway 23, surrounding local roads, and
rural residences. The project site is within the foreground to middleground views of motorists
traveling east or west on Highway 23. Foreground views are within 0 to 0.5 miles between the
viewer and the site. Middleground views are between 0.5 to 5 miles from the viewer. The site is
also within the viewshed of BIA and county roads within the analysis area.
The rural residence closest to the site is slightly less than 0.5 miles northeast of the site on the
north side of highway 23. In addition, there is a residence about 0.5 miles south of the southeast
property boundary. The project site is within foreground views of these two residences.
The site is within the middleground of views from several rural residences within the affected
viewshed. Residences in the east and northeast parts of the Town of Makoti are also within the
middleground distance zone of the viewshed.
At night, the affected viewshed is characterized by a low level of ambient lighting. The area is
sparsely populated, so residential lighting is sparse. Existing nighttime lighting is from safety
lighting at some transportation facilities. There is no ambient night lighting on the refinery site,
with the exception of lights from residential and farm buildings at the east side of the project site.
The pipeline corridor is located along the C.P.R. short line and 62nd Avenue. The corridor is
within the foreground views of motorists on 62nd Avenue and ten rural residences that are located
within 0.5 mile of the corridor.
The proposed power line corridor is located along Highway 23 for about 8 miles east of the
project site, and south along 59th Avenue for about 2 miles. Four residences and one commercial
retail business are located within 0.5 mile of the corridor along Highway 23, and three residences
are located along the corridor along 59th Avenue.
3.12 Air Quality
3.12.1 Climate
North Dakota's location at the geographic center of North America results in a typical continental
climate. Primarily because of location, the climate of the state is characterized by wide annual
and day-to-day fluctuations in temperature; light to moderate precipitation, which tends to be
irregular in time and coverage; low relative humidity; plentiful sunshine; and nearly continuous
air movement (Jensen 1998).
August 2009 3-74 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
The Rocky Mountains act as a barrier to the prevailing westerly flow of air in the atmosphere.
This mountain barrier modifies the temperature and moisture characteristics of air masses
originating over the Pacific Ocean when they flow over the mountains in ways that reinforce the
continental characteristics of the climate (Jensen 1998). Conversely, there are no mountainous
barriers to air mass originating in the polar areas to the north or the Gulf of Mexico to the south.
Therefore, air masses originating in these regions easily overflow North Dakota, sometimes with
only minor changes in the basic weather pattern.
North Dakota has varied weather in all seasons based on cold and dry air masses that originate in
the polar regions; warm and moist air masses from tropical regions; or mild and dry air from the
northern Pacific (Jensen 1998). The rapid progression of these air masses over North Dakota from
the different source regions usually results in frequent and rapid changes of weather patterns.
3.12.1.1 Precipitation
In Ward and Mountrail Counties, the occurrence of precipitation varies seasonally. Most of the
annual precipitation (70 percent) occurs during the May to September growing season (Table 3-
13). The more limited precipitation that occurs during the rest of the year may fall as rain or
snow. The 100-year, 24-hour storm event for the portion of North Dakota that encompasses the
project site is about 5 inches (Hershfield 1961).
With the arrival of spring, the amount of precipitation begins to increase. Monthly precipitation
amounts increase as spring wears on because the storm systems that traveled south of the state in
winter tend to follow more northerly tracks during spring and summer. The first substantial rains
of spring sometimes occur in late March, but usually occur in early April.
Both counties are usually quite warm in the summer, with frequent spells of hot weather and
occasional cool days interspersed. Thunderstorms, which occur on about 34 calendar days per
year, become more frequent (VanderBusch 1991). These thunderstorms deliver most of the total
annual precipitation. J^ainfall typically hits its peak in June (Table 3-13).
August 2009 3-75 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-13 Summary of Monthly Precipitation at the National Weather Service and
North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network Meteorological Stations
Period
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual (total)
Plaza
0.47
0.4
0.67
1.37
2.24
3.2
2.58
1.68
1.7
1.28
0.65
0.42
16.66
Precipitation by Station (inches)
Parshall
0.38
0.33
0.42
1.35
2.3
3.66
2.27
1.89
1.95
0.72
0.42
0.38
16.06
Ryder
0.39
0.42
0.56
1.47
2.12
3.61
2.52
1.79
1.65
0.68
0.44
0.38
16.04
Sources: High Plains Regional Climate Center 2004a, High Plains Regional Climate Center 2004b, North
Dakota Agricultural Weather Network 2004
Precipitation decreases rapidly through the fall months and is minimal during the winter. Winter
precipitation typically occurs as snowstorms and the occasional blizzard. The first significant
snowfall of the season usually occurs during the middle or latter part of November. However,
measurable amounts of snow (0.1 inch or more) may fall in September about once every 10 years.
In this portion of North Dakota, the average seasonal snowfall is 40 inches (VanderBusch 1991).
On average, 43 days of the calendar year have at least 1 inch of snow on the ground.
3.12.1.2 Temperature
Temperature data from the weather stations also show a seasonal pattern that is characteristic of a
continental climate. Average temperatures peak during July and August (Table 3-14). In contrast,
January is the coldest month. The difference between the average temperatures for January and
July is more than 60°F (Table 3-14). The highest temperature ever recorded at the Parshall
station was 107°F on August 7, 1949 and the lowest temperature recorded was -45°F on January
18, 1950.
August 2009 3-76 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-14 Summary of Monthly Temperatures at the National Weather Service and
North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network Meteorological Stations
Temperature by Station (°F)
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Average
Notes:
1 . Data from the Ryder Station were
Plaza
9
17
28
42
55
64
69
68
57
44
26
14
41
insufficient for inclusion in the tabular summary.
Parshall
5.3
12.7
24.3
40.8
53.6
62.9
68.6
67.3
56.2
45.3
27.3
13.4
39.8
Sources: High Plains Climate Center 2004a and 2004b, North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network 2004
3.12.1.3 Wind Speed and Wind Direction
Figure 3-14 presents a wind rose that was generated from the 4 years of meteorological data
described above for the Minot Airport which is about 30 miles from the project site. In this figure,
each wind vector is apportioned by wind speed categories. Thus, the prevailing winds are from
the west-northwest.
3.12.2 Clean Air Act Regulations and Permit Requirements
3.12.2.1 Criteria Pollutants - National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS)
EPA has established NAAQS for the "criteria pollutants": ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), CO,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), particles finer than 10 microns in size (PMi0), particles finer than 2.5
microns in size (PM25) and airborne lead (Pb). These standards were developed to protect public
health with an adequate margin of safety and to protect public welfare.
The CAA also directed EPA to develop regulatory programs aimed at reducing criteria pollutant
emissions from stationary sources. EPA developed regulations that apply to both large and small
sources of criteria pollutants.
Large Sources of Criteria Pollutants
Large sources of criteria pollutants are called "major sources." The term "major source" means
any stationary source that has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or more of any criteria
pollutant from specifically identified sources such as coal-fired power plants, refineries, and
chemical plants and 250 tons per year or more for those sources not specifically listed by EPA.
August 2009 3-77 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Small Sources of Criteria Pollutants
Small sources of criteria pollutants are called "minor sources." The term "minor source" means
any stationary source of criteria pollutants that is not considered a major source (see above). The
proposed Clean Fuels Refinery would be classified as a new minor source.
EPA has developed requirements for specific categories of criteria pollutant emitting stationary
sources at 40 CFR Part 60 of the EPA regulations. Approximately 100 different regulations have
been developed for sources emitting criteria pollutants. These regulations apply to both major and
minor sources.
3.12.2.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants
F£APs are regulated by EPA under authority of Title I, part A, Section 112 of the CAA. F£APs are
those pollutants that are known to cause or are suspected of causing cancer, birth defects,
reproduction problems, and other serious illnesses. Exposure to certain levels of some of these
F£APs can cause difficulty in breathing, nausea or other illnesses. Exposure to certain HAPs can
even cause death. The CAA identifies 189 individual F£APs and directs EPA to develop
regulations to mitigate these F£APs. The list of F£APs can be found in the CAA at Section 112(b).
The majority of F£APs come from manmade sources, such as factory smokestack emissions and
motor vehicle exhaust. HAPs are also released from industrial sources, such as chemical factories,
refineries, and incinerators, and even from small industrial and commercial sources, such as gas
stations, dry cleaners and printing shops. EPA has developed regulations for both large and small
sources of F£APs, but has mainly focused its efforts on larger sources.
Large Sources of HAPs
Large sources of F£APs are called "major sources." The term "major source" means any stationary
source that has the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any single F£AP or 25 tons per
year or more of all combined F£APs emitted from a stationary source.
Small Sources of HAPs
Small sources of F£APs are called "area sources." The term "area source" means any stationary
source of F£APs that is not a considered a major source (see above). These are minor sources of
F£APs, but are referred to as "area sources." Based on the information submitted, the refinery is
expected to be an "area source".
EPA has developed requirements for specific categories of F£AP emitting stationary sources at 40
CFR Part 63 of the EPA regulations. Approximately 118 different types of sources have F£AP
regulations that apply to them and each one of those regulations may have requirements for both
major and area sources of F£APs.
August 2009 3-78 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
..
'
State*! 2T4Q13 (MinoUFAA Airport, ND)
Avg. Wind SpeeO 5 49 m,'a
Pe*e*m GaJm Winds 316 perexrt
Oi-Bdion Blowng Fran
1985, 1967, 1988
MHA NATION FEE-TO-TRUST AND
REFINERY EIS
Dale-
FIGURE 3-14
SURFACE WND SPEED
ROSE
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.12.2.3 Clean Air Act Permitting
There are three different types of permits that are issued to stationary sources of air pollution:
> Major source pre-construction permits (Major New Source Review (NSR) or more
commonly called a PSD permit);
> Minor source pre-construction permits (Minor NSR); and
> Major source operating permits (Title V).
Major NSR or PSD Permitting
Major NSR permitting is required for proposed new or modified major sources of criteria
pollutants before the source has been constructed. Both EPA and States have the authority to
issue these permits. EPA issues these permits in Indian Country, which are not expected to apply
to the refinery.
Minor NSR Permitting
Minor NSR permitting is required for proposed new or modified minor sources of criteria
pollutants and new or modified area sources of HAPs before the source has been constructed.
Minor NSR permitting can also be used by proposed major sources of criteria and HAP pollutants
to create artificially minor sources.
States have minor NSR permitting programs and those programs vary considerably from state to
state. However, there is no minor NSR permitting program for sources proposing to operate in
Indian Country, although EPA has developed a program that has not yet become a final rule.
Title V Operating Permits
Title V permits apply emission limits, operational controls and practices, equipment
requirements, reporting etc., to sources within the facility during day-to-day operations, after it
has been built. The permitting agencies (State, Local, Tribal, and EPA) must issue Title V
operating permits for all sources that emit 100 tons per year or more of criteria air pollutants, all
major HAPs sources, and some smaller criteria and HAP sources as specified in regulation.
Emission limits and requirements to install air pollution control equipment are generally not
created in Title V permits. Unlike NSR permits, Title V permits generally do not create new
requirements. Basically, the Title V permits consolidate all the federally enforceable applicable
requirements from the CAA for a particular facility. This makes it easier for facilities to comply
with their air quality obligations, for agencies to track compliance, and for the public to review
permits and monitoring data for specific facilities. The proposed refinery will need a Title V
permit.
3.12.2.4 Criteria Pollutants and Ambient Air Quality Standards
The NAAQS and the State of North Dakota's ambient air quality standards are presented in Table
3-15. These are the regulatory limits that concentrations of pollutants must not exceed during the
specific averaging period for an area to be considered in attainment for air quality.
August 2009 3-81 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-15 Summary of Regulatory Ambient Air Quality Concentrations (ug/m3)1
Pollutant
N02
CO
PM2.5
PM10
SO2
Ozone
Pb
H2S
Averaging Period2'3
Annual
1-Hour
8-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
1-Hour
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
1-Hour
8-Hour
Calendar Quarter
1-Hour
24-Hour
NAAQS4
100
40,000
10,000
35
15
150
1,300
365
80
235
157
1.5
North Dakota AAQS5
100
40,000
10,000
150
715
260
60
235
1.5
280
140
Notes:
1. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
2. For 1-, and 8-, and 24-hour standards the modeled impacts are 1st highest short term values, except PM2.
3. For the 24-hour PM2.5 standard the modeled impacts are the 98th percentile value, per the standard
requirements.
4. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR 50).
5. AAQS = Ambient Air Quality Standards
Federal PSD requirements provide three area classifications that establish the amount of
allowable air quality deterioration in areas where the air quality meets the NAAQS. Deterioration
is determined by the increase of a pollutant's ambient concentration above a baseline
concentration. This allowable increase is referred to as an "increment".
In practice, only two classifications are currently used throughout the U.S. - Class I areas and
Class II areas. Class I areas are undeveloped public areas that include many of the National Parks
and Wilderness Areas. Class II areas are all other PSD areas that are not Class I. As shown in
Table 3-16, the CAA and PSD regulations have established much lower increments for Class I
areas than for Class II areas
Table 3-16 Summary of PSD Increment Standards (ug/m3)
Pollutant
N02
PM10
SO2
Averaging
Period
Annual
24-Hour
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
Class I
2.5
8
25
5
2
PSD Increments
Class II
25
30
512
91
20
The general vicinity surrounding the project site is classified as Class II. Regional Class I areas
include Lostwood Wilderness (LW) (58 kilometers north of the project site) and Theodore
Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) (112 kilometers southwest of the project site).
August 2009 3-82 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Existing Ambient Air Quality
SO2 and PMi0 ambient air quality data have been collected at White Shield, North Dakota. This
location is 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of the project site.
Figure 3-15 shows the location of the White Shield monitoring station relative to the project site
as well as other major sources in North Dakota. Because White Shield is closer to most of the
existing major sources than the proposed refinery would be, it can be assumed that these data are
a conservative representation of the existing air quality at the project site. Table 3-17 and Table
3-18 present summaries of the data collected at this monitoring site.
Table 3-17 Summary of White Shield SO2 Monitoring Data
SO2 Ambient Concentrations pig/m3)1
Year
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Maximum
Note: 1 (ug
3-Hour Maximum
42.6
45.3
66.6
53.2
53.2
87.9
61.2
106.5
106.5
;/m3) = micrograms per cubic meter
24-Hour Maximum
16.0
16.0
24.0
21.3
16.0
29.3
31.9
26.6
31.9
Annual Average
3.7
3.7
4.0
3.7
3.5
4.0
4.3
4.3
4.3
August 2009 3-83 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-18 Summary of White Shield PMi0 Monitoring Data
PM10 Ambient Concentrations (jig/m3) 1
Year
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Maximum
Note: 1 (ug/m3) =
24-Hour Maximum
29
16
16
33
27
37
23
19
37
micrograms per cubic meter
The nearest nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and PM25 monitoring sites are in Beulah, North Dakota,
which is 47 miles (76 kilometers) south of the project site. Table 3-19 and Table 3-20 present
summaries of the ambient concentration data collected at this monitoring site.
Table 3-19 Summary of Beulah PM2.s Monitoring Data
PM2.s Ambient Concentrations (ug/m3) 1
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Note: 1
Year 24-Hour 98th Percentile
18.9
18.5
10.8
24.5
15.5
16.1
11.5
20.9
(ug/m3) = micrograms per cubic meter
Annual Arithmetic Mean
6.26
5.58
5.63
7.24
5.93
5.86
6.12
6.91
August 2009 3-84 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-20 Summary of Beulah NO2 Monitoring Data
NO2 Ambient Concentrations
Year Annual Average (jig/m3)
2006 5.0
2005 4.8
2004 5.7
2003 5.7
2002 6.5
2001 6.9
2000 7.1
1999 6.9
Maximum 7.1
Note: 1 (ng/m ) = micrograms per cubic meter
Ambient concentration data for CO is presented in Table 3-21 for the monitoring site in Fargo,
North Dakota.
Table 3-21 Summary of Fargo CO Monitoring Data
Year
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
Maximum
Note: 1 (ng/m3) =
CO Ambient Concentrations
(ug/m3) '
1-Hour Maximum 8-Hour Maximum
8386
10,832
6290
6988
4193
10,832
micrograms per cubic meter
5474
3727
3378
4309
2097
5474
August 2009 3-85 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Waior Emtina Faci rttes
t. Coal Creek
2.
3. Sterrton
4
5. Coyote
6. R.M.
7. MUlon R. Young
3. Dakota Gfl*fearttan Co.
9. Anwoa-Mardan
Ambient Air Monitors
Project
Location
Mountrail
County
Ward
County
I v'-lif.i: Shield
2.
Dunn
County
County
Start
County
Morton
County
County
MHA NATION FEE-TO-TRUST
ANDREFINERYEIS
SO2 Source Localkins
Air Quality Mentor
FIGURE 3- J3
AMBIENT MONITOR AWD
MAJOR. SOURCE LOCATIONS
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.12.3 Air Quality Designation
According to federal air quality criteria, the air quality in the general vicinity of the project site
has a federal designation of attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria air pollutants. Table 3-22
shows the federal air quality designations for criteria pollutants for the project site and its
environs.
Table 3-22 Federal Air Quality Designations
Pollutant
NO2
CO
PM2.5
PM10
SO2
Ozone
Designation1
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Unclassifiable
Attainment
Unclassifiable/Attainment
Note:
1. Unclassifiable/Attainment = monitoring of the pollutant is insufficient to classify and the pollutant is
assumed to be in attainment of the NAAQS. Attainment = monitoring and modeling demonstrates the
pollutant is in attainment of the NAAQS.
Source: 40 CFR 81.335
3.12.3.1 Class I Area Air Quality Related Values
Class I area air quality related values (AQRVs) include visual range and sulfur (S) and nitrogen
(N) deposition. Table 3-23 presents recent measurements of standard visual range (SVR) and N
and S deposition at Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Lostwood Wilderness.
SVR is defined as the greatest distance at which a standard observer can discern a large black
object against the horizon sky under uniform lighting conditions. This value is calculated (rather
than measured), using Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
methodology. This calculation uses measured ambient air concentrations of aerosols that include
sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil material.
Wet deposition is measured as concentrations of sulfate ion (SO4) and nitrate ion (NO3) in
precipitation. The wet deposition values shown in Table 3-23 are also presented as elemental
nitrogen and sulfur, using the ratios of molecular weights, since deposition impacts are referenced
in terms of elemental nitrogen and sulfur.
August 2009 3-89 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-23 Measurements of Standard Visual Range
Standard Visual Range
(SVR) (km)3
Wet Deposition - Annual Total
(kg/ha)4
Nitrogen Sulfur
Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2001
2002
2003
2004
Class I
Area
TRNP1
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
LW2
LW
LW
LW
Best
20%
SVR
182.2
181.5
187.4
188.4
173.5
181.5
179.3
179.0
Mid
20%
SVR
112.1
123.6
114.8
125.8
98.5
109.3
103.0
114.5
Worst
20%
SVR
65.3
72.6
64.8
71.3
51.6
60.5
61.6
55.6
N03
3.43
4.17
4.42
2.07
NA5
NA
NA
NA
AsN
0.77
0.94
1.00
0.47
NA
NA
NA
NA
S04
2.51
2.77
3.15
1.67
NA
NA
NA
NA
AsS
0.84
0.92
1.05
0.56
NA
NA
NA
NA
1 TRNP=Teddy Roosevelt National Park
2 LW=Lostwood Wilderness
3 Source: Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) Aerosol data,
Visibility Information Exchange Web System (VIEWS) (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/)
4 Source: National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) (http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/)
5 NA - Data not available
3.12.4 Global Climate Change
Over the past 200 plus years, the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and deforestation
has caused the concentrations of heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" to increase significantly in our
atmosphere. These gases prevent heat from escaping to space, somewhat like the glass panels of a
greenhouse.
Greenhouse gases are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface
warmer than it otherwise would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase
in the atmosphere, the Earth's temperature is climbing above past levels. According to National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) data, the Earth's average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2
to 1.4°F (0.7 to 0.8°C) since 1900. The warmest global average temperatures on record have all
occurred within the past 15 years, with the warmest two years being 1998 and 2005. Figure 3-16
shows mean annual temperatures trends from 1880-2006. Most of the warming in recent decades
is likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also changing such as
rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.
August 2009
3-90
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
1860 18&0
1&30
1940 1850
Year
1960 1970 1980 1&80 2000
Figure 3-16 Global Mean Annual Land Temperatures 1880-2006, NOAA, NCDC
(NOAA- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NCDC - National Climate
Data Center)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently completed a comprehensive
assessment of the current state of knowledge on climate change, its potential impacts and options
for adaptation and mitigation. This assessment is available on the IPCC website at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities in the U.S. is carbon dioxide (CO2). As
shown in Figure 3-17, CO2 is about 84% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Other greenhouse
gases include: methane (CFU), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). As shown in Figure 3-18, the largest source of CO2 is from
the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline for generating electricity and
transportation.
August 2009
3-91
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
o
o
8,000 n
-j
-i
5,000 H
4.000 H
3,000 H
2.000 -
1.000
0
HfCs, PFCs, I Sf,
Nirous Oxide
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
3.000
O O O O O O
53 SP G3 O O S3
Figure 3-17 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Gas in teragrams
(1 teragram = 1 million metric tones)
USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005
CT
UUJ
a
a
»
H-
-i
2.000 H
1,500 H -r. .-"_"
1.000 -|
500 -H
Eleciriciiy Ctietalton
Transportation
- - "
_"--,_ __ ___lndwli₯
s
^'"' ^Commercial
__ M'
Residential
OS CP C3
Figure 3-18 US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector in teragrams
or millions of metric tonnes,
USEPA, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005
August 2009
3-92
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
The IPCC has documented ongoing global climate change and projected that climate change will
continue as atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases increase. (IPCC 2007, Summary for
Policymakers. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC). If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models
predict that the average temperature at the Earth's surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2°F (1.8 to
4.0°C) above 1990 levels by the end of this century. (EPA's Climate Change -Basic Information
website at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html). There is consensus among climate
scientists that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that
increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases has changed, and will continue to change the
planet's climate.
Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans indicates that many natural systems
are being affected by regional changes in climate, specifically increases in air and water
temperatures. Some of the observed impacts in marine and freshwater ecosystems associated with
rising water temperatures as well as changes in ice cover, salinity and oxygen levels have lead to
shifts in the aquatic biological community (e.g., phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish). Increased
air temperatures have been observed to affect the terrestrial biological community. As an
example, there has been a shift to an earlier timing of spring events such as bird migration and
egg-laying. (IPCC 2007).
Direct observations of recent climate change identify an overall increase in the average global
temperature and sea level rise and a decrease in snow cover, especially in the Northern
Hemisphere. During the 20th century, glaciers and ice caps have experienced widespread losses,
contributing to sea level rise. Numerous long-term climate change observations include decrease
in arctic temperature, snow, ice and frozen ground cover, increase in precipitation amounts,
decrease in ocean salinity, and an increase in wind patterns, intensity and duration of extreme
weather events like droughts, heat waves, and tropical cyclones.
The IPCC anticipates that the global effects of future climate change will include increased
temperatures, changes in precipitation, and sea level rise. Further decline of mountain glaciers is
projected to reduce the availability of water in many regions. These changes will impact water
resources, forestry, agriculture, ecosystems, coastal management, human health, industry,
settlements, and societies on a global scale, and could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or
irreversible. (EPA's Climate Change, Health and Environmental Effects website at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/index.html)
Projected climate changes are expected to affect human health and an increase in the incidence of
some infectious diseases like malaria is predicted as a result of the altered spatial distribution of
some infectious disease vectors. (IPCC 2007, Summary for Policymakers. Impacts, Adaptation
and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
IPCC).
Coastal communities and habitats are projected to be increasingly stressed by climate change
impacts interacting with development and pollution. For human communities in the Arctic,
impacts, particularly those resulting from changing snow and ice conditions are projected to be
mixed; detrimental impacts would include those on infrastructure and traditional indigenous ways
of life. (IPCC 2007)
The projected climate changes for most areas of North America include a warming trend and an
increase in precipitation, as well as a decrease in snow season length and depth on an annual
basis. (IPCC 2007, The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
August 2009 3-93 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Assessment Report of the IPCC). Among other things, the IPCC report projects the following
specific changes in North America:
> Warming in the 2010 to 2039 time period was modeled to be in the range of 1 to 3 °C.
> Simulated future surface and bottom water temperatures of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and
estuaries throughout North America consistently increase from 2 degrees to 7 °C.
Warming is likely to extend and intensify summer thermal stratification, contributing to
oxygen depletion.
> Decreases in snow cover and more winter rain on bare soil are likely to lengthen the
erosion season and enhance erosion, increasing the potential for water quality impacts
in agricultural areas.
> Moderate climate change will likely increase yields of North American rain-fed
agriculture. Most studies project likely climate-related yield increases of 5 to 20% over
the first decades of the century, with overall positive effects of climate on agriculture
persisting through much or all of the 21st century.
> Major challenges are projected for crops that are near the warm end of their suitable
range or which depend on highly utilized water resources.
> During the course of this century, cities that currently experience heat waves are
expected to be further challenged by an increased number, intensity, and duration of
heat waves during the course of the century, with potential for adverse health impacts.
A comprehensive summary of the health and environmental effects of climate change is on EPA's
Climate Change, Health and Environmental Effects website at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/index.html. The website also includes links to more
detailed information on impacts to specific resource areas such as human health, agriculture, and
water resources.
3.13 Socioeconomics
The socioeconomic analysis area includes the Reservation and Ward County. Ward County is
included in the analysis, because most of the goods and services for the project would come from
the Reservation or the City of Minot. Minot, which is about 30 miles from the project site, is the
closest center for population and trade. It is also the seat for Ward County, the home of Minot Air
Force Base, and the center of economic activity in north-central North Dakota. Data for the State
of North Dakota are also included in the analysis, to provide a point of reference for the area
experiencing socioeconomic impacts from the proposed project.
3.13.1 Population, Employment, Earnings and Income
3.13.1.1 Population, Employment, Earnings and Income
The existing population, employment, earnings, and income characteristics for the socioeconomic
analysis area are summarized in this section.
3.13.1.2 Population
Recent population figures for the socioeconomic analysis area are shown on Table 3-24. The
table includes recent population data for the Reservation, Ward County, and the State of North
August 2009 3-94 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Dakota. Minot has historically been a farm and ranch community, and is the home of the Minot
Air Force Base, which is an integral part of the local economy.
The 1990s were a period of low population growth in North Dakota and Ward County (Table
3-24). The modest growth rates of the 1990s reversed the declining growth rates of 1980 through
1990, when the state lost population. However, population projections indicate that the population
of North Dakota will continue to decline over the next 20 years (Table 3-24). The projected
decline in population for the state is small, indicating that declines will level off to some extent
relative to the declines in population for the last two decades. However, in Ward County,
population declines are projected to increase relative to the past two decades. This is because it is
anticipated that the rural population will continue to follow current trends of migration to urban
areas. Declining population in North Dakota mirrors similar trends throughout the Great Plains
states. Rural residents have been migrating to larger cities, depopulating the largely rural Great
Plains states. Many of the people migrating out of the state are young adults and families, which
results in fewer people of childbearing age, and therefore, fewer children. This trend also
contributes to the increasing proportion of the elderly population in the state (North Dakota State
Data Center 2002).
Table 3-24 Changes in the Populations of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Ward
County, and State of North Dakota, 1980-2002
Population
Area 1980
Fort Berthold Indian . .__
Reservation '
Ward County 58,392
State of North Dakota 652,717
1990
5,395
57,921
638,800
2000
5,874
58,795
642,200
2004
5,915
56,224
634,366
Change in Population
(percent)
1980-
1990
-3.3
-0.8
-2.1
1990-
2000
8.9
1.5
0.5
2000-
2004
0.20
-4.4
-1.2
Note:
Source: North Dakota State Data Center 2006, North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission, 2006.
Table 3-25 Projections of Changes in the Populations of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, Ward County, and North Dakota, 2000-2020
Area
Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation
Ward County
North Dakota
2000
5,874
58,795
642,200
Population
2010
NA1
56,728
645,325
Change in Population (percent)
2020
NA
55,809
651,291
2000-2010
NA
-3.5
0.01
2010-2020
NA
-1.6
<0.01
Note:
1. NA = not available.
Source: North Dakota State Data Center 2002b
The Reservation has an estimated population of more than 5,900. In 2004, there were 10,400
enrolled members of the Three Affiliated Tribes. The majority of these members live outside of
the Reservation. Members account for 3,986 (67.4%) of the total population living on the
Reservation. Between 1980 and 1990, the population of the Reservation declined, mirroring the
declines of the state and Ward County (Table 3-24). However, the Reservation's population grew
considerably faster than those of the state or Ward County during the 1990s. This is likely
August 2009 3-95 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
because increased economic opportunities on the Reservation have made it a more attractive
place to live and may also reflect improvements in census data reporting. There are no population
projections for the Reservation; however, recent census socioeconomic data indicate that there are
different economic factors affecting population growth from those factors identified for the state
and the county.
The City of Makoti is the community closest to the project site. The population of Makoti was
145 in 2000. The population declined to 141 (2.9 percent) by 2004. Makoti is not located on the
Reservation.
The racial composition of the populations of the State of North Dakota and Ward County are
similar, but differs considerably from that of the Reservation (Table 3-26). In 2000, the minority
population was low in the state as a whole, accounting for 7.6 percent of the total population. The
American Indian component of this total was 4.9 percent. In contrast, American Indians were the
majority on the Reservation, accounting for 67.4 percent of the Reservation's total population.
The white population accounted for 26.9 percent and the Hispanic population was 2.6 percent.
Other populations of a single race each accounted for less than 1 percent (Table 3-26). People of
two or more races accounted for 5.0 percent of the Reservation's population.
The age structure of the population in Ward County is comparable to that of the State of North
Dakota (Table 3-26) and to the country as a whole. The middle age group of the population (35 to
64) increased in number between 1990 and 2000, while the youngest third (under 5 to 34)
decreased, which is consistent with the aging of the general population. The median age of the
population on the Reservation was 30, younger than the state median of 36.2 and the Ward
County median of 32.4. Nearly 40 percent of the population on the Reservation was under the age
of 20 in 2000, a considerably higher percentage than Ward County or the state, which both have
less than 30 percent of the population under 20 (Table 3-26).
August 2009 3-96 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-26 Demographic Characteristics of Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and
Ward County, 2000
Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation
Total Population
Sex Distribution
Male
Female
Age Distribution
Under 5
years
5-19
20-44
45-64
65 +
Race Distribution
White
Black
American
Indian, or
Alaska Native
Asian or Pacific
Islander
Other
Two or more
races
Hispanic Origin
(of any race)
Number
5,195
2,877
3,038
536
1,782
1,778
1,171
648
1,594
6
3,986
9
26
294
152
Portion
(percent)
48.6
51.4
9.1
30.1
30.1
19.8
11.0
26.9
0.1
67.4
0.1
0.4
5.0
2.6
Ward County
Number
58,795
29,284
29,511
4,348
13,158
22,667
11,281
7,341
54,327
1,305
1,215
519
428
1,001
1,125
Portion
(percent)
49.8
50.2
7.4
22.4
38.6
19.2
12.5
92.4
2.2
2.1
0.9
0.7
1.7
0.0
North Dakota
Number
642,200
320,524
321,676
39,400
144,064
225,394
138,864
94,478
593,181
3,916
31,329
3,836
2,540
7,398
7,786
Portion
(percent)
49.9
50.1
6.1
22.4
35.1
21.6
14.7
92.4
0.6
4.9
0.6
0.4
1.2
1.2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001
3.13.1.3 Housing
The total number of housing units available, the rates of vacancy, and median rents vary for the
Reservation and Ward County. Ward County has almost 9 times as many housing units as the
Reservation (Table 3-27). However, a much larger portion of housing units are vacant on the
Reservation (34 percent) compared with Ward County (8 percent). On both the Reservation and
in Ward County, more than half of the occupied housing units are occupied by owners rather than
renters (Table 3-27). In 2000, median monthly rent in Ward County was $408 whereas median
rent on the Reservation was $245 (U.S. Census Bureau 2001).
In addition to permanent housing, the Reservation and Ward County have temporary housing,
such as motels and campgrounds. Temporary housing present near the project site includes four
motels in New Town, one motel in Parshall, and one motel in Garrison. No motels exist in
Makoti; however, a campground provides 100 sites with electrical hookups. The City of Minot
provides a wide range of motels and campgrounds.
August 2009
3-97
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-27 Summary of Housing Units on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and in
Ward County, North Dakota, 2000
Housing Units
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
Status of Housing Unit
Occupied by:
Owner
Renter
Total
Vacant
Total (occupied/vacant)
Total Number
of Units
1,122
786
1,908
973
2,881
Portion of Total
(percent)
58.8
41.2
66.2
33.8
100.0
Ward
Total Number
of Units
14,434
8,607
23,041
2,056
25,097
County
Portion of Total
(percent)
62.6
37.4
91.8
8.2
100.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001
3.13.1.4 Employment
The economies of the Reservation and Ward County largely are based on natural resources. Basic
economic sectors that bring revenues into the Reservation and county include agriculture, oil
production, some manufacturing, and recreational opportunities.
Agriculture historically has been and currently is the primary base industry in North Dakota,
including on the Reservation and in Ward County. Fifty-five percent of that portion of the
Reservation that is not covered by Lake Sakakawea is used for grazing (cattle and buffalo) and
cropland. Consequently, livestock ranching and farming are primary economic activities on the
Reservation. Nearly 94 percent of the land use in Ward County is in farms (North Dakota
Agricultural Statistics Service 1997).
Beyond agricultural activities, few economic opportunities exist on the Reservation. The Four
Bears Casino and Lodge, which is on the shore of Lake Sakakawea west of New Town, is owned
and operated by the MHA Nation. The Casino and Lodge employ more than 300 people, of which
more than 90 percent are tribal members. Industrial economic activity includes two tribally
chartered corporations (Fort Berthold Library 1994). Although there are large deposits of coal
that have the potential for economically feasible development on the Reservation, they have not
been leased or developed. Reserves of oil also exist, and some historical and recent development
of this resource has occurred on the Reservation.
In 2000, the labor force participation rate on the Reservation was 57.6 percent. This means that
the proportion of all people age 16 years or older who are employed or available for work was
2,301 out of 3,993 people. The labor force participation rate for Indians living on the Reservation
was 56.9 percent.
The unemployment rate on the Reservation decreased 29 percent between 1990 and 2000 (Table
3-28). This decrease occurred because of an increase in economic opportunities. These
opportunities included the opening of the Four Bears Casino and Lodge in 1994, a large increase
in the number of people employed by the Three Affiliated Tribes Lumber Construction
Manufacturing Corporation (a tribally owned corporation), and the establishment of the Mandaree
Enterprise Corporation (formerly the Mandaree Electronics Corporation). The Mandaree
Enterprise Corporation manufactures electronics and provides information technology services,
hardware/software, and supplies.
August 2009 3-98 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
In contrast with the decrease in unemployment on the Reservation, statewide unemployment rose
slightly, and unemployment in Ward County remained constant between 1990 and 2000 (Table
3-28). However, even with the reduction in unemployment on the Reservation, the unemployment
rate on the Reservation in 2000 was 6.6 percent higher than for Ward County.
Table 3-28 Resident Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment for the State of
North Dakota, Ward County, and the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation,
1990-2000
Category
North Dakota
Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate
Ward County
Labor Force
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
Labor Force (all people)
Employed
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate
1990
318,054
305,272
12,782
4.0
26,420
25,264
1,156
4.4
2,130
1,795
335
15.7
2000
338,982
316,632
15,257
4.6
31,374
26,102
1,240
4.5
2,301
2,045
255
11.1
Change
1990-2000
3.72%
19.36%
15.00%
15.0%
3.32%
7.27%
2.27%
2.3%
13.93%
-23.88%
-29.30%
-29.9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001
BIA publishes biennially the American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. This report
compiles data on tribal enrollment, service population and labor force information for federally
recognized Indian tribes. The 2005 version of this report for the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation
(BIA 2005), included as Table 3-29, identified 8,773 Indian people in the area on or near the
reservation eligible for BIA services. The report also includes information on the available work
force. In 2005, the MHA Nation estimated the available work force from the service population to
be 4,381. Of the available MHA Nation work force, 71% were not employed.
August 2009
3-99
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-29 Local Estimates of Indian Service Population and Labor Market
Information ~ Three Affiliated Tribes
Service Population: on-or-near Reservation
Population Percent
Tribal Enrollment
Total Eligible for Services
Age Distribution
Under 16
16-64
65 & Over
11,897
8,773
3,962
4,509
302
Labor Force Data
Not Available for Work 430
Available for Work (Total Workforce) 4,381
Employed 1,287
Not Employed 3,094
Not Employed as Percent of Available Work Force 71%
Total Employment 1,287
Tribal 1,169
Private 118
Employed, but Below Poverty Guidelines 708 55%
Source: American Indian Population and Labor Force Report, BIA 2005
The North Dakota Department of Commerce (North Dakota Department of Commerce 2002)
conducted a study of available labor for the area within a 60-mile radius of Minot. This
geographic area included portions of Ward, Bottineau, McHenry, McLean, Mountrail, and
Renville counties. The Reservation east of Lake Sakakawea is also included in this study area.
The 60-mile radius was identified as the median maximum distance that those people involved in
the study were willing to commute.
The study characterized the available labor force within the geographic area and identified the
individuals' desirability of employment in different types of industries. The available labor force
included those individuals looking for work, planning to seek work, or who would consider a
different or alternative job. There were 21,160 individuals in the available labor force in the
geographic area (North Dakota Department of Commerce 2002). Approximately 2,870 of these
individuals were actively seeking work during the time the study was conducted.
The study determined that individuals in the available labor force most desired jobs in the
information computer technology and business services operation industries (Table 3-30),
followed by jobs in health services and manufacturing. Finally, jobs in engineering and machine
trades or construction were the least desirable to individuals in the available labor force.
August 2009 3-100 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-30 Industries of Interest to the Available Labor Force
Industry
Information Computer Technology
Business Services Operation
Health Services
Manufacturing
Engineering
Machine Trades or Construction
Number of
Individuals1
14,114
12,992
9,755
9,755
8,125
7,702
Portion of Available
Labor (percent)
66.7
61.4
46.1
46.1
38.4
36.4
Note:
1. The number of individuals does not add up to the total available labor force because individuals may be
interested in more than one industry.
Source: North Dakota Department of Commerce 2002
Employment by economic sector is another common measure of economic activity. On the
Reservation, the largest annual average change in job sectors between 1990 and 2000 was in the
government and services sectors. Although it involved a relatively small number of jobs, the
number of jobs in the government sector increased by 73 percent. Government employers on the
Reservation include the MHA Nation, Fort Berthold Community College, BIA, and the IHS. In
the services sector, the number of jobs increased by 59 percent.
In addition to experiencing one of the largest increases in the number of jobs, industries in the
services sector employed the largest number of individuals in the decade between 1990 and 2000
(Table 3-31). The services sector represented 37.8 percent of the jobs on the Reservation in 1990
and grew to 48.4 percent of all employment on the Reservation by 2000. The primary stimulus for
growth in the services sector was the 1994 opening of the Four Bears Casino and Lodge, one of
the largest employers on the Reservation.
In contrast with the government and service sectors, employment in most of the other sectors
declined from 1990 to 2000 (Table 3-31). Employment in the retail trade declined 26.9 percent,
and employment in the agriculture, forestry, and mining sector declined 45.1 percent. Despite the
decline in these sectors, overall employment on the Reservation increased from 1990 to 2000
(Table 3-31).
In Ward County, the largest employment sector from 1990 to 2000 was the service sector, which
represented 30.6 percent and 42.6 percent of the employed workforce in those years, respectively.
The government sector represented 32 to 37 percent of the jobs during the 1990s. The Minot Air
Force Base is the largest government employer in the county, accounting for nearly 80 percent of
federal employment and nearly 40 percent of all government employment in Ward County.
August 2009
3-101
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-31 Summary of Total Estimated Employment on the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation and in Ward County, 1990 and 2000
Ft. Berthold Indian
Reservation
Number of Portion of Total
Employees (percent)
Sector
Agriculture, Forestry and
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation,
Communication,
and Utilities
Wholesale
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, and Real
Estate
Services
Public Administration
Military Service (Based)
Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001,
1990
308
118
119
111
23
216
63
679
158
1,795
1990
2000
169
78
113
162
14
158
89
989
273
2,045
1990
17.2
6.6
6.6
6.2
1.3
12.0
3.5
37.8
8.8
2000
8.3
3.8
5.5
7.9
0.7
7.7
4.4
48.4
13.3
Ward County
Number of
Employees
1990
1
1
1
1
5
1
8
1
4
,271
,204
794
,790
,303
,978
,194
,540
,504
,357
27,935
2000
1
,154
1,445
2
1
3
1
12
1
4
723
,047
,085
,935
,593
,832
,289
,032
Portion of
Total
(percent)
1990
4.
4,
2.
7,
4,
21
4.
30,
,5
.3
,8
.3
.7
.4
,3
.6
5.4
15.
,6
2000
3.8
4.8
2.4
6.8
3.6
13.1
5.3
42.6
4.3
13.4
30,134
The services and retail trade sectors also were sources of substantial employment in the county.
Considered together, the government, services, and retail trade sectors accounted for almost 80
percent of employment in Ward County between 1990 and 2000. The services sector experienced
the largest gain in employment (50.3 percent) during the decade (Table 3-31). The retail trade
sector experienced a decrease in employment over the same period.
3.13.1.5 Income
In 1990 and 2000, the per capita personal income in the socioeconomic analysis area trailed that
of Ward County and the State of North Dakota (Table 3-32). Although per capita personal income
in Ward County was less than that for the state in both years, the difference increased from 1990
(3 percent less) to 2000 (5 percent less). In both years, the per capita personal income on the
Reservation was substantially lower than that for the state and Ward County (Table 3-32).
In both 1990 and 2000, a high portion of all people living on the Reservation had incomes that
placed them below the poverty line (Table 3-32). In addition, one-third to one-half of tribal
members on the Reservation had incomes that placed them below the poverty line. During the
same period, 11 to 14 percent of residents of Ward County and North Dakota had incomes that
placed them below the poverty line (Table 3-32).
August 2009
3-102
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Table 3-32 Per Capita Personal Income and Poverty Rates in Analysis Area
Per Capita
Personal Income ($)
Area
North Dakota
Ward County
Forth Berthold Indian Reservation
American Indians
All people
1990
11,051
10,708
6,925
10,667
2000
17,767
16,926
8,414
10,940
Poverty Rate
(percent)
1990
14.40
12.70
51
35
2000
11.90
10.80
36
28
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2001
3.13.2 Facilities and Services
Development has the potential to affect existing community facilities and infrastructure. The use
of existing facilities or infrastructure, including roads, may affect the capacity of service agencies
or transportation systems, or may require installation of new facilities. Growth in population and
employment may also affect local community services in the project area. The following
paragraphs characterize existing infrastructure and services in the project area.
> Fire protection on the Reservation is provided in the communities and rural areas by
volunteers using BIA equipment. The nearest Fire Protection District is the Minot Rural
Fire District, which serves a portion of Ward County that does not include the project
site.
> The Fort Berthold Rural Water Project provides water to the Four Bears, Mandaree,
White Shield, and Twin Buttes locations on the Reservation. Construction on the
project began in the late 1990s, and consists of water intake systems and small water
treatment plants at Mandaree, White Shield, Twin Buttes, and Four Bears. Other
communities and rural areas on the Reservation use water supply wells. Individuals in
some areas use untreated surface water.
> Educational facilities on the Reservation provide primary, secondary, and some post-
secondary education. Primary and secondary education is provided by three BIA
Contract Schools, which are located at Mandaree, Twin Buttes, and White Shield.
These schools provide education for grades 1 through 12. Nearby schools include a high
school in Makoti and an elementary school in Ryder. Post-secondary education is
provided by the Fort Berthold Community College in New Town and at satellite
locations.
> Health care on the Reservation is provided by IHS. The primary health care facility is
the Minne-Tohe Health Center in New Town. However, IHS also has satellite health
stations at Mandaree, White Shield, and Twin Buttes. The Tribal Health Department
provides a Community Health Representative Program and the Ambulance Service for
emergency health care services. There is also a Dialysis Center on the Reservation.
Hospitals and a wide range of other health services are available in Minot.
> An Emergency Action Plan for the Reservation in general is under development that
will provide direction, including mitigation, for a variety of hazards (Federal
Emergency Management Agency 2003).
August 2009 3-103 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
3.13.3 Social Values
The quality of life in a particular area and the reasons people live there are subjective measures of
a person's happiness with a geographic location, based on a variety of self-defined values. The
socioeconomic analysis area and the west, central North Dakota, have experienced impacts to air
and water quality from nearby coal-fired power plants, energy development, and other industrial
activities. There is a perception among some individuals that other energy-related industrial
activities may be incompatible with maintaining the quality of the natural environment. Other
people, however, in the area support industrial development for its positive economic effects.
3.14 Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations, was published in February 1994 and requires federal
agencies to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income
populations. Since its issuance in 1994, EPA's Office of Environmental Justice (EJ) has
developed policies and guidance further clarifying the intent of the Executive Order and the
Agency's strategy for incorporating EJ concerns into its actions. Such actions include the
issuance of a wastewater discharge permit, as the MFIA Nation has requested for the proposed
refinery.
EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race,
color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment means that no group
of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate
share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and
commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.
Because of the infinitely variable nature of EJ problems and stakeholders, as well as the resources
available to address any particular situation, there are no nationally applicable standards that
identify specific tools and data for performing an EJ analysis. Rather, the Agency must develop
them on a case-by-case basis. For purposes of this EJ analysis, EPA based the identification of the
affected area on an evaluation of the potential impacts to air, surface water, ground water, soils,
and the community resulting from construction and operation of the proposed refinery. The
socioeconomic sections of this chapter and Chapter 4 further discuss data used to identify
socioeconomic impact areas and the nature of those impacts.
Three different geographic regions were considered for the potentially affected area. The area
within a 1-mile radius of the project site is the area where environmental impacts are most likely
to occur. This is based on an evaluation of modeled air emissions from the proposed refinery and
a determination that, while well below health-based standards, there is some potential for
exposures to occur in this area. In order to provide a conservative analysis of possible
environmental and socioeconomic impacts, the DEIS expanded the affected area to include a 10-
mile radius around the site. The FEIS, in response to comments on the DEIS, has broadened the
geographic scope of the affected area, so that it now extends beyond 10 miles to the four zip code
areas surrounding the project site: 58756, 58770, 58771, and 58779. This expanded scope allows
comparisons of potentially impacted populations to reference populations based on U.S. Census
data, which are sorted by zip codes, allows the FEIS to include relatively populated areas in the
analysis, and provides a conservative analysis for both environmental and socioeconomic
impacts, as they relate to potential EJ populations.
August 2009 3-104 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
As stated above, EPA must select which data it will use for each EJ analysis on a case-by-case
basis. These data, referred to as Environmental Justice Indicators, may include: environmental
indicators, health indicators, social indicators, and economic indicators. These indicators
highlight some aspect of current conditions and trends in the environment or within a community.
They provide information that can be used in the EJ analysis to supplement, as appropriate,
information more specific to the environmental decision being evaluated (e.g., impacts from a
facility being sited or permitted). For this EJ analysis, EPA is basing its identification of
communities with potential EJ indicators on two types of data: ethnicity and income status. This
analysis assumes that populations residing within the affected area constitute indicators of an EJ
community, if the percentage of population in minority and/or poverty status is greater than that
of the reference community, which in this case is the State of North Dakota. Since the Executive
Order on EJ explicitly identifies "low-income populations" as groups of concern regarding EJ
issues, it is important to point out that this EJ analysis incorporates poverty threshold levels
determined by the U.S. Census as a proxy for low income populations in the affected area and in
the reference community.
Taking into account the indicators described above, EPA used relevant census data on the four zip
code areas to determine whether any populations residing within the affected area constitute a
potential "environmental justice population." This was done by comparing the affected area to the
reference community, which is defined as the state of North Dakota.
August 2009 3-105 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Figure 3-19 depicts the project site, 1- and 10-mile radii, and the four zip code areas surrounding
the project site. Six residences occur within a 1-mile radius of the project site. All of these are
isolated rural residences that are part of the agricultural operations surrounding the project site.
Table 3-33 shows population numbers and percentages of the non-white, American Indian, and
poverty populations for the four zip code area comprising the affected area and for the reference
community. The non-white population data are defined by the U.S. Census to include Black or
African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific
Islander, and Hispanic or Latino populations. American Indian data captures only single ethnicity
populations and does not include people with two or more ethnicities. Therefore, the U.S. Census
estimates of Native American populations are lower than actual population figures.
Table 3-33 Affected Area Environmental Justice Indicators
Population
Non-White
Population*
American
Indian
% Non-
White*
%
American
Indian
Poverty
Population
%in
Poverty
Zip Codes Within 10-Mile Radius and Major Towns Within Each Zip Code
58756
(includes Makoti)
58771
(includes Plaza)
58770
(includes Parshall)
58779
(includes Ryder)
4 Zip Code Area
State Statistics
North Dakota
260
463
1,273
477
2,473
642,200
34
22
706
30
792
49,019
1
14
559
22
596
31,329
13%
5%
55%
6%
32%
8%
0%
3%
44%
23%
24%
5%
45
54
286
111
496
73,457
18%
11%
23%
22%
20%
12%
American Indian population is included in the non-white population
Source: American Fact Finder, Census 2000
The information shown in Table 3-33 suggests that each of the zip codes demonstrate indicators
of an EJ community. Overall, the four zip code areas comprise 32 percent non-white and 24
percent American Indian population (compared to eight percent and five percent for the State,
respectively) and 20 percent poverty population (compared to 12 percent for the State). The
communities that fall closest to the project location within these zip codes are Makoti (2.5 miles)
and Plaza (6 miles).
The affected area includes 596 Native Americans, which represents 24 percent of the total
population. This is a higher concentration of Native Americans than is represented throughout
North Dakota, which reports five percent of the population as Native American. The affected area
also has a higher percentage of population that is considered low income compared to the State.
In North Dakota, 12 percent of the population is considered living below the poverty threshold,
while 20 percent of the population in the affected area has been characterized as living in poverty.
The median age in the affected area ranges from 36.4 years (zip code 58770) to 48.8 years (zip
code 58756) (compared to 36.2 years for the State). The median value of homes among the four
zip codes ranged from $34,156 (zip code 58771) to $66,611 (zip code 58756) in 2007 dollars
(compared to $105,443 in 2007 dollars for the State.).
The following section provides additional information on each of the four zip code areas, with
respect to demographic, social, and economic statistics. The source of the data was the 2000
census.
August 2009
3-106
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
58756: Zip code 58756 encompasses the project location and the community of Makoti. The
population of this area in 1999 was 260, with over half of the population residing in
Makoti. This area has a very low population density, approximately two people per
square mile. Makoti is 2.5 miles southeast of the proposed refinery and is the closest
community to the site. It has 145 residents, of which 95.9 percent are white and 4.1
percent are non-white. Nineteen percent of the population falls within poverty status. The
median age in Makoti is 47.3 years. The community has a lower unemployment rate of
2.5 percent compared to 3.0 percent for the State (1999). The largest percentages of
employment by industry are in education, health, and social sciences (27.8%), agriculture
(22.2%), and wholesale trade (11.1%).
58771: Zip code 58771 is located to the northwest of the project site, encompassing the
community of Plaza. Plaza is located 6 miles northwest of the proposed refinery. In 1999
there were 167 residents within the community of Plaza. Of these, 91 percent are white
and 7.3 percent fall below the poverty threshold. The median age in Plaza is 42.7 years.
The community has a lower unemployment rate of 1.4 percent compared to 3.0 percent
for the State (1999). The three largest employers by industry are education, health, and
social sciences (31.6%), retail trade (13.2%), and wholesale trade (11.8%).
58770: Zip code 58770 is located west and southwest of the project site and includes the town of
Parshall, which is located approximately 13 miles west of the project location on Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation. Parshall is the closest community on Tribal Land. It
reported 981 residents in the 2000 census. Of these, 58.2 percent are non-white, and 27.7
percent fall below the poverty threshold. The median age in Parshall is 32.7 years. The
community has a higher unemployment rate of 3.7 percent compared to 3.0 percent for
the State (1999). The three largest employers by industry are education, health, and social
science (30.4%), arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and food services
(14.2%), and information (11.7%).
58779: Zip code 58779, which includes the town of Ryder and a small portion of Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation, is located south to southeast of the project location. Ryder is located
approximately 10 miles from the project location with a recorded population of 92
residents in the 2000 Census. The population is 97.8 percent white, and 30 percent fall
below the poverty threshold. The median age in Ryder is 46.0 years. The community has
a lower unemployment rate of 2.4 percent compared to 3.0 percent for the State (1999).
The three largest employers by industry are education, health, and social sciences
(27.1%), retail trade (14.6%), and transportation and warehousing, and utilities (14.6%).
For more information, see EPA's Environmental Justice Tier One Analysis for the Mandan,
Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's "Clean Fuels Refinery" Project (Tier One Analysis), December,
2007.
August 2009 3-107 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Legend
^H Project Site
^B 1-Mile Radius of Project Site
10-Mile Radius of Project Site
I I Fort Berthod Indian Reservation
I I City Boundary
County Boundary
Zip Code Boundary
Water
Booz Allen Hamilton
to
15 / O
I.,, 3 t^ffl
] Miles
Transverse Mercatcx Projeclkm
1983 North American Datum
Zone 14
Figure 3-19
Zip Codes within a 10-Mile
Radius of Project Site
Analysis Area: Monti. Ward & McLean Counties, ND
Dale: 7.-7/07 File: Rgure_X.jpg
Created By: Kyle Williams JPG
-------
-------
Chapter 3 Affected Environmental
Health and Safety
Several factors contribute to the health and safety of Native Americans in North Dakota including
poverty, access to adequate healthcare, sanitation, proximity of pollution sources, and social
behaviors.
According to the North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission (1999):
> 78 percent of young Indian women, ages 14 to 24, are at high risk for contracting the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(HIV/AIDS).
> Indian youth, ages 15 to 24 years, have a 382 percent higher suicide rate than the white
suicide rate. (67.5/100,000 compared with 17.7/100,000)
> The poverty rate for Indians in North Dakota is more than three times the rate for North
Dakota all-races population - 38 percent compared with 11 percent.
> In the Northern Plains, the Median Household Income for Indians is $12,310 as
compared with the U.S. all-races median of $30,056.
> Indians are nearly 7.5 times as likely to live in households without adequate sanitation
facilities as the general North Dakota population.
The Socioeconomic and EJ sections of Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 of this FEIS discuss the current
status and potential impacts of factors such as employment/income, housing, access to health
care, and proximity to pollution sources. In addition, the ATSDR has compiled baseline data on
the health status of Native Americans living on the Fort Berthold Reservation, with an emphasis
on asthma and specific types of cancer. These data are included in Appendix D.
Safety issues affecting populations living near the refinery are discussed in the Transportation,
Spills and Releases, and Human Health sections of this FEIS. Occupational safety issues for
refinery workers are discussed in the Human Health section of Chapter 4 of this FEIS.
August 2009 3-111 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
This chapter of the EIS provides an analysis of the effects or environmental impacts that
would result from implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. Environmental
effects include ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health impacts.
Effects can be direct, indirect, or cumulative and can be temporary (short-term) or permanent
(long-term). Effects can vary in degree, ranging from only a slight discernable change to a drastic
change in the environment. For this EIS, short-term effects are defined as occurring during the
construction phase. Long-term effects are caused by operations that would remain longer.
This chapter combines the project proponent's proposed construction action (Alternative 1) with
the proponent's proposed effluent discharge action (Alternative A) for purposes of analyzing the
various environmental impacts associated with the combined proposal. This approach facilitates
analysis and disclosure of the environmental impacts associated with all aspects of the proposed
action. The remaining construction alternatives (Alternatives 2 through 5) and effluent discharge
alternatives (Alternatives B through D) are discussed in comparison to the combined Alternatives
1 and A analysis for each section of this chapter.
4.1 Geology
4.1.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Under this alternative the site would be accepted into trust status for the purposes of constructing
and operating the clean fuels refinery and producing forage for buffalo. The construction phase
would begin with the stripping of topsoil, grading of the site and foundation excavations. Cut and
fill and other standard construction techniques would be used to develop access roads and to
install pipelines, power lines, water wells, and railroad spur. All of these construction activities
would alter existing topography. In total, an estimated 190 acres would be affected by permanent
surface-disturbing activities and alteration. There would be 78 acres of short term surface-
disturbing activities (e.g. pipeline construction). Use of proper construction techniques, as
described in Chapter 2, would reduce the effects associated with topographic alteration.
As discussed in Chapter 3, no major geologic hazards have been mapped in the project area.
Seismic activity is very low (or non-existent) in the project area and no evidence of active faults
or earthquakes of significant intensity have been documented. Although the landslide incidence is
mapped as moderate in the general vicinity, it is not anticipated that the construction activities
would activate any landslides. Identification of potentially suitable sites for the proposed refinery
was performed using screening search criteria, including but not limited to suitable topography.
The search criteria are described in Chapter 2.
Impacts to the geologic environment would be limited to near surface resources. No impacts
would be anticipated to the subsurface geologic environment. Potential impacts related to
geologic resources would be localized and limited to the time of construction.
August 2009
4-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.1.2 Construction Alternatives
4.1.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the proposed refinery and production of buffalo forage would not
proceed. Therefore, the 468.39-acre project site would most likely continue to be used for
agricultural purposes, which have occurred for decades. Based on the foregoing, there would be
no impacts to geologic resources related to refinery construction, operation, and maintenance.
4.1.2.2 Alternative 3 No transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the proposed refinery and production of buffalo forage would
proceed. The impacts to geologic resources from the implementation of this alternative would be
the same as described for Alternatives 1 and A. The MHA Nation would construct and operate
the refinery and associated facilities and the same impacts would occur.
4.1.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status for
construction and operation of the proposed refinery with refinery design modifications and
production of buffalo forage. Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects
as described in Alternatives 1 and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines
would be constructed, so effects attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.1.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status. The
proposed refinery would not be constructed. Therefore, the 468.39-acre project site would
continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred for decades. There would be
no impacts to geologic resources related to refinery construction, operation, and maintenance.
4.1.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.1.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, wastewater would be treated and, then either discharged through a NPDES
permit or stored and used for irrigation. These effluent discharges would have no effects to
geologic resources.
4.1.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this Alternative, the effluent from the WWTP would be discharged to a Class I, Non-
hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. This well would dispose of non-
hazardous fluids into isolated formations beneath the lowermost existing or potential future
underground source of drinking water. The proposed injection zone would likely be located at
great depth; below the lowest potential underground source of drinking water. The injection
formation would be tested to evaluate its suitability for disposal. Maximum pressure requirements
to prevent initiation and propagation of fractures through overlying strata would be determined.
The injectivity tests would be used to determine the fracture pressure limits on overlying material.
August 2009 4-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The above-described measures would aid in selection of a proper disposal formation; thus,
minimizing the potential for effects to subsurface geological resources under this alternative.
4.1.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Implementation of this alternative would have no effects to geologic resources. No effluent would
be generated or discharged because the refinery would not be constructed. Continued use of the
project site for agricultural purposes would not affect geologic resources.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
Existing, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be unlikely to trigger events
such as landslides, mudslides, debris flows, or slumps. Therefore, no incremental increase in
cumulative effects associated with geologic hazards would occur.
Because any project impacts related to geology would be localized and limited to the time of
construction, cumulative impacts would occur only if another project is planned for construction
in proximity or adjacent to the clean fuels refinery project. Currently, there are no other known
projects planned in the project area, consequently, there are no anticipated cumulative impacts to
geologic resources.
In the event of future new construction in the area, the cumulative effects to the surface geologic
environment would be minimized through following proper techniques for facilities construction,
operation, and reclamation. Proposed actions and future activities would require reclamation of
disturbed lands and would minimize alterations to topography.
4.2 Ground Water Resources
4.2.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
4.2.1.1 Water Quantity
In western North Dakota, the major aquifer groups are: bedrock aquifers, buried valley aquifers,
and glacial till deposits that immediately underlie the ground surface. The bedrock aquifers
include the Fox Hills-Hell Creek Formation, Tongue River and Sentinel Butte Members of Fort
Union Formation. The buried valley aquifers consist of Pleistocene sand and gravel deposits of
the Coleharbor Formation present in the major valleys in the general vicinity of the project area.
The last aquifer group is represented by the surficial till deposits of the Coleharbor Formation.
Water Supply for the Project
The projected source of water for the refinery would be four water wells finished in the deeper
Fox Hills-Hell Creek bedrock aquifer. The maximum projected withdrawal of water from the four
on-site wells would be 10 gpm from each or 40 gpm total. Maximum withdrawal would only
occur during refinery startup.
During operations, the facility anticipates using recycled water and stormwater runoff which
would normally limit makeup water needed from the wells. Normal withdrawal from the wells
with recycling of water would be 10 gpm. Ground water would be pumped from the wells to a
5,000-bbl raw water-holding tank and additional water would be stored in the evaporation and
discharge ponds. The initial water requirement for startup would be approximately 10 acre-feet.
August 2009 4-3 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Water Well Drawdown
Water level changes in the aquifers are not expected to be significant. The proposed withdrawal
of up to 40 gpm during startup and 10 gpm under the full recycling option would probably have
minimal effects on depth to water or availability of water in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer
because the withdrawal would be over a period of time and recharge to the aquifer is greater than
discharge. Potential impacts to individual water wells would depend on proximity to the refinery,
depth and completion interval of the water well, and the yield required to maintain the well as a
usable source.
Impacts to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer in terms of well yield or availability would not be
significant due to the small magnitude and duration of withdrawals. Approximately 51 million
acre-feet of ground water is stored in that portion of the Fox Hills aquifer beneath the Reservation
and 24 million acre-feet of ground water is stored in that portion of the Tongue River member
beneath the Reservation (Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Well yields from the Fox Hills
aquifer vary significantly. Wells within Mountrail County yield as little as 3 gpm of water
(Armstrong 1971). In contrast, yields of 200 to 400 gpm have been reported in Dunn County
(Klausing 1979 as cited in Gates and Macek-Rowland 1998). Only a few Fox Hills wells have
been drilled within the Reservation and data on yields for these wells is not available.
The refinery would use the water recycling option following initial startup, thus reducing overall
aquifer drawdown. The nearest well completed in the Fox Hills aquifer by the City of Plaza is
located approximately four miles from the refinery site. There are no other users of this aquifer
located in the immediate vicinity of the project area. The short-term drawdown of the aquifer for
initial startup is not anticipated to have any effects on other proximate aquifers or water users. If
the refinery does not recycle process wastewater, there would be a long-term water use of 40 gpm
or 64.5 acre-feet/year. Depending on conditions in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer under the
site, the no recycling of water option (or limited recycling) may cause greater than expected
localized drawdown in the aquifer or additional wells may be needed for water supply.
The majority of the water supply wells used by individuals are finished in shallow glacial
aquifers. Typically, the wells do not exceed 150 feet in depth and are usually finished in buried
valley aquifers or in the glacial till. No impacts in terms of drawdown are expected to these
shallow aquifers due to no direct water withdrawal from these units as well as hydraulic isolation
from the deeper units.
4.2.1.2 Water Discharge
Under the Proposed Actions, process water from the refinery would first undergo treatment in the
WWTU and then would be directed to holding ponds prior to recycling or discharge through a
permitted NPDES outfall. The exact location of the NPDES outfall has not been determined.
Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater would be collected in the holding pond and depending
on quality may be sent directly to the additional effluent holding ponds and recycled to the
refinery process, discharged through a permitted NPDES outfall, or undergo further treatment in
the WWTU.
The facility plans to recycle most wastewater. Under full recycling, Alternative 1 would
discharge an average of 10 gpm of treated wastewater and potentially contaminated (oily)
stormwater via NPDES permitted Outfall 002. Discharge rates could vary from 0 to a projected
maximum of 24.4 gpm. Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be collected in lined
holding ponds (evaporation pond) and used as makeup water for the fire water system or recycled
back to the refinery processes, or discharged through NPDES permitted Outfall 001. The
August 2009 4-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
discharge from Outfall 001 would be dependent upon precipitation events. Discharge rates could
vary from 0 to a projected maximum of 65 gpm.
If the refinery does not recycle wastewater, the facility would discharge an average of 20.4 gpm
of treated wastewater and potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater via NPDES permitted
Outfall 002. Discharge rates could vary from 0 to a projected maximum of 34.4 gpm.
Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be discharged via NPDES permitted Outfall 001 at
30 gpm on an average with a projected maximum of 95 gpm during certain times of the year.
Because of the more continuous nature of NPDES discharges under this option, there could be
more recharge to ground water occurring than under the full recycle option.
The flow rates for each potential outfall scenario described above are summarized in Table 4-1.
Table 4-1 Estimated Flow Rates and NPDES Permit Outfalls for Proposed Refinery
Outfall 001 -
uncontaminated
stormwater
Outfall 002 - treated
waste-water oily
stormwater for
Alternative 1;
treated wastewater only
for Alternative 4.
Outfall 002a - potentially
contaminated (oily)
stormwater
Outfall 003 employee
wastewater
Total flows from site
Alternatives 1 and A
Full Recycling
Generally no flow, water used
to fill the fire water ponds or
recycled up to 65 gpm
10 gpm average
0.0 - 24.4 gpm, flow range
N/A, included in outfall 002
N/A, septic tank
10 gpm average,
maximum of 89 gpm
Without Recycling
30 gpm average
0.0 - 95 gpm, flow range
20.4 gpm average
0.0 - 34.4 gpm, flow range
N/A, included in outfall 002
N/A, septic tank
50 gpm average,
maximum of 130 gpm
Alternative 4 and A
Generally no flow, water used at
refinery and to fill the firewater
ponds.
up to 55 gpm
16 gpm average
0.0 - 34.4 gpm
4.4 gpm average
0.0 -18.4 gpm
3.5 gpm
20 gpm average
maximum of 108 gpm
Note:
L N/A = not applicable.
Operation of the project septic system would discharge approximately 3.5 gpm into the shallow
till in the area of the leach field. This would create a slight mounding of ground water within the
till in the area, but it is not expected to result in seepage to the surface. The constant flow of this
water would increase the seasonal water levels in the alluvium of the unnamed tributary that
drains the site and may contribute to downstream flow during wet periods of the year. Minimal
effects would be observed in the East Fork of Shell Creek aquifer. There is a concern whether
soils and ground water conditions would accommodate this septic system. During final design,
the MF£A Nation would perform additional soils evaluation to determine if the septic system
would accommodate the discharge. If not, sanitary wastewater may be collected in a tank and
pumped into a truck for transport and disposal into the City of Minot Wastewater Treatment
Facility or treated in a package wastewater facility and discharged through NPDES permitted
Outfall 003 as described in Alternative 4.
Recharge to the upper water bearing zones of the Coleharbor Formation as well as underlying
Fort Union Formation is primarily by direct precipitation and infiltration. There is a downward
August 2009
4-5
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
vertical gradient between the till and the underlying Fort Union Formation. Direct discharge into
the surface stream would have insignificant effects on water levels in these shallow aquifers
primarily due to the low volume of discharge and low hydraulic conductivity of the shallow till
material. The hydraulic conductivity in the water table wells screened in the glacial till ranges
from 5x10-5 cm/s to 3x10-6 cm/s (GeoTrans, Inc. 2005). Additionally, the majority of the
discharge during the winter months would freeze and evaporate before it would infiltrate. During
the summer months, a portion of the discharged water would either be used by plants or evaporate
and only a small portion would infiltrate into underlying sediments.
Recharge to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer would not be affected by the discharge as it is
minimally recharged by leakage through overlying layers due to its depth (greater than 1,000
feet). Direct recharge of these aquifers occurs outside of the Reservation where the aquifer crops
out in the extreme southwestern corner of North Dakota and in eastern Montana (Gates and
Macek-Rowland 1998).
4.2.1.3 Construction
Water would be used for construction dust control and earthen compaction. The requirement
would be minimal and the source would be runoff stored in the ponds. Construction activities are
not expected to impact ground water quantity in any of the three major aquifer groups.
4.2.1.4 Operation
The impacts of daily operations on ground water quantity would be related to the water
withdrawal and discharge. Ground water withdrawal from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer would
have an insignificant effect on water table elevations in shallow aquifers. This is primarily
because of the relatively small yields and the significant depths to the top of the Fox Hills aquifer.
The anticipated withdrawals would not impact the wetland, PEMF#2, because the wetland is a
prairie pothole wetland and does not rely significantly on ground water discharge. In addition, the
withdrawal of water from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek would be limited to project startup and
periods of operation when recycling is not possible.
Minimal impacts are anticipated from effluent discharge to the shallow till and buried valley
aquifers primarily due to the low volume of discharge and low hydraulic conductivity of the
overlying till material. No impacts to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer are anticipated from the
effluent discharge due to its great depth and hydraulic isolation of the shallow and the deep
aquifers.
Another potential impact that could result from ground water extraction is ground surface
subsidence. The elevation of the ground surface has the potential to be reduced as the water table
is lowered or as the pressure in a confined aquifer is reduced. However, due to the limited
drawdown expected in the aquifer and recharge replacing the used water, no subsidence impacts
are anticipated.
4.2.1.5 Water Quality
The proposed refinery site is underlain by glacial deposits called till. Based on geologic logs, the
till layer ranges from 107 to more than 125 feet in thickness and overlies the Fort Union
Formation across the proposed refinery site. The till is composed almost entirely of clay except
for a 5- to 10-foot-thick sandy to sandy silt layer that occurs at a depth of about 95 to 105 feet
below the surface. The first lignite deposit in the Fort Union Formation was encountered at about
105 to 110 feet. The relatively thick till deposits would retard the migration of contaminants to
the underlying Fort Union Formation.
August 2009 4-6 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The potential impacts to ground water quality are primarily related to the effluent discharge and
accidental spills and leaks.
4.2.1.6 Effluent Discharge
Under the Proposed Actions, all the water discharged through permitted NPDES outfalls would
have to meet refinery's effluent discharge criteria. Because all the treated effluent discharged
from the outfall would meet the refinery's NPDES permit effluent limits, it would likely be of
higher quality than the formation water.
EPA has developed preliminary NPDES effluent limits for wastewater discharges anticipated at
the refinery. The draft permit is in Appendix C. These limits have been developed in
consideration of Tribally-adopted (Tribal Business Council adopted on May 11, 2000) surface
water quality standards for the Reservation, as well as standards for the State of North Dakota and
are discussed in more detail in Surface Water section of this Chapter. As stated in Chapter 3, EPA
does not have the statutory authority to regulate ground water quality. In addition, the MHA
Nation has not promulgated Tribal standards for ground water, does not have a ground water
classification system, or a ground water discharge permit system in place.
Accidental Spills and Leaks
Normal refinery operations during the life of the refinery would result in some contamination of
ground water and soils underneath the refinery. Ground water contamination could extend off-site
if leaks and spills are not addressed properly or if a catastrophic spill occurred. Modern refinery
design, construction, and operation practices would be more protective of ground water than
historic construction practices at old refineries, such as paving and installing curbing in the
loading area, segregating oily wastewater, spill containment and inspection requirements, and
equipment and tank standards.
The potential exists for impacts to ground water quality from accidental spills and leaks that are
inherent in any refinery operation. For more information on ground water impacts from spills, see
the Spills section in this Chapter. Impacts to ground water in the till would be minimized by
designing the refinery to prevent and contain leaks and spills. Holding ponds would be lined to
prevent or minimize leakage into the ground water.
Measures to implement prompt cleanup and repair of leaks and spills would further minimize
potential impacts to ground water underlying the site in the till. In the SWPPP, SPCC plan, and
RCRA TSD permit as applicable, there would be requirements to implement prompt cleanup and
repair of leaks and spills, and develop contingency planning and reporting, which would further
minimize potential impacts to ground water quality underneath the refinery site. The low
permeability of the till would also retard movement of contaminants. Ground water in the till is
estimated to flow at a rate of 0.4 to 2.4 feet per year (GeoTrans, Inc. 2005). Over a period of 20
years using those flow rates, ground water contamination would be estimated to migrate 8 to 48
feet from the initial point of contamination.
4.2.1.7 Construction
Construction activities are not expected to impact ground water quality, even though there may be
potential impacts to soils from inadvertent spills of hazardous materials such as fuel and oil.
Protective measures, such as Best Management Practices (BMPs) and the SWPPP, required by
the Stormwater Construction General NPDES permit and the SPCC plan would minimize
introduction of undesired substances into soils and consequently shallow ground water at the site.
No impacts to water quality in deeper aquifers are anticipated during construction activities.
August 2009 4-7 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.2.1.8 Operation
The potential impacts of daily operations on ground water quality are primarily related to water
discharge and oil spills and leaks. Contamination could result from the dissolution and
mobilization of exposed oil and refined products by precipitation and subsequent infiltration into
the surficial aquifers. By following design engineering and operating practices (e.g., promptly
implementing spill response plans), impacts on ground water quality would be minimized.
Protective measures, such as BMPs and the SWPPP required by the NPDES permit during
operations, would also reduce the potential for unanticipated impacts to ground water from spills.
4.2.1.9 Impacts to Drinking Water
Adverse impacts to drinking water quality of individual well users and public supply systems are
not anticipated under this alternative.
The nearest well completed in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer is by the City of Plaza and is
located approximately four miles from the refinery site. Impacts to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek in
terms of water quality would be insignificant due to its great depth and hydraulic isolation from
the shallow aquifers. No other water users of this aquifer are located in the immediate vicinity of
the project area.
Residents of Plaza use two additional ground water wells to meet the demand during high usage
periods. These wells are completed at depths of 88 and 91 feet in Coleharbor Formation and are
located approximately 5 miles northwest of the refinery. Water from these formations is of poor
quality and requires treatment prior to distribution. Residents of Makoti obtain water from two
ground water wells completed in the Vang aquifer (buried valley aquifer) at depths of 22 and 41
feet. These wells are located approximately 5 miles northeast of the project site. Impacts to water
quality are not likely to occur due to the distance of these wells from the refinery site, the limited
local extent of these buried valley aquifers, low hydraulic conductivity of the till, and poor
formation water quality.
The majority of the domestic wells used by individuals are completed in surficial deposits,
primarily the till. Six residences are located within 1 mile of the project area. Two of these
residences include the O well just north of Highway 23 and the S well located south of the
property. Wells are completed at depths of 103 and 189 feet respectively, and water has
brownish-red appearance with high TDS values. Well water can be used for cattle and horses,
although some people haul water for their livestock. These residences haul in water to fill their
cisterns for domestic use. Drinking water is purchased separately. There are two water wells
located at the east side of the property at the farmhouse. Neither of these wells is currently used,
nor are they anticipated to be used in the future.
Impacts to water quality in the shallow till and valley aquifers from project discharges are not
anticipated primarily because all the discharged water would be of better quality (meeting the
NPDES requirements) than the formation water in the shallow aquifers. Additionally, low volume
of discharges and low hydraulic conductivity of the overlying till material would minimize the
infiltration rates and volumes.
Potential impacts to shallow ground water might occur because of inadvertent spills or leaks.
Protective measures as provided in the SPCC plan, the SWPPP, FRP, and application of BMPs
would minimize introduction of undesired substances into soils and consequently shallow ground
water.
August 2009 4-8 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.2.1.10 Recharge
Impacts to water quality from recharge to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer are not anticipated as
it is minimally recharged by infiltration through overlying layers and is overlain by low
permeability sedimentary rocks and till.
Impacts to water quality from recharge to the upper water bearing zones of the Fort Union
Formation would be minimal, primarily because of the low infiltration rates through the overlying
till. Impacts to shallow ground water in the till resulting from spills or leaks would be localized,
generally underneath the refinery site. If a catastrophic spill occurred, plumes could extend off-
site. However, the low permeability of the till would retard movement of contaminants. Ground
water in the till is estimated to flow at a rate of 0.4 to 2.4 feet per year (GeoTrans, Inc. 2005).
Over a period of 20 years using those flow rates, ground water contamination would be estimated
to migrate 8 to 48 feet from the initial point of contamination. Protective measures as provided in
the SPCC plan, FRP, the SWPPP, RCRA TSD permit, application of BMPs, and meeting NPDES
requirements would minimize introduction of undesired substances into soils and consequently
shallow ground water.
4.2.1.11 Reclamation/Closure Impacts
At some point in the life of the refinery, the decision would be made to cease refinery operations
and permanently close the facility. The closure of the refinery would be expected to follow a
process of decommissioning, decontamination, and demolition, followed by cleanup of any
remaining soil and ground water contamination and final reclamation of the site. These activities
would be carefully managed in order to minimize impacts to the environment and other receptors
such as area residents. Under Alternatives 1 and A, the proposed refinery would be a TSD
Facility, and thus part of the overall closure and reclamation planning would be outlined in the
required RCRA "closure plan". For more information about the RCRA "closure plan" see the
Solid and Hazardous Waste section in this Chapter.
Over time, normal refinery operations would be expected to result in local (generally underneath
the refinery site) contamination of soils and ground water. However, impacts should be
minimized through effective design considerations, operating practices and environmental
management systems, as well as adherence to the FRP, SPCC, and SWPP plans. As a RCRA
TSD Facility monitoring would be required for ground water contamination throughout the life of
the refinery and cleanup activities would have to commence at the time when any contamination
was discovered. Depending on the constituents in the ground water and the extent of
contamination, ground water cleanup activities can take a long time (years) delaying final closure
and cleanup which can be very costly. The site would need to be cleaned up to levels that are
protective of human health and the environment. If the hazardous waste surface impoundments
are not clean-closed, a RCRA post-closure permit would be required.
4.2.2 Construction Alternatives
4.2.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the refinery project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-
acre project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have
occurred for decades. The MHA Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce feed
or forage hay for buffalo, or the land could be included in BIA's leasing program. Based on the
foregoing, impacts to ground water resources would be similar to the existing conditions.
August 2009 4-9 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.2.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the magnitude and type of effects would be similar to those presented
under Alternative 1.
4.2.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status for
construction and operation of the proposed refinery with refinery design modifications and
production of buffalo forage. The process water from the refinery would first undergo treatment
in the WWTU and then would be directed to release tanks prior to discharge through the
permitted NPDES Outfall 002 to the wetlands area and an unnamed tributary to the East Fork of
Shell Creek. The main difference from the Proposed Action is that there would be no process
wastewater recycling under this alternative.
Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater would be directly conveyed to a group of surge tanks
instead of the retention ponds described in Alternative 1. After testing, the water would be routed
to WWTU or directed to release tanks and discharged through NPDES permitted Outfall 002a.
The surge tanks would be underground and made of double wall steel or equivalent in compliance
with 40 CFR 265 subpart J. Multiple surge tanks would be used to minimize the size and risk of
potential leakage. Leak detection would be part of the tank design.
This alternative would discharge an average of 20.4 gpm via Outfalls 002 and 002a (Table 4-1).
Discharge rates could however vary up to a maximum of 52.8 gpm. Impacts to ground water
resources would be similar to those described in Alternative 1 with the following exceptions.
There would be a potential for slightly higher recharge from the increased discharge under this
alternative. However, storage in multiple double wall (including double floor) steel surge tanks
with leak detection systems would provide some storage capacity and minimize risk and size of
potential leaks.
Another difference between Alternatives 4 and A, and Alternatives 1 and A; is the level of reuse
of contaminated (oily) stormwater. In replacing the holding ponds with tanks, storage volume
would be reduced. For this alternative under the normal operation, up to 40 gpm would be
recycled to the plant and any excess (up to 55 gpm) would be discharged via NPDES permitted
Outfall 001. There is also a difference in that all of the recycle (makeup) water would be coming
from the uncontaminated stormwater. Stormwater available for makeup water would be the
runoff from normal precipitation, minus evaporative losses from the fire ponds and the quantity
of water needed to maintain the integrity of the evaporation pond liner through dry spells.
Sanitary wastewater would either be collected in a holding tank and transferred by truck to a
municipal wastewater treatment facility (i.e. City of Minot) or treated on site in a package
WWTP. If the wastewater is trucked off site there would be no impact to ground water. If the
package plant option is selected, an additional 3.5 gpm of flow of treated sanitary wastewater
would be discharged via NPDES permitted Outfall 003. The effect of this additional flow on
ground water quality and quantity is not anticipated to be significantly different from the impacts
discussed for Alternatives 1 and A.
Overall, under this alternative the impacts to ground water quantity and quality from recharge
would be essentially the same as the no recycle option under the Alternatives 1 and A. Flows
from this alternative would average 20 gpm and peak at 53 gpm from Outfalls 002 and 002a and
0 gpm average and 55 gpm from Outfall 001 for a total of 20 gpm average and 108 gpm
maximum for all discharges (Table 4-1). Under the Alternatives 1 and A, flows were 10 gpm
August 2009 4-10 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
average and 89 gpm maximum (full recycle) and 50 gpm average and 130 gpm maximum (no
recycle).
After the refinery ceases operations, the ground water cleanup could be delayed because the
refinery would not be subject to RCRA requirements and thus a RCRA "closure plan" would not
be in place nor would there be any funding set aside for implementing RCRA corrective action.
4.2.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status. The
proposed refinery would not be constructed. Therefore, the 468.39-acre project site would
continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred for decades. The types of
direct and indirect effects occurring to ground water resources from agricultural practices would
continue under existing conditions.
4.2.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
The effluent discharge alternative analysis addresses impacts to ground water resources from
different water handling discharge alternatives. The effluent discharge alternatives include
options to discharge treated wastewater to surface water through permitted NPDES outfalls, use
in irrigation/land application, and disposal in an UIC well.
4.2.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, the wastewater, including treated process water, potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater, and uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater, would be discharged into the
wetland area and the unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek through NPDES
permitted outfalls or used for irrigation. Impacts to ground water resources under this alternative
would be the same as those described in Alternative A when wastewater is discharged through the
NPDES permitted outfalls. There would be less flow when water is used for irrigation.
Based on the shallow depth to ground water it is likely that some percentage of the wastewater
applied as irrigation water would infiltrate vertically downward to the water table. The impacts
from this recharge would depend on the degree of treatment prior to land application and whether
or not agricultural chemicals would be used on the cropland to be irrigated.
4.2.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, all the wastewater including treated process water, potentially
contaminated (oily) stormwater, and uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be discharged
to a Class I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. This well would
dispose of non-hazardous fluids into isolated formations beneath the lowermost existing or
potential source of drinking water. Discharge through injection is controlled by the UIC Program
administered by EPA that is designed to protect underground sources of drinking water.
The proposed injection zone would likely be located at a depth below the lowest potential
underground source of drinking water. The injection formation would be tested to evaluate its
suitability for disposal. Maximum pressure requirements to prevent initiation and propagation of
fractures through overlying strata to any zones of fresh water would be determined. The
injectivity tests would be used to determine the fracture pressure limits on overlying material.
August 2009 4-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Since the treated effluent would be non-hazardous, it is anticipated that it would be of equal or
higher quality in regards to class of use than the water in the proposed injection formation.
Injection of wastewater is not expected to cause any deterioration in ground water quality in the
injection formation. The primary effect on the injection formation would be an increase in the
hydraulic head emanating from the injection well, which would dissipate with distance away from
the well bore. In terms of water quantity and quality, the effects on the injection formation would
be minimal.
4.2.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in no effects to ground water resources. The
refinery would not be constructed, thus no impacts due to effluent discharge would occur.
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
A number of foreseeable actions have been identified that could produce impacts to ground water
resources on the Reservation. These actions could interact cumulatively with impacts from the
Proposed Action. Impacts to ground water resources include reduced quantities of water available
and degraded water quality.
Oil and gas exploration, development, production, and transportation; continued agricultural
activities, and community use of ground water could cumulatively affect the quantity and quality
of ground water. While ground water resources could be used for such activities as drilling, road
construction, industrial construction, dust control, agricultural purposes, and human consumption,
future water needs on the Reservation would most likely be met by using surface water resources
or Lake Sakakawea water. Therefore, cumulative impacts to the available ground water supply
for other reasonably foreseeable actions would be negligible.
The majority of cumulative impacts to ground water quality are from the direct and indirect
impacts to shallow ground water from the proposed refinery. Ground water quality impacts will
be localized, generally remaining underneath the refinery. Other existing and reasonably
foreseeable actions in the area would be negligible or minor sources of additional ground water
quality impacts.
4.3 Surface Water Resources
Surface water resources of the Reservation consist of many perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral
streams and the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea). The project site is located in the Shell Creek
and the East Fork Shell Creek drainages. These streams are intermittent in the project area and
have extended periods without flow. An unnamed tributary of the East Fork Shell Creek drains
the project site. This tributary consists of a man modified wetland swale that connects two
wetland areas on the western end of the site. The wetland swale is generally dry for most of the
year.
4.3.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
During construction of the project, all site runoff would be captured and routed to the retention
ponds constructed at the beginning of construction activities. This measure would allow for the
capture of surface runoff to reduce the discharge of sediments in the stormwater. The ponds
would be sized to retain a 100-year, 24-hour storm event. Release of stormwater would be from
the ponds after settling has occurred and the water meets NPDES permitted effluent limitations
established for the site. Upon completion of construction activities, all sediment captured within
the retention ponds would be dredged and disposed of within a properly permitted off-site
August 2009 4-12 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
disposal site. The retention ponds would be lined prior to operation of the refinery. This drainage
control system would be established at the start of the construction phase of the project to
minimize contributions of sediment to the wetland and the East Fork Shell Creek. Silt fences
and/or straw bales would also be used to control runoff from areas outside of the drainage control
system. Disturbed areas not used for operational facilities would be revegetated as soon as
possible to reduce runoff and sedimentation. Specific controls would be established in a SWPPP
for the construction phase of the project.
During operations of the project, all uncontaminated (non-oily) site runoff would continue to be
captured and used to maintain the fire water system. Recycling of this wastewater would occur to
the extent possible or wastewater would be discharged through NPDES permitted Outfall 001.
Potentially contaminated (oily) wastewater would be treated in the WWTU and recycled to the
extent possible as makeup water in the refinery process or discharged through NPDES permitted
Outfall 002. Depending on the water balance at the facility, there would be periods of zero
discharge except during major storm events. In all cases, any discharge from the site would meet
NPDES permitted effluent limitations established for the project. The net effect of the project on
surface water flow would be the reduction of 190 acres of drainage basin area from the East Fork
of Shell Creek. This reduction of stream flow contribution would have minimal effects on the
hydrologic characteristics of the onsite wetland swale or the East Fork Shell Creek. Any
discharges from the WWTP effluent holding ponds or evaporation pond would offset a portion of
the reduced flow.
Facilities would be placed and operations would be conducted on impermeable surfaces such as
concrete, asphalt, or geotextile that are curbed and guttered. This would minimize the possibility
of surface water contamination from spills. Spills or accidents that may jeopardize the integrity of
the impermeable layers would be remediated and/or repaired as appropriate. Monitoring plans
with appropriate contingencies mandated, as well as BMPs by various statutes are required for the
operation of the facility.
4.3.1.1 Construction
Construction of the refinery, pipelines, and transmission lines would require disturbance of soils
and could potentially result in transport of sediment during precipitation events. This potential
transport of sediment could enter nearby drainages or wetlands and cause an adverse effect on
surface water quality. The potential is somewhat limited because of the relative flatness of the
terrain and existing vegetation, which would slow or stop sediment movement. However, in
construction areas immediately adjacent to surface water drainages or wetlands, there would be
increased potential for sediment in stormwater or degradation of stormwater quality.
Stormwater Management
Construction activities utilize vehicles, equipment, and petroleum products to conduct daily
operations. The use of petroleum products could potentially result in leaks or spills to soils, which
could cause surface water contamination. Surface waters are typically indirectly affected by
receiving potentially contaminated (oily) runoff from construction sites. Stormwater runoff from
these areas would be controlled by an NPDES stormwater permit and a SWPPP, which includes a
stormwater management and sedimentation control plan designed to minimize the potential
discharge of silt, solids, and other contaminants to surface water streams from the runoff.
Provisions would be made to collect stormwater where appropriate to control silt and suspended
solids before discharge to a surface stream, such as East Fork of Shell Creek.
The project would implement several programs to minimize the potential for construction
activities to impact surface water quality. The project would be required to develop and
August 2009 4-13 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
implement a SWPPP for the construction phase. The SWPPP would identify all of the possible
activities and incidents that could contaminate storm or surface water and would contain BMPs
that would be implemented to prevent contamination. Examples of BMPs and related measures
include installation of silt fences, installation of hay bales in drainages, installation of a
stormwater retention pond to collect water generated on the project site, procedures for handling
chemicals and oil spills, emergency response procedures and maintenance of spill response
equipment. By following BMPs and requirements in the SWPPP (e.g., stockpiling materials away
from surface drainage paths, covering construction materials with tarps, and containing and
cleaning up spills), direct and indirect impacts to surface water quality would be minimized.
Pipeline Hydrostatic Test Water
It is envisioned that the proposed project may generate hydrostatic test water in the later phases of
the construction schedule. Water is used to fill certain pipelines and tanks to confirm their
structural integrity and to test for leaks. Raw water would be used for this purpose, and the
resulting water, after testing, may have the potential to contain concentrations of oil and
suspended solids. Depending on where and when the hydrostatic testing occurs, the water may be
disposed of in the refinery's water treatment system and be recycled or discharged under an
NPDES discharge permit, which would be a permit separate from the refinery's NPDES
operational and stormwater construction permits. Discharge under the permit would require that
the hydrostatic test water meet specific NPDES permitted discharge limits.
4.3.1.2 Operation
Effluent Discharge
As detailed in Chapter 2, the refinery would generate three types of wastewater: (1) sanitary
waste water, (2) uncontaminated (non-oily) water, and (3) contaminated (process wastewater) and
potentially contaminated (oily) water. Each of these streams of waste water would be handled
separately. They would also receive different levels of treatment. Operation of the project would
generate process waste water effluent which combined with potentially contaminated (oily)
stormwater would generate an average of 10 gpm or about 5.1 million gallons of effluent per
year. Discharge rates could however vary from 0 to a maximum of 24.4 gpm (wastewater
treatment with full recycling). Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would not normally be
discharged, but at certain times as much as 65 gpm could be discharged. Under the no recycling
option discharges through NPDES permitted Outfall 002 are expected to be 20 gpm on an
average with a projected maximum of 34 gpm. Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be
discharged via NPDES permitted Outfall 001 at an average rate of 30 gpm with a projected
maximum of 95 gpm. The total flows for the full recycle option average 10 gpm with a maximum
of 89 gpm and for the no recycle option average 50 gpm with a maximum of 130 gpm. The
various discharge rates are summarized in Table 4-1. Because of minimal flow conditions in the
wetland swale, discharge effluent would only be diluted during the spring runoff period and
major precipitation events where runoff is generated. Some dilution is available at certain times
of the year at the confluence with the East Fork of Shell Creek and additional dilution would
occur year round at the confluence with the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea).
Sanitary Waste Water
Because the project would be designed to operate with a small staff of operating personnel (86
employees), the volume of sanitary sewage generated daily would be relatively small, estimated
at 3.5 gpm. Sanitary sewage would be treated using an on-site septic system and leach field. This
septic system would be designed and installed according to the EPA's standards and regulations.
Treated sewage from the septic system would slowly percolate into the ground and would not
have a significant effect on surface water quality or quantity.
August 2009 4-14 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Uncontaminated Water
Uncontaminated (non-oily) water would consist of wastewater from certain isolated refinery
processes, i.e. boiler blowdown. This wastewater would be routed to the WRP for treatment and
recycling. Because Uncontaminated (non-oily) water would be fully recycled, there would be no
discharge to surface waters.
Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be collected from the maintenance facility,
administration building, roads and parking lot areas. This stormwater would be collected in an
evaporation pond and either recycled to the refinery process, or routed to the firewater reservoirs
to maintain the levels of water in these facilities. Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would
not normally be discharged, but at certain times of the year or during high precipitation periods as
much as 65 gpm could be discharged via NPDES permitted Outfall 001. Contribution to stream
flow from these occasional discharges is not anticipated to have significant impact on East Fork
of Shell Creek and downstream wetlands. Because Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would
be recycled, evaporated, or discharged under the NPDES Permit, the effects on surface water
quality would be minimal.
Process Wastewater and Potentially Contaminated Stormwater
The third stream of wastewater would consist of process wastewater that is collected from process
units directly and potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater collected from the process area,
product loading area, and tank farm. All process wastewater would be routed to the WWTU for
treatment. There would be no direct discharge of untreated process wastewater to surface waters.
Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater collected from the process area, product loading area,
and tank farm would be collected and routed to a holding pond designed to store water from a
100-year, 24-hour storm event. Depending on the quality of the holding pond water, it would
either be routed directly to additional effluent holding ponds prior to recycle or discharge to
surface water or to the WWTU for further treatment. Accumulated potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater that is to be directed to the WWTU would first pass through an API separator.
From the API separator, the water would be routed to a DAF system. Wastewater effluent from
the DAF system would then be directed to the bio-treatment plant. Wastewater effluent from the
bio-treatment plant would be held in the two holding ponds and tested. If testing suggests that
additional treatment is needed, the water would be rerouted back through the WWTU. The
effluent would then be recycled back to the refinery process as much as possible. If the water
meets the refinery's criteria for discharge, it would be released through NPDES permitted Outfall
002.
The project would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP under the NPDES permit for
the operations at the facility. The SWPPP would identify areas that have a potential for pollutants
entering into the stormwater systems at the facility and BMPs to minimize pollutant introductions
from those identified sources. These areas at the proposed facility include raw material,
intermediate and final product storage facilities, loading and unloading operations and refinery
process areas.
This alternative would discharge an average of 10 gpm via Outfall 002. Discharge rates could
however vary from 0 to a maximum of 24.4 gpm (wastewater treatment with full recycling). The
discharged water would likely flow from the on-site wetland into the wetland north of the project
site and continue to the East Fork of Shell Creek. Quantitative impacts to stream flows are not
anticipated to be significant and are discussed in more detail under the Wetland section of this
Chapter. Because all contaminated (oily) wastewater and potentially contaminated (oily)
August 2009 4-15 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
stormwater would be treated prior to discharge under the NPDES permit, the effects on surface
water quality would be minimal.
Recharge
Near-surface water tables would likely experience increases in water levels from operation-
produced water discharges. The increase in water level may be exhibited as standing or flowing
water in areas not previously displaying these conditions and additional wetland development. A
portion of the water released to the local surface drainage may recharge shallow aquifers,
however, this recharge would be minimal due to the low permeability of the till and presence of
the clay layer underlying the site.
Flow Alterations
Construction of project facilities including stormwater diversion ditches would result in alteration
of surface water flow across the site. Runoff flow from upslope would be diverted and flow onsite
from precipitation events would be directed to the stormwater collection system, thus reducing
the direct runoff to wetland PEMF#2. Any discharges from the WWTP effluent holding ponds or
stormwater holding ponds would offset a portion of the reduced flow.
The primary potential impact to surface water would be related to diversion of the section of the
unnamed tributary wetland to East Fork Shell Creek. The unnamed tributary is characterized as
an intermittent stream, primarily regulated by periods of snowmelt, direct precipitation, and
surface runoff. Diversion of the stream channel could potentially increase sedimentation due to
lack of vegetative cover and channel slope erosion. BMPs would be implemented to prevent these
impacts. A SWPPP detailing the sediment and erosion control measures and any BMPs would be
developed in accordance with the construction General Stormwater NPDES permit.
As with other facilities, any access/maintenance roads and pipelines would result in immediate
alteration of surface water flows in the immediate vicinity of the roads and pipeline. BMPs would
be implemented to mitigate these impacts.
Water Quality
Water quality of the unnamed tributary to the East Fork Shell Creek would be affected by the
discharges from the refinery operations. Contribution of treated effluent and stormwater from the
refinery would substitute a portion of the runoff from the agricultural lands. Refinery wastewater
and potentially contaminated (oily) storm water would be treated extensively prior to discharge,
however there would be some changes in water quality from existing conditions.
EPA has developed NPDES effluent limitations for wastewater discharges anticipated at the
refinery (see draft NPDES permit in Appendix C). These limitations have been developed in
consideration of Tribal water quality standards for the Reservation, as well as standards for the
State of North Dakota. All water discharged from the refinery outfalls would meet the effluent
limits, thus would have no adverse impacts on surface water quality.
Table 4-2 lists the EPA Effluent Limitations and the Monitoring Schedule is provided in Table 4-
3. In addition to the requirements shown in Table 4-3, monitoring would be required at 90 and
270 days after startup of the facility for total metals found on Table III of 40 CFR §122,
Appendix D and volatile, acid, and base/neutral compounds found on Table II of 40 CFR §122,
Appendix D.
Additionally, the uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater discharges would also be covered under
the permitted NPDES outfall with effluent limits developed in consideration of Tribal and State
August 2009 4-16 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
water quality standards as well as EPA water quality criteria. Specific effluent limitations
applicable to each potential outfall are contained in the NPDES permit in Appendix C.
The potential exists for impacts to water quality either from sediment loading during the
construction phase or from accidental spills and leaks during construction and operation. A
SWPPP and any additional BMPs needed would be developed in accordance with the
construction stormwater NPDES permit and operational NPDES permit. The SWPPPs and BMPs
would detail the sediment and erosion control measures and prevent/limit clean water becoming
contaminated with spilt synthetic crude oil, product or oily waste. The SPCC plan and FRP
require containment of petroleum-based products and require prompt and effective cleanups if
spills occur.
Wetlands
Under this alternative discharge effluent from the refinery would flow into wetland PEMF#2.
This wetland is on the western side of the site next to Highway 23 in the NW % of Section 19.
The total area including the ponded wetland and swale is approximately 11.7 acres. The wetland
connects to an unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek, located about a mile
downstream of the proposed outfalls. The wetland has been classified as a palustrine emergent
semi-permanently flooded (PEMF#2) (Wetlands Technical Report, BIA, November, 2005).
Wetland PEMF#2 is an ephemeral prairie pothole wetland that has been altered by road
construction and construction of a drainage system in the 1970's. The wetland is fed by surface
runoff from precipitation. Field inspection and water quality data indicate that the wetland is in a
healthy, functioning condition.
August 2009 4-17 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-2 Preliminary Draft Effluent Limitation for Refinery Process Wastewater and
Oily Stormwater
Effluent Characteristic 30-day Average Daily Maximum
Flow (million gallons/day) 0.02 0.05
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 43 81
(lbs/day)a
Total Suspended Solids (lbs/day)a 35 55
Chemical Oxygen Demand (lbs/day)a 255 500
Oil and Grease (lbs/day)a 13.8 25.4
Phenolic Compounds (lbs/day)a 0.29 0.59
Total Chromium (lbs/day)a 0.35 0.99
Hexavalent Chromium (lbs/day)b 0.0018 0.0067
Ammonia as N (mg/L)b>e 1.1 3.2
Benzene (|ig/L)b 2.2 NA
Ethyl Benzene (|ig/L)b 530 NA
Toluene (|ig/L)b 1,300 NA
Phenol (|ig/L)b 300 NA
Sulfide (ng/L)b 2 NA
Fluoride (|ig/L)c 4,000 NA
Nitrate (|ig/L)b 10,000 NA
Nitrite (ng/L)b 1,000 NA
Aluminum (tr) (|ig/L)b'h 87 750
Barium (tr) (|ig/L)b'h 1,000 NA
Chromium VI (d) (ng/L)b'h 11 16
Iron (tr) (|ig/L)b'h 300 NA
Manganese (tr) (|ig/L)b'h 50 NA
Mercury (T) (ng/L)b'h 0.012f 1.4
Nickel (d) (ng/L) b*h 132 1,186
Selenium (|ig/L)b'h 5 20
The pH of the effluent shall not be less than 7.0 standard units or greater than 9.0 standard units in any single
sample or analysis
From April 1 through September 30, the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the effluent shall be greater than
8.0 mg/L (1-day minimum), 9.5 mg/L (7-day mean), and 6.5 mg/L (30-day mean).
From October 1 through March 31, the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the effluent shall be greater than
4.0 mg/L (1-day minimum), 5.0 mg/L (7-day mean), and 6.5 mg/L (30-day mean).0
There shall be no Acute Toxicity in 100% effluent. The LC50 shall be > 100%.''
There shall be no Chronic Toxicity in 100% effluent. The IC25 shall be > I00%i
Notes:
a. The limits are based on 40 CFR §419, Effluent Guidelines for the Petroleum Refining Point Source
Category.
b. The limits are based on EPA recommended §304(a) water quality criteria, November 2002 and December
2003.
c. The limits are based on Three Affiliated Tribes adopted Water Quality Standards.
d. The limits are based on 1997 EPA Region 8 WET Policy.
e. Ammonia limits are based on an estimated effluent pH of 8.5 standard units and temperature 15°C.
f. Limit is based on Region 8 recommended criteria for protection offish tissue.
g. Limit is calculated using an estimated hardness value of 300 mg/L as CaCO3.
h. (d) = dissolved, (T) = total, (tr) = total recoverable, NA = not applicable.
August 2009 4-18 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-3 Preliminary Draft Monitoring Schedule for Refinery Process Wastewater
and Oily Stormwater
Parameter
Flow (million gallons/day)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
(Ibs/day)
Total Suspended Solids (Ibs/day)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (Ibs/day)
Oil and Grease (Ibs/day)
Phenolic Compounds (Ibs/day)
Total Chromium (Ibs/day)
Hexavalent Chromium (Ibs/day)
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Benzene (ng/L)
Ethyl Benzene (|ig/L)
Toluene (|ig/L)
Phenol (ng/L)
Sulfide (ng/L)
Fluoride (ng/L)
Nitrate (ng/L)
Nitrite (ng/L)
Aluminum (tr) (ng/L)
Barium (tr) (ng/L)
Chromium VI (d) (ng/L)
Iron (tr) (ng/L)
Manganese (tr) (ng/L)
Mercury (T) (ng/L)
Nickel (d) (ng/L)
Selenium (ng/L)
pH (standard units)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (Chronic)
Whole Effluent Toxicity (Acute)
Monitoring Frequency
Daily
2 times per week
2 times per week
Monthly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Sample Type
Continuous
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Continuous or Grab
Grab
Composite
Grab
The proposed refinery would change flow conditions in the wetland PEMF#2 and the unnamed
tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek. Flow would be discharged more continuously
throughout the year, depending on the how much water is being recycled at the refinery. When
the refinery is recycling water, the average discharge rate would be 10 gpm (5.1 million gallons
per year or 16 acre feet) with a peak discharge rate of 89 gpm. If water is not being recycled, the
average discharge rate would be 50 gpm (26 million gallons per year or 80 acre feet) and the peak
discharge rate would be 130 gpm.
Under a full recycle scenario it is expected that much of the runoff water would be used by the
refinery. This would reduce the volume that flows into wetland PEMF#2 from the refinery site.
August 2009
4-19
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
If the refinery does not recycle process water or use runoff, the additional water to wetland
PEMF#2 would likely cause the wetland area to become more permanently flooded. This would
result in changes to wetland characteristics such as increasing obligate vegetation (cattails) within
the wetland or increasing open water areas. The size of the wetland would be controlled by
discharge through the culvert under Highway 23. The wetlands to the north of Highway 23 would
also be impacted by the additional water. As a result of the development of the refinery, the
amount of surface runoff and/or shallow subsurface water discharge to the wetland would likely
increase. This would contribute to the likelihood of a shift from a semi-permanent wetland with
periodic drying to permanent wetland type for PEMF#2. This would change typical conditions in
the wetland. The upper areas of the wetland have been observed to dry out periodically. Most
prairie pothole wetlands periodically dry out or partially dry out. There would be a similar shift to
the unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts would not be anticipated to the wetlands and the unnamed
tributary from increased average discharge flows rates. However, erosion and sedimentation
would be greater during peak flows, which are estimated to be as high as 130 gpm. The drainage
channels would adjust to changes that result from erosion and sedimentation from peak flows. A
SWPPP detailing sediment and erosion control measures and any BMPs would be developed in
accordance with the facility's NPDES permit.
4.3.2 Construction Alternatives
4.3.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the refinery project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-
acre project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have
occurred for decades. The MHA Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce feed
for forage for buffalo or the land could be included in BIA's leasing program. Based on the
foregoing, impacts to surface water resources would be similar to the existing conditions.
4.3.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the magnitude and type of effects would be the same as those presented
under Alternatives 1 and A.
4.3.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Under this alternative, the refinery layout would be reconfigured such that the final design would
impact less than 0.1 acre of the PEMF#2 wetland reducing direct wetland impacts. The wetland
swale would not be diverted and reconstructed around the refinery units as proposed in
Alternative 1, reducing construction disturbance and wetland impacts.
As in Alternatives 1 and A, effluent from the refinery would flow into the PEMF#2 wetland
connecting to an unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek. Flow would be discharged
more continuously throughout the year similar to Alternative A under the no recycle option as
there would be no process wastewater recycling under this alternative. The average discharge rate
would be from all of the outfalls would be 24 gpm (12.6 million gallons per year) and the peak
discharge rate would be 111 gpm (58 million gallons per year).
The individual outfalls would undergo different treatments and have different flow amounts. The
process water from the refinery would first undergo treatment in the WWTU and then would be
August 2009 4-20 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
directed to release tanks prior to discharge through permitted NPDES Outfall 002 to the PEMF#2
wetland. The flow from this outfall would be from 0 to 34.4 gpm with an average of 16 gpm.
Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater would be directly conveyed to a group of surge tanks,
which would replace the retention ponds from the Proposed Action alternative (Alternative 1).
After testing, the water would be recycled to WWTU or directed to Release Tanks and discharged
through Outfall 002a at a rate range of 0 to 18.4 gpm with an average discharge of 4.4 gpm. The
surge tanks would be underground shallow tanks made of double walled steel or equivalent in
compliance with 40 CFR 265, Subpart J. The advantage of multiple surge tanks is that individual
tanks can be removed from use for repair or cleaning without interrupting the entire facility
operation.
The sanitary waste handling has not been determined for Alternative 4. There are two options
being considered: capturing employee wastewater in a holding tank to be trucked off-site or
treating the wastewater on-site with the commercial package treatment plant that would discharge
at the rate of approximately 3.5 gpm through Outfall 003.
The difference between this alternative and Alternatives 1 and A is that there is a slightly smaller
footprint for the facility, therefore, less stormwater capture from uncontaminated areas of the
facility. There would still be recycling of the captured stormwater to the fire ponds and plant
processes. The discharge rate from Outfall 001 ranges from 0 to 55 gpm with an average of 0
gpm
4.3.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status. The
proposed refinery would not be constructed. Therefore, the 468.39-acre project site would
continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred for decades. The types of
direct and indirect effects occurring to surface water resources from agricultural practices would
continue under existing conditions.
4.3.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.3.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, all the wastewater including process water and potentially contaminated
(oily) and uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be discharged through NPDES permitted
outfalls or used for irrigation. Thus, surface water impacts related to this alternative would be
slightly less than those described for Alternative A. The land application site would be designed
and operated to prevent runoff of land applied wastewater into surface waters.
4.3.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this Alternative, all the wastewater including process water and potentially contaminated
(oily) and uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be discharged to a Class I, Non-
hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. This well would dispose of non-
hazardous fluids into isolated formations beneath the lowermost existing or potential future
source of drinking water. Discharge through injection is controlled by the UIC Program that is
designed to protect underground sources of drinking water. Because all of the wastewater would
be disposed through injection into a deep underground formation, no impacts to surface water
August 2009 4-21 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
quality would be anticipated under this alternative. The water would be lost for surface uses such
as irrigation or water additions to the East Fork of Shell Creek drainage.
4.3.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in no effects to surface water resources. The
refinery would not be constructed and no effluent would be discharged. Sheet flow from
precipitation events would continue to affect surface water on the project side just as it does now.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to surface water could occur from any ongoing and reasonably foreseeable
future activities. The majority of activities contributing to surface water cumulative impacts
would be related to historic and ongoing agricultural activities. These activities could interact
cumulatively with impacts from the proposed action and the no-action alternatives. Impacting
factors related to these foreseeable activities include water discharges; erosion and sedimentation;
bank and channel modifications; water use and accidental spills. Potential impacts of these factors
on surface water resources include reduced quantities of water and degraded water quality.
Regional agricultural practices (including runoff) are the primary source of impacts to surface
water quality. By following guidelines established by the appropriate discharge permits, meeting
restrictions on the storage of toxic construction and operation materials, and meeting
requirements for cleanup of toxic materials as part of construction and normal operations,
cumulative impacts on water quality would be minimized.
4.4 Spills
4.4.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Chemicals, raw crude oil, and refined products would be stored at the refinery facility in
aboveground storage tanks, containers, or drums. The movement and storage of raw crude oil and
processed product within the tank farm, processing area, and product loading area is part of the
complex bulk product distribution, refining, and storage system on the refinery. The complexity
of the refining process and amount of stored oil, product, and chemicals moving through the
system provides opportunities for accidents, spills, leaks, and losses from simple volatilization.
Petroleum products are released to the environment through accidents, as managed releases, or as
unintended by-products of industrial, commercial, or private actions or accidents. Most spills
involve either crude or bulk fuels (e.g., distillates) such as fuel oils. Consistent national statistics
are lacking for many stages in the overall oil refining and distribution system. The main
exceptions involve larger leaks and spills, especially those in coastal areas or on larger rivers and
streams.
Because many releases of petroleum to environmental resources involve unintentional leakage or
spillage, it can be helpful to present some rough estimates of release from various categories of
activities or components within the overall petroleum production and distribution system. The
ATSDR (1999) estimated the total amount of leakage or spillage related to petroleum product
production, processing, and distribution to end users at around 134 million bbl per year. Table 4-4
details the estimated releases from the petroleum industry.
As detailed on Table 4-4, the major components from the oil production and distribution system
that cause releases include: above ground tanks (47 percent), tank bottoms and refinery waste (18
percent), evaporative losses (14 percent), and used motor oil (10 percent). Also, Table 4-4 shows
August 2009 4-22 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
that the total amount of leakage or spillage related to the petroleum product production,
processing, and distribution was estimated to be around 134 million bbl per year.
Yoshioka and Carpenter (2002) analyzed Oil Spill Intelligence Report (OSIR) and Emergency
Response Notification System (ERNS) data on reported oil spills on inland and coastal spill
characteristics such as the number of spills, spill sizes, spill sources, and the types of oil spilled.
Previous studies indicated that vessels are a major source of inland oil spills and that refined
petroleum products dominate inland spills whereas crude oil spills are common in coastal areas.
However, their examination of data on large spills indicates that pipelines are the most significant
spill source in inland waters. In addition, recent reports indicated that large spills of crude oil
often occur in inland areas. Their analysis found that while coastal spills tend to be highly
publicized, the majority of large oil spills in the United States occur in inland areas.
Yoshioka and Carpenter (2002) also concluded that most reported oil spills are small. ERNS data
showed that more than 95 percent of inland spills were less than 1,000 gallons. API data, which
emphasize spills from vessels because those are most often reported to the U.S. Coast Guard,
showed an even larger fraction of spills below 1,000 gallons. However, it is important to note that
each year the OSIR summaries contained several dozen spills of more than 10,000 gallons in the
United States. Their study also found that larger spills were caused by pipelines, crude oil, and
inland spills.
August 2009 4-23 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-4 Estimated Releases from Components of the Oil System
Size of release
(millions of
Type of release bbl/year)
Oilfield spills
Leaking of wells
Oil in waste pits or
produced water
Aboveground tanks
Existing
underground
plumes
1.1
3.6
(2.7%)
1.2
63.8
(47.4%)
1.2
Major Media
Impacted
Soil
Surface Water
Ground Water
Soil
Surface Water
Ground Water
Soil
Ground Water
Soil
Air
Ground Water
Ground Water
Soil
Description of Category
Producing wells and tank batteries.
Older "abandoned" wells never capped.
Up to 1.2 million wells in the U.S.
Buried or land applied wastes from
producing wells or exploration
activities.
Usually larger tank batteries, often part
of interstate pipeline systems.
Tank farms, transshipment terminals
with large amounts of "free product"
beneath the facilities. At least 356
Pipelines
Leaks from gas
stations
Tank bottoms and
refinery waste
Used motor oil
Oil spills in Waters
of the U.S.
Oil and grease
discharge
Operational
discharges from
tankers
Evaporative losses
Total
facilities currently pump from the
largest plumes.
0.7 Surface Water Larger interstate pipelines and low
(<1%) Soil pressure gathering systems from
smaller tank batteries.
5.2 Soil At least 25% of the nation's filling
(3.9%) Ground Water stations may face remediation under the
UST program.
24.2 Soil Heavier residuals and sludges from
(17.9%) refineries.
14.0 Water The U.S. generates about 1.4 billion
(10.4%) Soil gallons of used motor oil per year. Less
than half is re-refined. Much "home fix-
it" oil is not disposed of properly.
1.1 Surface Water Tankers, barge, and pipeline accidents,
(<1%) mostly during vessel loading or
unloading operations.
0.1 Surface Water Mostly from offshore drilling in near
(<1%) coastal waters.
0.2 Surface Water Discharge of cargo and bilge oil in near
(<1%) coastal waters.
18.4 Air Transfers at refineries or tankers, losses
(13.7%) at storage facilities, and during vehicle
fueling. Up to 18 grams of
hydrocarbons vented to air for each
gallon of gasoline used.
134.8
Source: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 1999
August 2009
4-24
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-5 Number of Spills that Exceed 10,000 Gallons by EPA Region (1995-1999)
Number of Spills by Size and Location
10,000 to 99,000 gallons
EPA Region
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Total
Inland
6
18
15
34
30
129
29
28
37
10
336
Coastal
0
4
3
6
0
16
0
0
10
7
46
100,000 gallons
Inland
0
1
2
4
11
41
4
2
7
2
74
Coastal
2
1
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
9
Total
Number
of Spills
8
24
21
44
41
191
33
30
54
19
465
Source: Yoshioka and Carpenter 2002
Table 4-5 shows that 41 percent of the total number of spills of more than 10,000 gallons reported
in the United States occurred in EPA Region 6 located in the Southern Plains region. In contrast,
Region 8 had 30 reported spills of more than 10,000 gallons between 1995 and 1999 (6 percent of
the total), where the proposed project is located.
In addition, the ATSDR (1999) summarizes releases from facilities using data from API
(American Petroleum Institute 1996). The results of reported spills from facilities for the
reporting period between 1984 and 1996 are presented on Table 4-6.
The average annual number of spills reported between 1984 and 1996 was 4,043 (Table 4-6).
Most of these (70 percent) involved less than 10 gallons. The distribution of spills by size
suggests that because most of the spills involved less than 10 gallons, a majority of the reported
spills were caused by human error or mechanical failure.
In 2001, the EPA updated the information collected under its Sector Facility Indexing Project
(SFIP). The petroleum refining industry sector data summarizes spill and pollution release
information reported to the federal government by individual facilities. The refinery sector data
shows that nearly 77 percent of the petroleum refineries (129 of 168) in the United States reported
spills between January 1997 and November 1998. Furthermore, at the 129 refineries reporting
spills, an average of almost 18 spills occurred during this period, which is nearly nine per year.
4.4.1.1 Spills Fate and Transport Processes
Petroleum products released to the environment migrate through soil via two general pathways:
(1) as bulk oil flow infiltrating the soil under the forces of gravity and capillary action, and (2) as
individual compounds separating from the bulk petroleum mixture and dissolving in air or water.
When bulk oil flow occurs, it results in little or no separation of the individual compounds from
the product mixture, and the infiltration rate is usually fast relative to the dissolution rate. Many
compounds that are insoluble and immobile in water are soluble in bulk oil and would migrate
along with the bulk oil flow. Factors affecting the rate of bulk oil infiltration include soil moisture
content, vegetation, terrain, climate, rate of release (catastrophic versus slow leakage), soil
particle size (sand versus clay), and oil viscosity (gasoline versus motor oil).
August 2009
4-25
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-6 Total Number of Oil Spills from Facilities, 1984-1996
Number of Spills by Size
Year
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Average
Source:
< 10 gal
4,113
3,032
2,076
1,821
1,730
2,827
3,904
4,102
2,412
2,799
2,900
2,716
2,460
2,838
10-
999 gal
2,194
1,619
1,025
1,022
939
1,140
1,187
1,174
869
796
831
800
642
1,095
Agency for Toxic Substances and
1,000-
9,999 gal
288
252
54
66
68
70
72
68
56
53
76
31
45
92
10,000-
99,999 gal
53
39
10
10
6
12
15
13
16
8
10
3
6
15
> 100,000 gal
3
2
3
1
4
2
4
1
2
1
6
0
2
2
Total
6,651
4,944
3,168
2,920
2,747
4,051
5,182
5,358
3,355
3,657
3,823
3,550
3,155
4,043
Disease Registry 1999
As bulk oil migrates through the soil column, a small amount of the product mass is retained by
soil particles. The bulk product retained by the soil particles is known as "residual saturation."
Depending on the persistence of the bulk oil, residual saturation can potentially reside in the soil
for years. Residual saturation is important, as it determines the degree of soil contamination and
can act as a continuing source of contamination for individual compounds to separate from the
bulk product and migrate independently in air or ground water. If the release is persistent in the
environment, there can be impacts to extensive areas as the individual compounds continue to
separate and migrate away from the spill area via air or ground water.
When the amount of product released to the environment is small relative to the volume of
available soil, most if not all of the product is converted to residual saturation and downward
migration of the bulk product usually ceases prior to affecting ground water resources. Adverse
impacts to ground water may still occur if rainwater infiltrates through soil containing residual
saturation and initiates the downward migration of individual compounds.
When the amount of product released is large relative to the volume of available soil, the
downward migration of bulk product ceases as water-saturated pore spaces are encountered. If the
density of the bulk product is less than that of water, the product tends to "float" along the
interface between the water saturated and unsaturated zones and spread horizontally in a pancake-
like layer, usually in the direction of ground water flow. Conversely, if the density of the bulk
product is greater than that of water, the product would continue to migrate downward through
the water table aquifer under the continued influence of gravity. Downward migration ceases
when the product is converted to residual saturation or when an impermeable surface is
encountered.
In reality, bulk oil flow is affected by numerous product-specific and site-specific factors.
Consequently, product distribution in the subsurface can be quite complex.
August 2009
4-26
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Compound Migration
As the bulk product migrates through the soil column, individual compounds may separate from
the mixture and migrate independently. Chemical transport properties such as volatility,
solubility, and sorption potential are often used to evaluate and predict which compounds would
likely separate from the mixture.
Volatility
Volatility is defined as the propensity of a chemical to partition to air and migrate as a vapor. It is
primarily a function of the vapor pressure of the compound. Vapor pressure is defined as the
pressure of a chemical exerted by its vapor when in equilibrium with the solid or liquid form of
that chemical.
Because petroleum products are complex mixtures of numerous compounds, the compounds
characterized by relatively high vapor pressures tend to volatilize and enter the vapor phase. The
exact composition of these vapors depends on the composition of the original product. Because
volatility represents transfer of the compound from the product or liquid phase to the air phase, it
is expected that the concentration of that compound in the product or liquid phase would decrease
as the concentration in the air phase increases.
Although volatility is a function of vapor pressure, environmental factors affect the rate of
volatilization. For example, higher summer temperatures enhance volatilization. The rate of
volatilization is also a function of air and soil temperature, humidity, wind speed, soil type,
moisture content, oil composition, solar radiation, and thickness of the oil layer.
Solubility
Solubility is one of the key factors in determining compound behavior, and thus the impact of a
chemical in the environment. Solubility is expressed in terms of the number of milligrams of pure
chemical that can be dissolved in 1 liter of water under standard conditions of 25°C and one
atmosphere of pressure. The solubility of an organic compound determines its propensity to
dissolve into water. The greater the compound's solubility, the greater the likelihood the chemical
would dissolve into infiltrating rain water or ground water and migrate away from the release
area. Stated another way, solubility generally decreases with increasing molecular weight of the
hydrocarbon compounds.
In summary, the environmental fate of petroleum products is based on the environmental
partitioning of the major hydrocarbon fractions. However, the environmental fate of chemicals in
mixtures and/or bulk oil releases may be different from that observed for releases of individual
petroleum chemicals. The more soluble and volatile fractions (such as, the low molecular weight
aliphatic and aromatic fractions) are more likely to leach to ground water, volatilize to the air, or
biodegrade than the larger petroleum product compounds. Conversely, the higher molecular
weight compounds tend to be held in soil and persist at the site of release.
Organic Carbon-Water Partition Coefficient
The organic carbon-water partition coefficient (Koc) describes the propensity for an organic
compound to partition between water and organic carbon in the soil. Chemical mobility can be
determined based on the likelihood of a chemical to partition more strongly to either the organic
carbon in the substrate or the water. If the chemical is strongly associated with the substrate, the
chemical is relatively immobile and would not be leached or transported great distances from the
area of the release. In contrast, if the chemical is weakly held by the substrate, the chemical has
the potential to be transported greater distances and has a greater chance to contact human
August 2009 4-27 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
receptors. The degree of sorption not only affects the mobility of the compound, it can also affect
other transport and transformation reactions.
In general, lighter petroleum products such as gasoline contain constituents with higher water
solubility and volatility and lower sorption potential than heavier petroleum products such as fuel
oil. In contrast, petroleum products with heavier molecular weight constituents, such as fuel oil,
are generally more persistent in soils because of their relatively low water solubility and volatility
and high sorption capacity.
Biodegradation
Indigenous microbes found in many natural settings (such as, soils, ground water, ponds) have
been shown to be capable of degrading organic compounds. Biodegradation occurs as microbes
use organic compounds as a source of energy. Unlike other fate processes that disperse
contaminants in the environment, biodegradation can eliminate the contaminants without
transferring them across media. The final products of microbial degradation are carbon dioxide,
water, and microbial biomass.
The rate of hydrocarbon degradation depends on the chemical composition of the product
released to the environment as well as site-specific environmental factors. Environmental factors
such as oxygen content, pH, moisture content, temperature, nutrient concentrations, and the
microbiota also affect the rate of biodegradation. In almost all cases, the presence of oxygen is
essential for effective biodegradation of oil.
The moisture content of the contaminated soil would also affect biodegradation of oils caused by
dissolution of the residual compounds, dispersive actions, and the need for microbial metabolism
to sustain high activity. The moisture content in soil affects microbial locomotion, solute
diffusion, substrate supply, and the removal of metabolic by-products.
All biological transformations are affected by temperature. Generally, as the temperature
increases, biological activity tends to increase up to a temperature where enzyme denaturation
occurs. The presence of oil should increase soil temperature, particularly at the surface. The
darker color increases the heat capacity by adsorbing more radiation.
At least 11 essential macronutrient and micronutrient elements must be present in the soil in
proper amounts, forms, and ratios to sustain microbe growth. These 11 elements are nitrogen,
phosphorus, potassium, sodium, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese, zinc, and copper.
Nitrogen is usually the main limiting nutrient governing the rate of decomposition of petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Biodegradation rates in soils are also affected by the volume of product released to the
environment. At lower concentrations of oil by volume, the degradation rate in soil is fairly
independent of oil concentrations. However, as oil concentration rises, the first order degradation
rate decreases and the oil degradation half-life increases. Ultimately, when the oil reaches
saturation conditions in the soil, biodegradation virtually ceases.
August 2009 4-28 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.4.1.2 Spill Scenarios
The prevention of a release4 or spill of petroleum products is inherent to the engineered design of
the refinery. All storage containers would be located within constructed containment features or
within secondary containment tanks. Secondary containment structures have been designed to
hold the entire contents of the container if a spill or leak occurred plus precipitation. If a spill or
leak occurred outside secondary containment during transport of the container or filling of a tank,
the spill would flow into the storm water collection system. The holding ponds in Alternative 1
and A would contain the spill until cleanup measures could be implemented. The refinery would
also have spill response equipment on hand to be able to contain and clean up spills immediately.
Spills to the impervious ground surface would be cleaned up immediately by trained plant
personnel.
Additional controls would also be implemented once the refinery is operating, and may include
monitoring fluid flow parameters, instituting operational procedures and controls, and performing
periodic maintenance procedures, which are typically used as industry spill prevention best
practices. As with all engineered systems, process or material failures and human error leading to
material loss are anticipated. The environmental consequences from these occurrences, such as an
accidental spill, cannot be evaluated without reference to a known or expected release of a
specific size, location, and duration. Therefore, spill scenarios have been developed in a spill
analysis that represent credible potential events for use in assessing impacts from accidental
releases or spills during refinery operations.
The spill scenario environmental impacts assessed under the proposed action in this analysis do
not imply that these spills are expected refinery events. A spill event that actually occurs may or
may not occur in the same sequence or combination of events as detailed in the assessed spill
scenarios. An underlying principle in this spills analysis is that conditions would constantly
change over the life of the refinery. The spill volume and frequency vary because of (1) varying
conditions such as climate and changing seasons, soil conditions, potential for damaging storm
systems, and potential for third-party damages; and (2) varying refinery system characteristics,
operating and production yields, and maintenance practices.
This spill analysis focuses on potential spills associated with the operation and maintenance of the
refinery. The potential environmental impacts of the various types of petroleum products, such as
crude oil stock, and finished products including gasoline and diesel fuel are the primary products
included in the spills analysis.
The severity and overall risk to the environment from petroleum product spills are direct
functions of the following factors:
> Type of petroleum product spilled;
> Location, duration, and size of the spill;
> Frequency of spill events;
> Time of the year or the season in which the spill occurs;
4 The term release used in the context of an oil spill or petroleum spill has specific regulatory meaning and triggers
reporting requirements. Therefore, any spill of oil must be reported if the petroleum product or oil seeps or overflows
from the process area following the SPCC plan and FRP. If a material that has been identified as a hazardous substance
is spilled anywhere on the site and the spill is greater than the reportable quantity, then additional reporting
requirements apply.
August 2009 4-29 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
> Local environmental conditions (e.g., wind or river speed, surface roughness, and
porosity) at the time and place of the spill;
> Location and susceptibility of downstream or downwind receptors; and
> Effectiveness of emergency response and cleanup measures.
The developed spill scenarios attempt to take into account spill location, duration, magnitude, and
frequency. Sensitive receptor locations and environmental media, such as the unnamed tributary,
which serve as spill transport-enhancing media to a sensitive receptor were identified as affecting
factors near the proposed refinery site. The spill magnitude and duration were computed when
defining each spill scenario.
Frequency of occurrence allows the estimated environmental consequences from spill events to
be put into perspective relative to likelihood of occurrence. The various spill scenarios developed
for assessment in this EIS are forecast to occur at frequencies ranging from several times a year to
once in 1 million years. In general, the greater the volume of material released and the greater the
expected consequences, the more unlikely it would be for a spill to occur (the lower its
probability). Each spill scenario was assigned to one of the following four frequency categories:
> Anticipated: Spills estimated to occur one or more times every 2 years of operations
(frequency > 0.5 per year).
> Likely: Spills estimated to occur between once in 2 years and once in 30 years of
operations (frequency = from 0.5 per year to 0.03 per year).
> Unlikely: Spills estimated to occur between once in 30 years and once in 1,000 years of
operations (frequency = from 0.03 per year to 1 x 10-3 per year).
> Very Unlikely: Spills estimated to occur between once in 1,000 years and once in 1
million years of operations (frequency = from 1 x 10-3 per year to 1 x 10-6 per year).
In addition, one of three spill release duration ranges is assigned to each spill scenario identified
in the tables.
> Instantaneous release: if a release is estimated to occur very quickly, with duration on
the order of 1 hour or less;
> Short duration: releases are assumed to occur over periods of a few hours up to a couple
of days; and
> Prolonged releases are assumed to take place over several days to several months.
Leaks resulting in spills may range from a small leak, where chemicals, oil, or product escapes
for an extended period of time until detected, to a large rupture, where chemicals, oil, or product
is released into the environment over a relatively short time but in potentially large quantities.
The volume of a leak depends on the size of the opening in the pipe or storage tank, the crude oil
or product density, topography, seasonal timing, and leak duration. The spill volumes for each
scenario were determined by the duration of the release multiplied by the flow rate through an
assumed hole size (bbl or gallons per hour), and the line drain-down volume subsequent to
shutdown of the pipeline or storage tank. The spill duration accounts for the time required to
detect a leak, locate it if it is not immediately obvious, and shut down the pipeline or storage tank.
The drain-down volume is the estimated quantity of chemical, oil, or product that could be
released from a pipeline or storage tank rupture based on valve location and response time.
August 2009 4-30 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Spills that occur very frequently (because of incorrect hose placement or equipment or human
error) result in liquid releases in less than 1 hour. For example, a valve that is incorrectly turned
could cause a leak, but it is assumed that the operator would notice the liquid on the ground and
manually close the valve. Such a leak typically occurs in a period of less than 1 hour. Short-
duration releases could include the complete break or rupture (a guillotine break) scenarios.
Conversely, a release from events such as an underground corrosion crack leak could occur over
several days before it was noticed.
Although each of these spill scenarios poses an environmental risk, the larger potential volume of
released material would likely result in the largest environmental consequences. This observation,
however, does not necessarily imply that these spills would represent the largest risk events for
the refinery project. In this analysis, risk is represented by the product of the annual frequency of
a spill event and its severity consequences. Therefore, if a particular postulated event is calculated
to potentially cause large consequences but occurs with low frequency, the calculated risk would
be small.
Table 4-7 details spill scenarios that were originally developed for the Valdez Marine Terminal
within the FEIS: Renewal of the Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System ROW and
subsequently revised for this analysis. All spill scenarios were modeled after the Valdez Marine
Terminal (VMT) EIS probable spill scenarios. A major assumption for this analysis was that all
of the MF£A Nation scenarios would be comparable on both a scenario description and estimated
frequency of occurrence. In addition to giving the release duration, the spill scenarios provide (1)
a brief description of the spill scenario, (2) frequency range, (3) type of material spilled, (4) range
in spill volume, (5) release point (above and/or below ground), and (6) release duration.
4.4.1.3 Emergency Response Plan
A SPCC plan, FRP, HWCP, Superfund Amendments Reauthorization Act (SARA) Emergency
Plan and, as applicable, a CAA Risk Management Plan and HMTA Response Plan, would be an
integral part of the refinery's Emergency Response Plan in responding to releases of oil and
hazardous substances. The plan would provide for an organized response to incidents and
emergencies to protect the environment, employees, and public. Emergency Response Team
members, as well as other designated refinery staff members, would be properly trained in the
plan requirements and spill/release response and cleanup techniques and procedures.
On-Site Incidents
Minor spills and releases would typically be contained and managed by refinery personnel
assigned to a specific work area, as long as they were not exposed to significant risks, (e.g.,
hydraulic fluid leak from machinery). Such actions typically would not require the assistance of
emergency response personnel. For major spills or releases, such as a significant release of crude
oil or product material such as diesel, the refinery's Emergency Response Plan would be
activated, with the Emergency Response Team responding. These team members would be
trained in spill response measures. As required, the Emergency Response Team would obtain the
assistance of refinery operations and maintenance staff in obtaining information on the type and
quantity of spilled material, shutting down or moving equipment as needed, acquisition of
equipment and supplies, and providing access to areas where entry is needed to respond to the
spill or release. If an emergency release exceeded the capability of the response team, or posed as
an unacceptable safety risk, assistance would be requested from professional spill response
specialists and contractors and the appropriate state and/or federal environmental agencies, such
as, EPA and the NDDH. This would be documented in the Emergency Response Plan.
August 2009 4-31 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Table 4-7 Spill Scenarios Developed for the Valdez Marine Terminal
Event
No.
la
T
3a
4a
5b
6b
7b
8C
9C
10d
lld
12d
0
'- a
03 O
su
£'S
H S
1°
Small leak of crude oil
VMT operations
Small leak of diesel
fuel during VMT
operations
Moderate leak of crude
oil during VMT
operations
Moderate leak of
diesel fuel during
VMT operations
Cargo tank vessel
cracks discovered
while loading crude oil
Failure of loading
system between
terminal dock and ship
Diesel fuel line rupture
Pipeline failure
between the east tank
farm and the west
manifold
Pipeline failure
between west metering
and Berth 5
Aircraft crash into
crude oil tank at East
Tank Farm, w/fire
Catastrophic rupture of
a crude oil storage tank
(e.g., foundation or
weld failure)
Catastrophic rupture of
a diesel fuel tank
1 1 1
* a'C
3 8 %
1^0
Small leak of crude oil
supply MHA operations
Small leak of diesel, jet or
regular fuel during MHA
operations
Moderate leak of crude oil
supply during MHA
operations
Moderate leak of diesel,
jet or regular fuel during
MHA operations
Storage tank vessel cracks
discovered while loading
crude oil
Failure of loading system
between product fuel
station and truck or train
Diesel, jet or regular fuel
line rupture
Pipeline failure between
the process area and tank
farm
Pipeline failure between
the tank farm and product
loading area
Aircraft crash into tank
farm with fire
Catastrophic rupture of a
crude oil storage tank
(e.g., foundation or weld
failure)
Catastrophic rupture of a
diesel, jet, or regular fuel
tank
Estimated 1
Frequency (per 1
year) 1
-0.5
-0.5
3.0 xlO'2
4.7 xlO'2
4.7 xlO'2
1.7xlO'3
l.OxlO'4
1.3xlO'5
l.SxlO'5
2.1xlO'5
l.SxlO'6
2.2 xlO'6
*o
o S 2
S ^ £ - *b ^ ^^ § -8
££ If ~* ^ ?!
:sS £?3 ts =32 §!
|£ |= ^d PC S£
^ 3 £ i °
X Crude Oil
X Diesel, Jet, or
Regular Fuel
X Crude Oil
X Diesel, Jet, or
Regular Fuel
X Crude Oil
X Crude Oil
X Diesel, Jet, or
Regular Fuel
X Crude Oil
X Crude Oil
X Crude Oil
X Crude Oil
X Diesel, Jet, or
Regular Fuel
Spill Volume (bbl) 1
50
15
5,000
300
500
80
450
5,000
5,000
100,000
50,000
25,000
Release
Duration
Short
Short
Short
Short
Short
Instanta-
neous
Short
Short
Short
Prolonged
Instanta-
neous
Short
Release
Point/Environment
al Media
Land, outside
containment
Land, outside
containment
Land, outside
containment
Land, outside
containment
Land, outside
containment
Land, outside
containment
Land
Land
Land
Air (dike fire)
Land, outside
containment;
Water
Land
Spill Reaches 1
Water? 1
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
August 2009
4-32
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Table 4-7 Spill Scenarios Developed for the Valdez Marine Terminal
Event
No.
o
'C a
03 O
su
£f
o a
1 -a |
* S-&
3 8 2
i^o
s.
_ g.
Estimatec
Frequency (
year)
a «
s 2, ^ =>
3
o
--1
II
sS °
"a
o
^
o> ^^
1*2
^ 3
o
,
OS
||
2
|
"o
'E.
(^i
Release
Duration
a
o
S
||1
(2
o
Spill Reach
Water?
Notes:
a. VMT Scenarios 1-4 were developed from more than 250 documented spills at the terminal during the first 25 years of operation of the pipeline. The scenarios covered spills of North Slope crude oil
and diesel fuel. The spill volumes for these scenarios ranged from about 15 bbl of dieselfuelto 3,200 bbl of crude oil, all of short spill duration. Spill initiators or causes and spill size ranged from
relatively small fuel line ruptures to large valve leaks at storage tanks.
b. VMT Scenarios 5-7 were developed from data reported in previously identified Valdez Marine Terminal specific spill analyses or risk assessments and historical data compiled by Department of
Transportation (DOT) for other marine terminals. Scenario 5 is in the likely category, whereas Scenarios 6 and 7 have frequencies in the unlikely category, with spill totals ranging from 80 to 500 bbl of
oil.
c. VMT Scenarios 8-9 are over-pressurization pipeline ruptures caused by inadvertent valve closure.
d. VMT Scenarios 10 - 12 were developed from statistical data for potential spill event initiating activities at the Valdez Marine Terminal and data or guidance from DOT, Department of Energy (DOE),
and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). These types of events would generally be considered to lead to catastrophic spills. A total of three scenarios were developed as very unlikely events,
including (1) aircraft crash with subsequent fire followed by a prolonged secondary containment area fire in the east tank farm, (2) a failure of a 510,000-bbl crude oil tank, and (3) a rupture of a diesel
fuel tank.
Source: Bureau of Land Management 2002
August 2009
4-33
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Off-Site Incidents
Typically all minor or major off-site spills or releases would be responded to by the local
Emergency Response Teams within its geographic jurisdiction. Assistance from the Refinery
Emergency Response Team may be required for providing information on the spilled material,
acquisition of equipment and supplies, and assisting with containment at the source of the spill or
release. Only trained personnel would be allowed to participate in any cleanup activities with the
potential for exposure. If any spill or release is significant enough that it exceeded the capability
of the Emergency Response Teams to adequately respond, assistance would be requested from
professional spill response specialists and contractors and the appropriate state and federal
environmental agencies.
4.4.1.4 Spill Analysis Ground Water
Ground water resources in proximity to the refinery could be affected by spills, particularly if a
spill occurred directly or close to an underlying aquifer. Generally, ground water could be
impacted if this type of spill occurred within the process area, tank farm, and product loading area
and traveled off the impervious surfaces or a leak occurred within a buried pipeline.
The spill scenarios detailed on Table 4-7 were grouped into four spill event frequency scenarios
and were analyzed for their effects on ground water resources. The spill event frequency
categories are:
> Anticipated Spill Events - Scenarios 1 and 2: This category consists of spills that are
anticipated. This spill would result from a small leak and would involve a maximum oil
release of 50 bbl.
> Likely Spill Events - Scenarios 3, 4, and 5: This category involves spills considered to
be likely. These spill scenarios include a moderate, instantaneous leak of crude oil; a
very short-duration leak caused by maintenance-related damage; a short-duration (e.g.,
8 hours) leak caused by over-pressurization from inadvertent remote gate valve closure;
and a prolonged (2 days) leak resulting from corrosion-related damage.
> Unlikely Spill Events - Scenarios 6 and 7: This category was performed for spill
scenarios that are considered to be unlikely. These scenarios consist of a leak resulting
from pipeline settling; or a crack resulting from tank corrosion or failure.
> Very Unlikely Spill Events - Scenarios 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: This category was
performed for a very unlikely spill scenario. It consists of an above ground guillotine
break caused by a major storm event (e.g., tornado), an aircraft collision, pipeline
failure, and catastrophic ruptures of tanks. This spill would release the greatest amount
of chemical, oil, or product.
Anticipated Spills Scenarios 1 and 2
An anticipated spill event would discharge chemicals, oil, or product either above or below the
ground surface from a small leak. The volume of oil released is assumed to be 50 bbl, and the
release period is assumed to be instantaneous. An underground release could occur along buried
sections of pipeline or from valve leaks in storage containers and the spill volume infiltrates the
soil.
If the leak occurs above ground, it is assumes that in most cases the leak would occur on an
impervious surface and in a containment structure, and the leak would be detected and spill
response plans would be implemented to contain and mitigate the spill. Therefore, the spill should
not result in any localized impacts to ground water. For leaks on pervious surfaces, the spill
volume would infiltrate into the soil.
August 2009 4-34 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
If a buried section of pipeline results in a leak, the volume of oil released for the anticipated
scenario would be very small (50 bbl). Therefore, it is unlikely that any of the oil would emerge
at the surface, although it would be released under pressure and under some conditions could
migrate to the surface. If the leak occurs during the winter or spring season, the oil released could
be within the soil layer where the soil is frozen. Because of the presence of frozen soil, the oil
would probably stay within the pipeline's gravel pack or disturbed trench area and affect the
quality of water contained in thaw areas present at the location of the leak. Impacts would thus be
localized. For this case, the released oil could migrate downward under the influence of gravity
and contaminate the local ground water system. Because of the small volume of oil released,
impacts to the ground water system should be localized.
Likely Spills Scenarios 3, 4, and 5
For the likely category of spills, a prolonged leak resulting from corrosion-related damage was
selected for analysis because it would release a significant volume of oil (up to 5,000 bbl over a
2-day period). Because this type of leak could occur anywhere within the tank farm, process, or
product loading area, evaluations of the impacts to ground water were made for the 190 acre
proposed refinery footprint. If the spill occurred within the project footprint, impacts to the
ground water system should be localized because of the presence of impervious surfaces and
containment structures that would slow and in some cases prevent oil from migrating to local
ground water systems.
Conversely, if the volume of oil, chemical or product migrated off or under the impervious
surface, impacts would occur when the spill volume infiltrated the soil column and reached the
underlying ground water. The 2-day duration of the spill should allow some response activities to
commence and limit the amount of oil, chemical, or product available for infiltration. These
impacts would, however, be potentially very large because of the volume of oil, chemical, or
product released. For scenario 5, some of the spill would be expected to reach surface waters,
impacting water quality.
Unlikely Spill Events Scenarios 6 and 7
The third analysis was for a release of oil through a pipeline failure resulting in a short-term spill
scenario. This spill is considered unlikely because the frequency of occurrence is estimated as
once in 1,000 years to once in about 30 years. Because the most likely scenario would occur with
buried pipelines, it is assumed that the spill would occur in areas of the refinery that are not likely
to be detected. The release would result in a spill of up to 5,000 bbl of oil over a short period
(hours to several days).
Because these scenarios are primarily associated with pipeline failures, crude oil or product
released from a crack would be under pressure. Because of the volume of oil released and the
system pressure, it is probable that the released oil would rapidly migrate to the surface and
contaminate the land. Even with losses to the land surface, the underlying ground water system
could experience severe water quality impacts because of the large volume of oil released. There
is presently a risk of pipeline failure in the project area. The refinery would increase the existing
pipeline system by 4 miles.
Very Unlikely Spill Events Scenarios 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
An instantaneous, guillotine break resulting from a catastrophic rupture, tornado, or plane crash
was analyzed for the very unlikely spill scenarios. This type of event would be expected to occur
only between once in 1 million years to once in 1,000 years. A 1989 API survey indicated that
there were approximately 700,000 aboveground diesel fuel storage tanks in the United States.
Tank rupture accounted for only 5.4 percent of the 132 releases that occurred worldwide between
August 2009 4-35 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
1970 and 1988. However, tank rupture accounted for almost 19 percent of the released material.
This analysis considers a spill scenario involving a catastrophic rupture of tanks containing fuel at
the refinery. The frequency of such an event is estimated to be 1.1 * 10-6 per tank-year. Two
tanks, each with a shell storage capacity of 25,000 bbl, store fuel at the refinery.
These scenarios are associated with catastrophic pipeline and tank failures, releasing large
volumes of crude oil or product. Because of the volume of oil released and the system pressure, it
is probable that the released oil would rapidly migrate to the surface and contaminate the land.
The underlying ground water system could experience severe water quality impacts because of
the large volume of oil or product released.
4.4.1.5 Surface Water
Anticipated Spills Scenarios 1 and 2
Scenarios 1 and 2 could affect surface waters. However, because these spills would occur only at
pump stations or at valves, it is highly unlikely that they would affect surface waters. If the leak
occurs above ground, it is assumed that in most cases the leak would occur on an impervious
surface and in a containment structure, and the leak would be detected and spill response plans
would be implemented to contain and mitigate the spill. Therefore, the spill should not result in
any localized impacts to surface water.
Likely Spills Scenarios 3, 4, and 5
For the likely category of spills, Scenario 3 (up to 3,200 bbl over a 2-day period) would result in a
prolonged leak caused by corrosion-related damage that could potentially result in a significant
volume of oil released into a surface water feature. Because the release would occur from the
crude oil supply pipeline, it is assumed that the spill would occur outside of the refinery
boundary.
Because the released oil would occur outside spill containment areas, the spill volume would
infiltrate the soil column. The ability to reach a surface drainage or wetland feature would depend
on numerous variables. The 2-day duration of the spill would allow some response activities to
commence and limit the amount of crude oil available for infiltration. These impacts would,
however, be potentially very large because of the volume of oil released.
Even under ideal conditions, it is unlikely that 100 percent of the oil in the surface water feature
at a containment site would be removed by a remedial activity, even if the response team were
able to arrive at the containment site and set up its equipment prior to the arrival of the leading
edge of the oil spill. Therefore, the release of up to 3,200 bbl of oil in the local surface waters
would be a significant, but not irreparable impact.
Unlikely Spill Events Scenarios 6 and 7
Scenarios 6 and 7 are estimated as accidents that are unlikely (frequency of occurrence of 1 * 10-
3 to 0.03/yr). Both scenarios could affect surface water resources. Of these scenarios, scenario 7
would cause the greatest impact to surface water resources because it would release the largest
volume of oil. However, the chance of either of these scenarios reaching the unnamed tributary is
extremely remote because there is no large source of runoff water upstream of the project storage
areas, and secondary containment drainage would be well controlled.
Very Unlikely Spill Events Scenarios 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
The last frequency range of spill scenarios is described as very unlikely to occur (frequency of
occurrence of 1 x 10-6 to 1 x 10-3/yr). Five scenarios are included in this frequency range that
August 2009 4-36 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
could affect surface waters. Of these scenarios, Scenario 11 would produce the largest impact to
surface water resources because it would release the largest volume of oil (about 50,000 bbl).
The analyses performed to determine the impacts of the spill scenarios mentioned above depend
on a number of estimated and measured quantities: the volume of fluid spilled during an event,
the time needed for the fluid to discharge to the environment, the velocity of the current in the
receiving river that would transport the fluid downstream, and the response time required to
initiate appropriate contingency measures.
The potential exists for a large release of oil or refined product contaminants because of a
catastrophic rupture of crude oil storage tanks at the refinery. These tanks, with individual tank
storage capacities of around 460,000 bbl, are located in two primary areas, the tank farm and
process area.
Catastrophic storage tank failure or rupture is extremely rare. Eight cases of crude oil tank rupture
are known from around the world: three caused by foundation failure, one caused by weld failure,
one caused by impact of a rail truck, and three caused by flooding (Bureau of Land Management
2002).
The chance of a guillotine break reaching the unnamed tributary is extremely remote because the
storm water design of the refinery would contain a 5-inch precipitation event. In addition, the
engineered secondary containments are designed to contain the entire contents of the storage
containers, and the subsequent site drainage is well controlled. For the present purpose, however,
the possibility is considered. If a tank were to rupture, the most likely consequence would be a
major flow of oil to the secondary containment. In the case of a very large rupture, it may be
likely that the oil would follow the refinery surface, drain into the containment structures,
overflow, and wash into the unnamed surface tributary.
Based on the estimated frequency of a storage tank failure spill event at the Valdez Marine
Terminal (Bureau of Land Management 2002), the same probability for the refinery is assumed,
which was 1.8 x 10-6. Based on the probability, such tank failures were determined to be very
unlikely events that could produce spill magnitudes ranging from approximately a 5,000-bbl spill
on land outside secondary containment to a spill of about 25,000 bbl of crude oil into the
unnamed tributary. This analysis considers a spill scenario involving a catastrophic rupture of
tanks containing either gasoline or diesel fuel at the refinery. Three tanks, each with a storage
capacity of 25,000 bbl, store gasoline at the refinery. Two tanks with an 8,000-bbl capacity each
would store diesel at the refinery.
It is assumed that both the crude oil and refined products would be less dense than water (1.0
g/cm3 for water), and any oil or product spilled into surface waters would tend to float on the
surface and spread. If the surface water is moving or flowing, the oil would be transported
downstream by the surface flow. The combined motions of spreading and surface flow would
produce an elongated oil slick. The slick would, in general, move downstream at the speed of the
surface current; however, winds may alter the direction of transport. In addition, some light
hydrocarbons in the crude oil may dissolve or evaporate.
It is assumed that once the crude oil or refined product reaches the unnamed tributary, it would
move downstream with distinct leading and trailing edges (plug flow) and a slick length that
remained constant in time. During low flow conditions, the spill would pond in the wetland.
During an oil spill into water, a sheen is likely to develop. An oil sheen is a very thin layer of oil
that floats on the water surface and is transported downstream with the surface flow. In general,
the color of the sheen corresponds with its thickness. While moving as an oil slick, crude oil can
be affected by a number of physical processes. These include advection (moving along with the
August 2009 4-37 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
current); mechanical spreading because of the balance among gravitational, viscous (viscosity is a
measure of a fluid's internal resistance to flow), and surface-tension forces; horizontal turbulent
diffusion (spreading driven by a difference in concentration); evaporation; dissolution; and
shoreline deposition. Photochemical reactions and microbial biodegradation are also possible.
The effect of these processes depends on the properties of the oil and environmental conditions.
Spreading, dissolution, evaporation, and photochemical reactions of the crude oil usually occur
within hours after the spill. Evaporation and dissolution are particularly important processes for
the light hydrocarbon components of the crude oil.
The difference in surface flow (i.e., current) speed and the resulting shearing forces between
water layers is typically the major mixing mechanism that spreads oil as it moves downstream.
The leading edge of the slick may move as a relatively sharp front; however, mixing would
continuously exchange water and oil between the slower, near-bank regions and the faster-
flowing regions of the stream or river. Many river channel profiles are highly irregular, with
rapids at one extreme and quiet bays at the other. These features either accelerate or decelerate
the average flow in the stream or river and contribute to the shear in the current pattern, thus
increasing the along-channel spreading of the oil. Oil would reach a shoreline and be deposited
sometime after the spill event. In sands and gravels, the lighter-weight crude oil components may
then penetrate the surface, contaminating deeper layers of soil and possibly the underlying ground
water. Some of this deposited oil would be re-entrained by the water and transported farther
downstream. Oil is expected to continue to be released from soil and gravel and the stream or
riverbed itself for years to come, causing potential contamination problems.
4.4.1.6 Spill Analysis Soils
Soil contamination could occur during the construction and operation of the refinery.
Contaminated soils would typically include natural materials such as soils, subsoils, overburden,
or gravel that have been contaminated with crude oil; refined petroleum products, such as
gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel; lubricating oils; hydraulic oils or sludge contained in storage tanks
or equipment. The immediate potential effect would be direct contamination of the soil, which
could result from the release of fuels and crude oil at the refinery site, along the pipeline corridor,
or accidents during delivery of product. The anticipated causes of spills on land could include
traffic accidents, operational errors, corrosion, mechanical failures, and vandalism.
Several factors control the spread of spilled crude oil on land. Once a spill occurs, the light
components in the crude oil evaporate. The rate of evaporation can be affected by weather. Low
temperatures reduce the evaporation rate, whereas high winds increase it. The terrain and the
surface features of a spill site, as well as human response to a spill, control the spreading of the
rest of the spilled oil or product. It should be noted that cleanup responses immediately after the
releases can significantly reduce the number of contaminated sites that require long-term cleanup.
On a sloped terrain, part of the spilled oil would flow down slope; while the remainder infiltrates
to the subsurface or is absorbed by or coats vegetation or snow. The down slope spreading of the
oil is partly restrained by the viscous drag on the crude oil from contact with the ground surface
and vegetation, liquid surface tension, and local depressions. Downward infiltration of the oil into
the soil depends on the permeability of the ground surface, which, in turn, is controlled by the
texture of local soil, the presence of snow, and the water table. A frozen soil has a low
permeability that limits downward infiltration. Down slope spreading dominates the spreading
process until the oil is intercepted by either human intervention or natural features, such as
depressions, rivers, streams, ponds, or lakes. If an anthropogenic structure, such as a work-pad,
access road, or highway, is in the path of a migrating oil plume, it can divert the flow. In addition,
spilled oil can spread laterally as it moves down slope. Therefore, the magnitude of the lateral
spreading increases with decreasing slope.
August 2009 4-38 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
On flat terrain, the slope is of less importance in controlling the spreading of a spill. Local surface
features, such as depressions on patterned ground and vegetative cover, would control the extent
of a spill.
It is anticipated that the extent of soil contamination on a spill site would be localized, and limited
at a maximum to a few acres. However, contaminants could spread to subsurface water at sites
where there is a shallow ground water table. These sites may require additional cleanup and
monitoring.
In general, the management of all spill debris and contaminated media first involves their
characterization as hazardous or non-hazardous wastes. This is carried out by the application of
circumstantial factors (i.e., the material spilled) or as a result of sampling and analyses when
process knowledge is insufficient to support a complete waste evaluation. Waste determined to be
hazardous would be incorporated into the hazardous waste management program as dictated by
logistics of the spill. Waste determined to be non-hazardous would be evaluated against the soil
cleanup levels contained in the specified tribal and federal regulations. Case-by-case decisions
would be made regarding the management of non-hazardous wastes after this evaluation is
completed. Options may include incineration, in-situ remediation through the application of such
technologies as biological treatment or soil venting, stockpiling for later thermal treatment, or
placement in municipal landfills.
Finally, within the context of any approved remediation and restoration plan for each spill event,
special provisions may also be included for the interim storage of spill debris or contaminated
media at or near the spill site. Acceptable levels of treatment would be determined by specified
regulations and are specific to material spilled, potential for migration, potential receptors, and
various other site-specific parameters. These levels define the allowable residual levels of specific
chemical constituents that would be allowed to remain at the location where a release has
occurred. Options for disposition of successfully treated soils include returning them to the spill
location, sending them to a landfill to be used as clean cover material, or using them in other
circumstances as fill.
The spill scenarios detailed on Table 4-7 were grouped into four spill event frequency scenarios
and were analyzed for their effects on soil resources. The spill event frequency categories are:
> Anticipated Spill Events - Scenarios 1, and 2: This category consists of spills that are
anticipated. This spill would result from a small leak and would involve a maximum oil
release of 50 bbl.
> Likely Spill Events - Scenarios 3, 4, and 5: This category involves spills considered
likely. These spill scenarios include a moderate, instantaneous leak of crude oil; a very
short-duration leak caused by maintenance-related damage; a short-duration (e.g., 8
hours) leak caused by over-pressurization from inadvertent remote gate valve closure;
and a prolonged (2 days) leak resulting from corrosion-related damage.
> Unlikely Spill Events - Scenarios 6 and 7: This category was performed for spill
scenarios that are considered unlikely. These scenarios consist of a leak resulting from
pipeline settling; or a crack resulting from tank corrosion or failure.
> Very Unlikely Spill Events - Scenarios 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12: This category was
performed for a very unlikely spill scenario. It consists of an above ground guillotine
break caused by a major storm event (such as, tornado), an aircraft collision, pipeline
failure, and catastrophic ruptures of tanks. This spill would release the most amount of
chemical, oil, or product.
August 2009 4-39 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Anticipated Spills
Anticipated spills are defined as spills caused by events with an expected frequency range of 0.5
per year or more (Table 4-7). The scenarios include two types of small leaks that could cause a
land-based release of 0 to 50 bbl (0 to 2,100 gallons) of crude oil or 0 to 50 bbl of diesel fuel,
gasoline, or jet fuel. The worst event among the anticipated spill scenarios would be an
instantaneous leak of 100 bbl of diesel fuel during pipeline or pump station operations. On the
basis of the parametric method (e.g., the size of the contaminated area created by the spill is
estimated by dividing the volume of the spill by an assumed depth of the spilled liquid pool of
one inch), the maximum size of the potentially contaminated area would be about 0.1 acre at an
assumed oil pool depth of one inch. This level of impact on soils would be very small and local.
Prompt cleanup would reduce the impacts to negligible.
Likely Spills
Likely spills are defined as spills caused by events with an expected frequency range of 0.03 to
0.5 per year (Table 4-7). The scenarios evaluated represent three types of events that could cause
a land-based release of up to 5,000 bbl (210,000 gallons) of crude oil or up to 300 bbl (12,600
gallons) of diesel, regular, or jet fuel. The worst event in this category would be a leak that might
cause the release of 5,000 bbl of crude oil over a period of 48 hours. This event is used to
evaluate the maximum impact in the likely spill category. To ensure that the evaluation results
would not underestimate the consequences, a release of 5,000 bbl of oil onto the ground was
assumed. The maximum extent of spreading would be expected if no interceptor was present near
a spill site. Based on the parametric method, the maximum potentially contaminated area would
be about 7.7 acres at an assumed oil pool depth of one inch. Because of the small size, this impact
on soils would be small and localized if prompt cleanup occurred after the spill.
Unlikely Spills
Unlikely spills are defined as spills caused by events with expected frequencies of 10-3 (0.001) to
0.03 per year (Table 4-7). The scenarios evaluated include two types of events that could cause a
land-based release of crude oil ranging from 80 to about 450 bbl (3,360 to 18,900 gallons). The
worst event in this category would be a spill caused by a rupture in the fuel line. Up to 450 bbl of
diesel, regular, or jet fuel could be released in a short period. This scenario was used to evaluate
the maximum impact for the unlikely spill category. Therefore, the maximum size of a potentially
contaminated area of 450 bbl would be expected to be about 0.7 acre at an assumed oil pool depth
ofone inch.
Very Unlikely Spills
Very unlikely spills are defined as spills caused by events with an expected frequency range of
10-6 (0.000001) to 10-3 per year. The scenarios evaluated for this category of spill include nine
types of events that could cause a land-based release of a volume of crude oil ranging from 5,000
to about 100,000 bbl (210,000 to 4,200,000 gallons), depending on both the location of the spill
and the amount of storage volume used at the time of the spill. The worst event in the very
unlikely spill category would be a guillotine break of the pipeline from the impact of an airplane
or helicopter. Up to 100,000 bbl of crude oil could be released in a short period. This scenario is
used to evaluate the maximum impact in the very unlikely spill category.
Based on the parametric method of calculation, the estimated size of a potentially contaminated
area would be 155 acres for the 4.2 million gallon spill at an assumed spill pool thickness of one
inch. However, the refinery is adjacent and in proximity to an unnamed tributary. In a worst-case
scenario, the crude oil released from the refinery site could drain into the tributary, resulting in a
smaller area due to the confinement of the channel. Most of the potentially contaminated land
would be confined to the ordinary high water mark along the tributary channel and downstream
August 2009 4-40 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
reaches. To estimate the maximum size of a potentially contaminated land-based area for the very
unlikely spill scenarios, both release volume and local terrain were considered. At this location,
the spreading of spilled oil would be limited by the quantity of a spill. The worst-case maximum
volume of a land-based spill is estimated to be about 100,000 bbl. The impact on soils could
potentially range from small and localized due to amount of impervious surface associated with
the refinery footprint, or extremely more severe if the spill made its way into the unnamed
tributary. As stated previously, cleanup responses that occur immediately after the release reduces
the number of potentially contaminated sites that require long-term cleanup.
4.4.2 Construction Alternatives
4.4.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be conveyed into trust status, but
construction and operation of the refinery project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-
acre project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have
occurred for decades. The MHA Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce feed
or forage hay for buffalo, or the land could be included in a tenant farm-leasing program. Based
on the foregoing, there would be no impacts from spills in the project area associated with a
refinery.
4.4.2.2 Alternative 3 No transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
The impacts from spills from the implementation of this alternative would be the same as
described for Alternatives 1 and A. The MHA Nation would construct and operate the refinery
and associated facilities and the same impacts would occur.
4.4.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same impacts as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout would be constructed, so impacts from spills would be the
same. However, instead of holding ponds, the surge tanks described earlier in Alternative 4 would
contain any spills until cleanup measures could be implemented.
4.4.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the 468.39-acre site would not be conveyed into trust status and the
refinery would not be built. The 468.39-acre project site would continue to be used for
agricultural purposes, which have occurred for decades. There would be no impacts from spills in
the project area.
4.4.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.4.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, wastewater would be treated, then discharged through an NPDES permit
or stored and used for irrigation. Impacts from spills in the project area would be similar to those
described under Alternatives 1 and A due to construction of the refinery.
4.4.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, the effluent from the WWTP would be discharged to a Class I, Non-
hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. This well would dispose of non-
August 2009 4-41 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
hazardous fluids into isolated formations beneath the lowermost existing or potential future
underground source of drinking water. The impacts from spills would be similar to those
described under Alternatives 1 and A.
4.4.3.3 Alternative D No Action
No effluent would be generated or discharged because the refinery would not be constructed
under this alternative. There would be no impacts from spills in the project area under this
alternative.
4.5 Solid and Hazardous Wastes
Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes will be produced from refinery operations and stormwater.
A waste inventory appears in Chapter 2 and the Solid and Hazardous Wastes Management Report
identifies the nature, source, and potential risks associated with these wastes. The proposed
refinery is likely to be a LQG of hazardous wastes. Depending on facility design and operation,
the facility may also be regulated under the RCRA, a federal hazardous waste law, as a RCRA
TSD Facility. RCRA TSD facilities must obtain a RCRA TSD permit. Regulation pursuant to
RCRA is discussed in detail in the interim final EPA document entitled: "Discussion of
Regulatory Applicability of RCRA /NPDES/UIC to Three Affiliated Tribes Refinery
Alternatives" (March 2008) (Regulatory Applicability Discussion).
Generators of hazardous waste are classified according to the amount of hazardous waste they
generate each month. Generators that generate less than 100 kilograms per month and accumulate
less than 6,000 kilograms of hazardous waste at any time are small quantity generators (SQG).
Generators that generate more than 1,000 kilograms per month (approximately 5 fifty-five gallon
drums of waste per month) or more than 1 kilogram of acutely hazardous waste per calendar
month are LQGs. Regulatory requirements for small and LQGs are found in 40 CFR Part 262.
Generators of hazardous wastes may not treat or accumulate hazardous wastes in surface
impoundments (ponds) without a RCRA TSD permit. LQGs, such as the proposed refinery, may
accumulate wastes on site up to 90 days in tanks and containers without a RCRA TSD permit as
long as the generator complies with training, design, preparedness and prevention requirements,
contingency plans, and emergency procedures found in 40 CFR Part 265.
Generators of hazardous wastes may not treat or accumulate hazardous wastes in surface
impoundments (ponds) without a RCRA permit. However, if the treatment and accumulation of
hazardous wastes occurs in tanks instead of ponds and the wastes are discharge under an NPDES
permit, the facility would most likely not need a TSD permit.
Hazardous wastes generated at the proposed refinery will be stored temporarily (for up to 90
days) onsite following the requirements at 40 CFR Part 265 until being sent off-site for disposal.
These wastes will be sent to a third-party, licensed, off-site hazardous waste disposal site. No
hazardous wastes will be disposed of in or on the refinery site. Impacts from transporting
hazardous waste will be controlled and/or mitigated through the RCRA transporter requirements
under 40 CFR Part 263. Transporters of hazardous waste are required to be licensed under these
regulations and transport the waste in appropriate containers and vehicles to approved waste
management facilities. Both hazardous waste and solid waste will be disposed of properly at
approved waste management facilities. The RCRA regulations for solid and hazardous wastes
management facilities will control and/or mitigate potential environmental impacts.
August 2009 4-42 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.5.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Under this alternative, process wastewater from the refinery and contaminated (oily) water from
the refinery process areas would be collected and treated at a WWTP. Following treatment,
wastewater would be stored in two downstream effluent holding ponds (700,000 gallons each/1.4
million gallons total). Contaminated (oily) stormwater would be collected from process areas (i.e.
loading area, tank farm (Figure 2-5) and routed directly to a 1.4 million gallon holding pond
upstream of the WWTU. Depending on quality, the wastewater from the holding pond would be
sent directly to the two effluent holding ponds described above or sent to the WWTU for
treatment and then into the effluent holding ponds (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). The effluent from the
holding ponds would be recycled back to the refinery processes as needed or discharged through
a permitted NPDES outfall.
The proposed alternative is expected to generate and store FO37 hazardous waste in the holding
pond upstream of the WWTU aggressive biological treatment unit ABTU. A RCRA TSD permit
is required for surface impoundments which receive and/or generate hazardous waste, and that do
not conduct aggressive biological treatment. A RCRA TSD permit can also be required for
downstream units from ABTUs that do not conduct aggressive biological treatment and land
dispose of hazardous waste. Therefore, a RCRA TSD permit would be required under this
alternative. In addition to the holding pond upstream of the ABTU, the holding ponds
downstream of the ABTU could also require the refinery to be subject to a TSD permit if
regulated hazardous wastes were to enter or accumulate in these ponds (e.g. if the ABTU is not
designed and operated on a continuous basis as required by 40 CFR 261.31(b)(2). For more
information see the "Discussion of Regulatory Applicability" document (EPA, March 2008).
Holding ponds which generate and accumulate hazardous wastes are required to have a RCRA
TSD permit under 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270 before they are constructed. The permit application
must be submitted at least 180-days prior to construction. The TSD permitting requirements
under 40 CFR Part 264 would include double-liner and leak detection requirements, operating
requirements, ground water, training plans, preparedness and prevention requirements,
contingency plans, emergency procedures, air emissions standards, closure plans, post-closure
plans, financial assurance for closure and post-closure, and liability insurance for sudden and
non-sudden accidental occurrences. The entire facility would also be subject to corrective action
requirements for releases to soil, ground water, and surface water from all SWMUs. A post-
closure permit would be required if the holding pond could not be "clean-closed" at the end of
operations.
Air impacts from hazardous waste ponds could be significant within the facility. As discussed in
the air quality section in this chapter, the air impacts will generally be confined to the refinery
site. The RCRA TSD permit would have provisions to control and/or treat VOCs in the
wastewater surface impoundments and/or tanks. Similarly, the RCRA hazardous waste generator
requirements contain provisions to control air emissions from tanks.
Failures or leaks in surface impoundment liners would result in contamination of soils and ground
water beneath the facility. Contamination of soils and ground water would result in the
requirement to implement corrective action measures to eliminate the source of contamination
and to restore ground water quality.
Hazardous waste container storage areas would be on concrete pads with concrete curbing to
contain any spills or leaks. This should allow for spills or leaks to be readily detected and
addressed. Therefore, limited impacts to soils or ground water are anticipated from these areas.
Hazardous waste generator requirements under 40 CFR Part 262 would apply as appropriate.
August 2009 4-43 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Reclamation/Closure Impacts
At some point in the life of the refinery, the decision would be made to cease refinery operations
and permanently close the facility. The closure of the refinery would be expected to follow a
process of decommissioning, decontamination and demolition, followed by cleanup of any
remaining soil and ground water contamination and final reclamation of the site. One component
of closure planning is the RCRA "closure plan" which is required for facilities regulated as TSD
Facilities under a RCRA permit. Closure performance standards are also required of RCRA
generators under RCRA. The "closure plan" would need to include a range of potential closure
and reclamation scenarios developed specifically for the proposed refinery. The RCRA closure
plan would only cover the HWMU. The closure activities would be carefully managed in order to
minimize impacts to the environment and other receptors such as area residents.
Some level of cleanup would be anticipated at the proposed refinery; as normal refinery
operations over time result in some local contamination of soils and ground water. However, as
discussed in the proposed alternatives, impacts would be minimized through effective design
considerations, operating practices and environmental management systems. The discovery of
any release(s) of hazardous wastes or constituents prior to closure would be addressed through the
implementation of applicable RCRA permit requirements or an enforcement order.
The basic procedures that would be followed in closing the facility under an approved RCRA
closure plan include:
> Field checks and review of refinery drawings, piping location maps and aerial photos to
identify all known or suspected piping and subsurface structures as well as areas of
"high risk" for spills and releases throughout the refinery;
> Removal of any remaining hazardous waste sludge, liners, contaminated soils in or
beneath all hazardous waste surface impoundments. If the hazardous waste surface
impoundments are not clean-closed, a RCRA post-closure permit would be required.
> Removal of any waste;
> Decontamination as appropriate;
> Evaluation to determine if there was a possibility that hazardous waste/constituents
have been released;
> Collection and analysis of soil and ground water samples, as appropriate, to determine
if hazardous wastes/constituents have been released - data from existing monitor wells
would be utilized;
> Determination, as appropriate, of the extent of any soil and ground water contamination
which may be present beneath and around a given area;
> Determination of the need for soil and/or ground water remediation by developing
remediation objectives;
> Development, execution, and completion of any required remediation efforts;
> Verification that the required remediation efforts met the remediation objectives
established in the approved plan;
> Certification by the owner/operator that the requirements of the approved plan were
met; and
> Appropriate remediation of all contaminated soil and ground water.
August 2009 4-44 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Once the site has met the appropriate regulatory requirements and designated cleanup standards,
the site should be reclaimed in a manner that would be consistent with its intended use. Ground
water monitoring wells no longer needed for their intended purposes (e.g., regulatory compliance)
would be closed/plugged as per the appropriate regulatory requirements. See Soils Section of this
Chapter for additional discussions of soils reclamation.
As per any corrective action, requirement/agreement from EPA, the facility could have the
flexibility of using those portions of the RCRA corrective action process deemed to be
appropriate at the site. The five major steps that would be considered during RCRA corrective
action would be:
> RCRA Facility Assessments (RFA) including identification of potential or actual
releases from SWMUs;
> Interim/Stabilization Measures including short-term actions to address any immediate
threats to human health and the environment;
> RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) including compilation of information to fully
characterize the release in order to better determine the appropriate response action;
> Corrective Measures Study (CMS) including identification of appropriate measures to
appropriately address the release, following completion of the RFI; and
> Corrective Measure Implementation (CMI) including design and implementation of the
cleanup remedy that is protective of human health and the environment.
4.5.2 Construction Alternatives
4.5.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the refinery project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-
acre project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have
occurred for decades. Based on the foregoing, there would be no solid and hazardous waste
impacts associated with a refinery.
4.5.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the hazardous and solid waste impacts will be the same as Alternatives 1
and A.
4.5.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Under Alternative 4, solid waste and hazardous waste would be managed as generally described
under the proposed Alternative 1. However, the contaminated (oily) stormwater holding pond and
effluent holding ponds would be replaced with tank systems (Figure 2-16). The tank systems
would be designed to meet specific regulatory requirements under RCRA. The tanks would be
underground, shallow tanks to accommodate gravity filling following the site gradient. The tanks
would be made of double wall steel or equivalent in compliance with 40 CFR 264/265 Subpart J
as applicable. The use of tanks rather than surface impoundments (ponds) should provide greater
protection for soils and ground water. The use of tanks would allow for further
recycling/treatment of wastewaters. Also, the sludge thickening process would be designed to
minimize hazardous wastes generated for offsite disposal by use of a centrifuge with naphtha
solvent wash or similar process. Figure 2-17 shows how wastes generated from the redesigned
wastewater treatment unit would be handled. Hazardous waste generator requirements under 40
CFR Part 262 would apply as appropriate.
August 2009 4-45 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Under Alternatives 4 and A, the refinery would be redesigned so the facility would be regulated
as a hazardous waste generator under RCRA but would not be regulated as a RCRA TSD facility.
Alternatives 4 and A rely exclusively on tanks in the wastewater treatment system to manage
hazardous wastes. Such tanks are typically exempt from RCRA permitting under the RCRA
wastewater treatment unit (WWTU) exemption because wastewater is treated and discharged
pursuant to a CWA NPDES permit; see 40 CFR 264.1(g)(6), 260.10 and 270.1(c)(2)(v). Even if
no RCRA permit were required, the following selected wastes could be generated in the
wastewater treatment system: DO18, KO48, KO49, KO51, FO37, and FO38. However,
compliance with hazardous waste generator requirements will minimize the impact of wastes on
the facility environs. Spills, leaks, and unanticipated releases would be the main sources potential
impacts. Generator plans prepared in compliance with regulatory requirements found in 40 CFR
Part 265 and implemented after releases would assure proper responses to such events. As there
would be no RCRA permit, there would be fewer RCRA requirements applicable to the facility.
For example, there would be no RCRA permitting requirements for ground water monitoring, and
corrective action. Under this alternative, there is no requirement for financial assurance under
EPA's RCRA regulations. However, RCRA generators are required to demonstrate "clean
closure" of areas used to temporarily store hazardous waste. Without the funding available
through financial assurance, cleanup activities and other remedial actions may be delayed or may
not be implemented. Ground water monitoring programs and RCRA corrective action are not
required for non-TSD facilities. [Note: In accordance with 40 CFR Parts 262.34, 265.111, and
265.197, all hazardous waste tanks must be clean-closed at the time of closure, or a RCRA post-
closure TSD permit will be required.]
All hazardous waste tanks and tank systems would be required to meet applicable RCRA
requirements including: appropriate construction materials, double-wall construction (including
double-floor construction as appropriate), liners, leak detection systems, and secondary
containment. These requirements would reduce the likelihood of releases to soils and ground
water.
Hazardous waste container storage areas would be on concrete pads with concrete curbing to
contain any spills or leaks. This would allow for spills or leaks to be readily detected and
addressed. Therefore, only minor impacts to soils or ground water are anticipated from these
areas.
4.5.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status and the refinery
would not be built. The 468.39-acre project site would continue to be used for agricultural
purposes, which have occurred for decades. There would be no impacts from solid or hazardous
wastes.
4.5.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.5.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative the hazardous waste impacts would be similar to those described under
Alternatives 1 and A.
Under this alternative, the wastewater from the holding ponds (Alterative 1 and B and Alternative
3 and B) or tanks (Alternative 4 and B) would be discharged through a permitted NPDES outfall
or used for irrigation water. Prior to discharge or use for irrigation, the process wastewater would
be treated in the WWTU and then sent to holding ponds or tanks. Depending on its quality, the
August 2009 4-46 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater may be sent directly to the holding ponds or tanks for
the treated process water or first sent to the WWTU for treatment and then routed to the holding
ponds or tanks. The uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be stored in a holding pond
prior to discharge through a permitted NPDES outfall or to use for make up water for the fire
water system.
A RCRA TSD permit is required for all alternatives involving land application of wastewater
regardless of construction alternative used. The wastewater treatment unit exemption does not
apply to facilities which land applies wastewater because the proposed irrigation is not subject to
the NPDES permit. The RCRA TSD permit would include the entire WWTU.
Treated wastewater that is land applied would be considered to be a "solid waste" under RCRA
regulations. This means that wastewater proposed to be used for irrigation should be treated to
meet appropriate standards to protect human health and the environment. In addition, unless the
wastewater is treated sufficiently, it would continue to be considered a "solid waste containing
hazardous waste constituents", and RCRA corrective action requirements would apply for the
irrigated land parcel. This is because the irrigated land parcel would be considered a SWMU. The
RCRA TSD permit may establish additional treatment levels for irrigation water.
RCRA hazardous waste regulations would also apply if wastewater is not treated to proper levels
prior to land application. If the wastewater is not properly treated prior to irrigation, the irrigated
land parcel could potentially become a RCRA hazardous waste land treatment unit (LTU). Such a
designation would significantly change the nature of the proposal under this alternative, as there
would be a greater likelihood of releases to soils, ground water and surface water, and there
would be additional requirements related to human food-chain considerations. In order for the
treated wastewater to be used as irrigation water for human food-chain crops, it should meet strict
standards in order to be protective of human health and the environment. Requirements for
RCRA hazardous waste LTUs include: preparedness and prevention, land treatment program,
design and operating requirements, food-chain crop requirements, unsaturated zone monitoring,
ground water monitoring, financial assurance, corrective action, and closure and post-closure
care.
Hazardous waste generator requirements under 40 CFR Part 262 would apply as appropriate.
4.5.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, all the wastewater including treated process water, potentially
contaminated (oily) stormwater, and uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater would be discharged
to a Class I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. The hazardous
waste impacts would be similar to those described under the associated construction alternative.
The UIC alternative raises some regulatory issues under RCRA. The facility could become a
RCRA TSD if a NPDES permit is not obtained (and the "wastewater treatment unit" exemption at
40 CFR 264.1(g)(6) does not apply).
4.5.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Implementation of this alternative would have no effects to the project area. No solid or
hazardous waste would be generated because the refinery would not be constructed.
August 2009 4-47 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.6 Soils
4.6.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Effects to soils under the proposed action would be associated with the following components:
construction, operation, and maintenance of the clean fuels refinery, and the production of forage
for the MHA Nation's buffalo.
4.6.1.1 Construction Impacts
Effects to soil resources from the construction phase of the refinery would be related to activities
that include grading, construction traffic, equipment storage, and excavation associated within the
refinery footprint. Effects to soil resources in the project area would also result from oil and
natural gas pipeline construction activities, including the operation of heavy equipment, clearing
and grading, trenching, excavation, and pipe and pole installation. Potential effects during the
construction phase could include contamination of soils by fuel spills or accidental release of
toxic or hazardous chemicals. Therefore, all contractors would have individual Emergency
Response Plans that would include preparations for quick and safe cleanup of accidental spills. It
would prescribe hazardous materials handling procedures to reduce the potential for a spill during
construction, and would include an emergency response program to ensure quick and safe
cleanup of accidental spills. The plan would identify areas where refueling, vehicle maintenance,
and storage of hazardous materials, if any, would be permitted. These directions and requirements
would also be reiterated in the SWPPP for Stormwater Construction NPDES permit.
Refinery
Overall, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in the disturbance of 190 acres related to
construction activities associated with the refinery. The refinery construction footprint area
represents approximately 40 percent of the project area. In an effort to reduce overall long-term
impacts to soil resources, the A horizon would be removed, separately segregated, and stored for
site closure reclamation activities. The B horizon would be treated in the same manner. Storage
locations for topsoil would be located outside the influence of construction activities and located
where full retrieval of topsoil is feasible. Topsoil would be stored as a berm around the north
property boundary in a manner that maximizes surface area and minimizes depth. A vegetative
cover would be seeded or other comparable erosion control practices would be applied to the
stored soil to reduce erosion losses. In addition, sediment controls (e.g. silt fences, straw bales,
berms, sediment traps) would be installed to prevent sediment transport to undisturbed lands,
stream, rivers, and drainages.
Water erosion that could occur during construction activities would be controlled through a
SWPPP required by the Stormwater Construction NPDES permit. Storm water generated during
the construction phase would be controlled and collected, treated if necessary, and discharged
under conditions issued through the permit. The implementation of the permit conditions and
standard construction practices is expected to prevent the proposed project from generating
significant impacts caused by wind or water erosion.
Eros/on
Although all soils are prone to erosion to some degree, factors that would influence the rate of
erosion include soil texture and structure, the length and percent of slope, vegetative cover, and
rainfall or wind intensity. The most erosion-prone soils are generally bare or sparsely vegetated,
non-cohesive, fine textured, and situated on moderate to steep slopes. Soils more resistant to
erosion include those that are well vegetated, well structured with adequate percolation rates, and
located in nearly level terrain. Because of the varied weather patterns and seasonal timing of
August 2009 4-48 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
precipitation events, water erosion at the site would be generally limited to periods of rainfall
precipitation or the spring runoff period.
Soil erosion from wind or water could occur during construction because of earthmoving and
grading activities. Construction activities occurring where vegetation is removed and the soil is
broken up present the greatest threat to soils with potential for wind erosion. Excavation
associated with facility foundations and ROW cleared for pipelines could break down soil
aggregates, increasing runoff and rill and gully formation. Pipeline trenches could change erosion
patterns and form gullies if soils settle in the backfilled trench after reclamation.
Oil and Natural Gas Pipeline Impacts
Enbridge would construct a pipeline to connect the terminus of its Wabek/Plaza field pipeline to
the crude oil storage tanks in the refinery's tank farm (Figure 2-12). Additionally, Enbridge
would construct four new 30,000-bbl storage tanks between Outlook, Montana and the refinery
(Figure 2-1). Construction of the oil storage facilities would occur within existing pads that have
previously been developed, thereby avoiding additional soil resource impacts.
Two options are provided to deliver natural gas to the refinery: MDU Resources Group, Inc. and
Bear Paw Natural Gas Company. MDU would supply natural gas using a new pipeline that would
connect its existing Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline to the refinery (Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-
13). Under the second option, Bear Paw Natural Gas Company would supply natural gas using a
new pipeline that would connect its existing Plaza pipeline to the refinery (Figure 2-12).
Erosion
Pipeline construction activities such as clearing, grading, trench excavation, backfilling, and
movement of construction equipment along the ROW would affect soil resources. Erosion is a
continuing, natural process that can be accelerated by human activities. Clearing, grading, and
moving equipment on the ROW would remove the protective vegetation cover and expose soils to
the effects of wind, rain, and runoff. These effects would accelerate the erosion process and,
without adequate protection, could result in discharges of sediment to wetlands and waterbodies,
and could potentially lower soil fertility.
The construction of both of the buried pipelines would temporarily disturb about 24 acres of
topsoil, and would expose the substratum soils. Therefore, to minimize soil impacts, an erosion
control and sediment transport control plan would be prepared in association with the SWPPP as
required by the Stormwater Construction NPDES permit. This plan would be prepared in
accordance with EPA guidelines and other applicable standard construction practices. At a
minimum, the applicant would install and maintain various erosion control measures during
construction of the project site and active construction ROW. These measures may include
temporary slope breaks on slopes and temporary sediment barriers, such as straw bales or silt
fences, across the ROW during construction at the base of slopes; adjacent to waterbodies,
wetlands, and roadways; and along the edge of the ROW as necessary to prevent sediment from
flowing off the ROW. In addition, the applicant would install erosion control netting on
waterbody banks, very steep slopes, and in drainages that may be susceptible to erosion. To
protect topsoil from wind erosion, water would be applied to active construction areas in all areas
identified as highly susceptible to wind erosion and in all areas where soil conditions warrant.
Implementation of the SWPPP would reduce the overall short-term and long-term erosion
impacts associated with the pipeline construction.
So/7 Compaction
Construction equipment operating and traveling on the construction ROW can compact the soil,
especially during wet periods and on poorly drained soils. Soil compaction can also result from
August 2009 4-49 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
the storage of heavy spoil piles on certain types of soil for extended periods. Soil compaction
destroys soil structure, reduces pore space and the moisture-holding capacity of the soil, and
increases runoff potential. If unmitigated, compaction results in soil with a reduced revegetation
potential and an increased erosion hazard. The degree of compaction depends on the moisture
content and texture of the soil. Wet soils with fine clay textures are the most susceptible to
compaction.
Measures to reduce soil compaction would be developed in the SWPPP. The applicant would
attempt to minimize compaction by adjusting construction schedules to avoid compaction-prone
areas during short-term weather events. In addition, compaction impacts may be avoided or
minimized by limiting operating heavy equipment within or across minor tributaries, adjacent to
wetlands, and other areas as deemed necessary during construction. Should compaction occur,
soils would be plowed with a paratill, paraplow, or other deep-tillage device. Implementation of
conditions in the SWPPP would reduce impacts associated with compaction.
Topsoil Mixing
In addition to erosion and compaction, construction activities such as grading, trenching, and
backfilling can cause mixing of soil horizons. Mixing of topsoil with subsoil, particularly in
agricultural lands, leaves less productive soils in the root zone, which lowers soil fertility and the
ability of disturbed areas to revegetate. Another result of soil mixing and disturbance can be a
change in appearance of the surface disturbed soils when viewed in comparison with the adjacent
undisturbed soils. Introducing stones or rock fragments to the surface could result from mixing of
topsoil and stony subsoil layers; excess rock brought to the surface could adversely affect
agricultural land and restoration efforts.
To reduce the mixing of soil horizons on its construction ROW and any other construction
location, the applicant would segregate topsoil and subsoil. Topsoil segregation generally helps to
preserve the chemical and physical properties of the topsoil and would protect any native seed
sources. At a minimum, the applicant would segregate topsoil in all annually cultivated or rotated
agricultural lands, hay fields, and residential areas.
Revegetation would be initiated as soon as possible or within 1 month after completion of
ground-disturbing activities, whichever is shorter. Reclamation plans would identify quantities
and re-spread depths of topsoil (A and B horizons). Seeding would be completed as either a fall
dormant seeding or an active spring seeding. A seed mixture would be developed with
appropriate input from the local agencies. At a minimum, the seed mixture would designate
species and the applied pure live seed (PLS) rate. All areas would be mulched with certified
weed-free hay at a rate of 2 tons per acre. Hay would be crimped into the soil surface on slopes
greater than 20 percent. Woody nursery stock would be used where revegetation limitations are
severe and the pre-disturbance community is composed of woody vegetation.
Poor Revegetation Potential
Poor revegetation potential is a concern with the Wabek (1 to 35 percent slopes) and Zahl -
Williams (9 to 25 percent slopes) soil series. These series have capability classes indicating that
the soil would respond poorly to reclamation. These series are primarily limited to the pipeline
routes.
Mixing of soil materials during excavation or compaction, especially in the soil series listed
above, could have an effect on reclamation and future productivity. Therefore, construction
activities should be limited in areas where the soil is shallow or on steep slopes, as these series
have poor revegetation potential.
August 2009 4-50 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Natural Gas and Crude Oil Pipeline and Power Lines
Both pipelines would cross Wabek and the Zahl - Williams series. Table 4-8 details the acreage
of the project area ROW that would be disturbed by construction activities on soils with poor
re vegetation potential.
Table 4-8 Soils with Poor Revegetation Potential and Associated Right-of-Way
ROW
Gas Pipeline
Gas Pipeline
Gas Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Oil Pipeline
Transmission Line
Transmission Line
Transmission Line
Sum
Of
Acres
1
1
1
2
28
4
10
1
1
12
3
1
1
2
7
6
Description
Zahl- Williams (9 to 25 percent slope)
Wabek (1 to 35 percent slope)
Williams Loam, Undulating
Wabek (1 to 35 percent slope)
Zahl- Williams (9 to 25 percent slope)
Max-Bowbells-Zahl Loams, Hilly
Max- Williams Loams, Rolling
Max- Williams Loams, Strongly Sloping
Max-Zahl Loams, Rolling
Williams Loam, Undulating
Williams Clay Loam, Strongly Sloping
Zahl Loam, Hilly
Zahl-Max Loams, Hilly
Williams Loam, Undulating
Max-Bowbells-Zahl Loams, Hilly
Max- Williams Loams, Rolling
Map
Soil
Type
24E
54E
W1C
54E
24E
ME
MmC
MmD
MoC
W1C
WmD
ZaE
ZmE
W1C
ME
MmC
County
Mountrail
Mountrail
Ward
Mountrail
Mountrail
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Ward
Reclamation efforts would be implemented to enhance revegetation and address soils with poor
revegetation potential. These efforts would include topsoil segregation, recontouring, applying
erosion control mulch on slopes, respreading cut vegetation or preserved rock mulch, imprinting
the surface of the ROW, installing permanent slope breaks, and seeding with species adaptable to
the climate. These measures would also reduce soil impacts associated with poor revegetation
potential.
Power Lines
The entire length of the transmission alignment would be constructed within either the Highway
23 or the local road ditch ROW. Therefore, the overall amount of disturbance is expected to be
minimal, and direct compaction effects would be limited to the access point and tower pad
excavation areas.
Impacts associated with soil disturbance would be short-term, and the potential significance of
these impacts would be reduced by the implementation of erosion control measures and permit
conditions associated with the SWPPP.
Construction of the proposed project is expected to result in only temporary impacts on near-
surface soil resources from construction activities. Soil erosion from all construction activities is
expected to be minimal because the proposed project would be constructed following standard
practices and permit conditions to control wind erosion by limiting the removal of vegetation,
avoiding construction on steep and erosive slopes, revegetating or covering any topsoil that was
removed and stockpiled, surfacing roads, and reclaiming areas in a timely manner. In addition,
August 2009
4-51
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
active construction sites would be watered, as necessary (except during periods of rain), to
minimize the potential for wind erosion.
4.6.1.2 Operation Impacts
The refinery would use a number of hazardous materials at the site to manufacture clean fuels.
Shipping, handling, storing, and disposing of hazardous materials inherently pose a certain risk of
a release to the soil layer. The toxic substances handled by the refinery include hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia, and spent sulfuric acid. Additionally, the refinery handles regulated flammable
substances including propane, butane, isobutene, and pentane; and other petroleum products
including gasoline, fuel oils, diesel, and other products, which pose a risk of spill.
In general, oil or petroleum product dumped or spilled onto soils can saturate the soil matrix. This
type of concentrated contamination can be problematic to remediate. If oil or petroleum product
is introduced at any depth within the soil matrix, natural weather and biodegradation processes
can be rendered less effective and the chances may increase that some of the oil or petroleum
product may contaminate ground water, if present. Because many oil or petroleum product
components have densities lower than or close to that of water, the lighter non-aqueous phase
liquids (LNAPLs) generally pose less potential for ground water pollution that most chlorinated
solvents (e.g., PCBs or TCE) that are denser than water (denser non-aqueous phase liquids
[DNAPLs]).
A spill of hazardous materials (generally petroleum products and by-products from the refining
process) could occur under normal operating conditions. Spills could also occur from corrosion of
containers, piping, and process equipment; and leaks from seals or gaskets at pumps and flanges.
The overall spill hazards associated with the handling and transport of processed fuel oils are
expected to be less than at refineries based on older technologies. It is anticipated that if an event
occurred, it would be either a human or a mechanical error.
All facilities (refinery, pipelines, tanks associated with the pipeline) would have a SPCC plan or
equivalent as required under Oil Pollution Act and HMTA. The SPCC plans would be designed to
prevent spills from on-site facilities, and include requirements for secondary containment,
provides emergency response procedures, establishes training requirements, and so forth. In
addition, construction of the tanks, vessels, and foundations have been designed to incorporate
spill containment systems to reduce the impacts of spills of petroleum products. Specifically, the
refinery has been designed to minimize impacts to soil resources by constructing an impervious
layer under all refinery processing and handling facilities. In addition, all storage containers
would be double-lined, constructed on an impervious surface, and constructed within a self-
containing berm. Therefore, all of the structures would be built to contain and control accidental
spills and releases.
In the event of a spill or accidental release, all materials would be collected within designed
containment facilities and pumped to an appropriate tank, or sent off-site if the materials cannot
be used on-site. Conversely, large spills outside of designed containment areas would be captured
by impervious surfaces and directed to the process water system where they would be collected,
controlled, and treated or separated.
The project would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP under the NPDES permit for
the operations at the facility. The SWPPP would identify areas that have a potential for pollutants
entering into the stormwater systems at the facility and BMPs to minimize pollutant introductions
from those identified sources. These areas at the proposed facility include raw material,
intermediate and final product storage facilities, loading and unloading operations, and refinery
process areas.
August 2009 4-52 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.6.1.3 Buffalo Forage
There would be no effects to soil resources from buffalo forage production. Approximately 279
acres of previously disturbed agricultural land would be initially seeded with oats and crested
wheatgrass, and then later converted to alfalfa and a mixture of grasses. Soils in the area are
currently being used for agricultural purposes, which is not significantly different from the
proposed use. Therefore, no impacts to soil resources would occur.
4.6.1.4 Treated Wastewater and Stormwater Discharges
Effects to soils would be limited to the outfall locations and downstream reaches and sediment
deposition on aquatic and wetland vegetation. Implementation of this alternative would modify
soil and topographic conditions at the outfall sites to accommodate the outfall locations and
changes to hydraulics. Construction activities and discharge volumes are of particular concern as
soil erosion is an important problem both at its source and downstream of the outfall location
sites. Lost soil would be deposited somewhere downstream, and the location of the deposition
could have the potential to alter downstream hydrology and deposit on aquatic and emergent
vegetation. Sedimentation may also pose a water quality issue directly as a result of siltation and
indirectly from contaminants carried with or attached to soil particles. Excess soil can increase
the turbidity within the downstream reaches, causing deposition on plants and reducing the
amount of sunlight that reaches the plants growing in the water.
During operations, the proposed project would change the hydrology of the watershed, increasing
flows rates and changing the system to more of continuous flow regime. Overtime, the wetlands
and the tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek would adjust through erosion or additional
sediment deposition to the changes in hydrologic conditions.
4.6.1.5 Reclamation/Closure Impacts
At some point in the life of the refinery, the decision would be made to cease refinery operations
and permanently close the facility. The closure of the refinery would be expected to follow a
process of decommissioning, decontamination, and demolition, followed by cleanup of any
remaining soil and ground water contamination and final reclamation of the site. These activities
would be carefully managed in order to minimize impacts to the environment and other receptors
such as area residents. A part of the overall closure and reclamation planning would be the RCRA
"closure plan" which is required if the refinery is regulated as a TSD Facility under RCRA. The
preliminary design for Alternatives 1 and A would be a TSD Facility. For more information about
the RCRA "closure plan" please see the Solid and Hazardous Waste section in this Chapter.
Normal refinery operations would over time be expected to result in some local contamination of
soils and ground water. However, impacts should be minimized through effective design
considerations, operating practices and environmental management systems. Current plans are to
monitor for contamination throughout the life of the refinery and to begin cleanup activities at the
time when the contamination is discovered. Typically activities that may be needed during
cleanup at refineries are the removal of contaminated soils or the treatment of contaminated soils.
Soil cleanup activities serve two main purposes: removal/treatment of contaminants within the
soils that are sources of contamination to underlying ground water and the cleanup or removal of
surface soils would be to protect human health and the environment on the sites after closure of
the facility. If the hazardous waste surface impoundments are not clean-closed, a RCRA post-
closure permit would be required.
After the removal of the refinery units, tanks, buildings, roads, surface cleanup activities, etc.,
revegetation would be initiated as soon as possible or within 1 month after completion of
recontouring and topsoil placement. Reclamation plans would identify quantities and re-spread
August 2009 4-53 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
depths of topsoil (A and B horizons). These efforts would include topsoil segregation,
recontouring, applying erosion control mulch on slopes, respreading cut vegetation or preserved
rock mulch, imprinting the surface of the ROW, installing permanent slope breaks, and seeding
with species adaptable to the climate. These measures would also reduce soil impacts associated
with poor revegetation potential. Seeding would be completed as either a fall dormant seeding or
an active spring seeding. A seed mixture would be developed with appropriate input from the
local agencies. At a minimum, the seed mixture would designate species and the applied PLS
rate. All areas would be mulched with certified weed-free hay at a rate of 2 tons per acre. Hay
would be crimped into the soil surface on slopes greater than 20 percent. Woody nursery stock
would be used where revegetation limitations are severe and the pre-disturbance community is
composed of woody vegetation. The revegetated areas would be irrigated as needed for
reestablishment of the vegetation. The reclaimed area will be inspected regularly in order to
identify any actions needed for proper propagation of the vegetation.
4.6.2 Construction Alternatives
4.6.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the refinery project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-
acre project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have
occurred for decades. Therefore, there would be no effect to soil resources from continuing
agricultural uses such as buffalo forage production.
4.6.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
The effects to soils of the implementation of this alternative would be the same as those described
for Alternatives 1 and A. The MHA Nation would construct and operate the refinery and
associated facilities, and the same effects to soils would occur. Also, the production of forage for
the MHA Nation's herd of buffalo would be the same.
4.6.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
The effects to soils of the implementation of this alternative would be the same as those described
for Alternatives 1 and A. The MHA Nation would construct and operate the refinery and
associated facilities, and the same effects to soils would occur. However, the RCRA "closure
plan" would not be required as the refinery would not be regulated as a TSD Facility under
RCRA. The production of forage for the MHA Nation's herd of buffalo would be the same as in
Alternative 1 and A.
4.6.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
There would be no changes to soil resources in the project area under the No Action alternative.
Soils with hazards and limitations would remain, but they would not be affected beyond the
current condition. The effects on soil resources would depend on future and current management
activities.
August 2009 4-54 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.6.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.6.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, wastewater would be treated, then discharged through an NPDES permit
or stored and used for irrigation. During the growing season, treated wastewater could be land
applied. During wet weather or when it is too cold to irrigate, the wastewater would be discharged
under the NPDES permit or stored for future irrigation.
If this alternative is selected, an irrigation plan would need to be developed to configure the land
application site to prevent runoff, to determine appropriate rates of land application for the soils
and the size of the land application site. Soils on the site are generally moderately well-drained at
the surface, decreasing to moderately slow below 30 inches. Water application must not exceed
soil infiltration rates or unwanted surface runoff might occur. The impacts from land application
of treated wastewater would depend on the degree of treatment prior to land application and rate
of land application.
The use of treated wastewater for irrigation could potentially impact soil, if the wastewater was
high in salt. Wastewater has the potential to become saline, because the refinery plans to reuse
wastewater which could concentrate salts due to refinery processes and evaporation. Also one of
the water sources for the facility, the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer, is typically salty. The refinery
would need to pretreat water from the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer prior to refinery use to reduce
salinity. During normal precipitation periods, the refinery, as proposed in Alternative 1, generally
would not need to use the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer. Under Alternative 4, more well water
would be used and the wastewater would be saltier as less stormwater is available for makeup
water.
4.6.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Implementation of this alternative would not affect soils other than through construction of the
well and associated piping. These types of impacts are common to all refinery construction
alternatives. Water sent to the UIC well would be discharged to a deep aquifer where it would be
contained for thousands of years. Thus, soils would not be exposed to the discharged effluent.
4.6.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed Refinery would not be constructed. Thus, no discharges of
water of any kind would be permitted and no additional impacts to soils.
4.6.4 Cumulative Impacts
Regional agriculture is the most common disturbance to vegetative cover and is the biggest
impact to regional soil resources. These activities primarily include agricultural equipment
disturbing soils. As the vegetative cover is disturbed and removed, the topsoil, and subsoil (in
some circumstances) below the ground surface is degraded, causing changes in the local
hydrology, slope stability problems, and surface erosion. Vegetation can also be affected by road
dust generated by traffic on unpaved roads; snowmelt due to dust deposition can lead to flooding,
ponding, and hydrological changes in soil. Where roads are not paved, all activities that generate
vehicle traffic on roadways generate dust. Thus, continuing regional agricultural activities
requiring road travel add cumulatively to the volume of road dust generated. The quantitative
increase in the settled dust layer, as well as increases in the frequency of dusting may increase
effects on vegetation and snow cover, thus ultimately affecting soils and vegetation.
August 2009 4-55 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Because any project impacts related to soil resources would be highly localized and primarily
limited to the time of construction, cumulative impacts on soil resources would occur only if
another project is planned for construction in proximity or adjacent to the proposed refinery.
Currently, there are no other known projects planned in the project area. Consequently, there are
no cumulative impacts to soil resources anticipated.
4.7 Vegetation
Vegetation removal and soil handling associated with the construction of the refinery facilities
and installation of pipelines, access roads, transmission lines, water wells, and railroad spur
infrastructure would affect vegetation resources both directly and indirectly. Construction of the
refinery would generally correspond to the following sequence: (1) identifying and constructing
access roads; (2) blading/grading of the footprint, clearing of the ROW, trench area and structure
sites including material staging construction yards; (3) installing foundations; (4)
assembling/erecting the linear infrastructure and appurtenant facilities; and (5) cleanup and
disturbed site reclamation. Various phases of construction would occur simultaneously at
different locations throughout the construction process. This may require several construction
crews operating in these different locations.
Construction, operation, and maintenance activities that could result in the temporary or
permanent loss or degradation of vegetation communities include:
> Blading/grading of access roads, construction footprint clearance, and material staging
areas;
> Improvements to some portions of the existing access roads;
> Vegetation removal where needed for construction vehicle access, transmission tower
installation, and pipeline trenching activities;
> Excavations resulting from hole augering for transmission tower footings;
> Utilization of temporary construction material staging areas;
> Soil compaction;
> Introduction and proliferation of noxious weeds;
> Loss of topsoil;
> Alteration of soil horizons and structure at pipeline trenching and transmission pole
locations; and
> Equipment access through stream channels.
4.7.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
4.7.1.1 General Vegetation
Construction of the proposed project would require vegetation crushing, clearing, or other ground
disturbance that would result in both temporary disturbance and permanent conversion of existing
vegetation and habitat within the refinery footprint and appurtenant linear infrastructure (note that
potential impacts to wetland habitats are discussed below). Clearing of mixed-grass prairie
vegetation community types is not expected to occur within the footprint of the proposed refinery.
Table 4-9 summarizes the amount of temporary and permanent disturbance that would be
associated with various project components.
August 2009 4-56 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.7.1.2 Refinery
Table 4-9 shows that an estimated 190 acres of cultivated agricultural fields would be affected by
surface disturbance associated with the refinery footprint over the long-term operation of the
refinery. The proposed refinery footprint would disturb approximately 41 percent of the project
area. The primary vegetation community impact is to cultivated agricultural fields, which occupy
81 percent of the project area. As stated above, clearing of mixed-grass prairie vegetation
community types is not anticipated to occur from the refinery footprint. In addition,
approximately 3 acres of developed land (existing farm house and outbuildings) would be used as
maintenance buildings and during construction of the facility.
Direct impacts to vegetation communities would include the short-term loss of vegetation
(modification of structure, species composition, and areal extent of cover types) caused by soil
disturbance and grading. Indirect impacts would include the short-term and long-term increased
potential for non-native species invasion, establishment, and expansion; exposure of soils to
accelerated erosion; shifts in species composition and/or changes in vegetative density; reduction
of wildlife habitat; and changes in visual aesthetics.
If any of the remnant patches of the mixed-grass prairie vegetation community were to be
developed, direct impacts would include the short-term loss of vegetation, primarily modification
of structure, species composition, and areal extent of cover types. Indirect impacts would include
the short-term and long-term increased potential for non-native species invasion, establishment,
and expansion; exposure of soils to accelerated erosion; shifts in species composition and/or
changes in vegetative density; reduction of wildlife habitat; reduction of livestock forage; and
changes in visual aesthetics.
Table 4-9 Estimated Temporary and Permanent Vegetative Community Disturbance
Associated with Project Components
Disturbance by Vegetative Community (acres)
Activity/Project
Component Agriculture Land Developed Land Wetland3'4'5
Disturbance Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Refinery
Oil Pipeline1
Natural Gas Pipeline1
Transmission Lines2
Total
190
0
0
0
190
190
0
0
0
190
3
24
26
>1
54
3
0
0
<1
4
0
0.7
27/3
0.4
28/4.1
0.8
0
0
0
0.8
Note:
1. ROW widths for the transmission line were estimated at 25 feet, and both the oil and natural gas pipeline
were estimated at 50 feet.
2. The estimated average distance between transmission towers is 300 feet or 18 structures per mile.
Temporary disturbance acreage was estimated to equal 300 square feet, and permanent disturbance acreage
was estimated to equal 50 square feet at each tower location.
3. Wetlands within the 468.39-acre fee to trust property were formally delineated using 1987 USAGE
methodology.
4 The refinery footprint would require the fill of approximately 2,000 feet of wetland PEMF#2 at
approximately 10 feet in Section 19 or 0.5 acres. The upper portion of the wetland would be re-routed by
constructing a ditch approximately 2,650 linear feet and 10 feet of width or 0.6 acres. There would be an
additional impact to PEM/ABF#3 of 0.3 acres. Wetlands impacts would be avoided or mitigated following
the 404 permit (CWA).
5. Wetlands within the three linear project ROW corridors were not formally delineated. FWS - National
Wetland Inventory data were used to estimate wetland impacts, as all three linear projects would be
constructed within existing road, section line, or railroad rights-of-way.
In general, the duration of effects on cultivated agricultural land and mixed-grass prairie
vegetation are significantly different. Cropland areas can be readily returned to production
August 2009 4-57 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
through fertilizer treatments and compaction relief. However, disturbed native prairie tracts
require reclamation treatments and natural succession to return to predisturbance conditions of
diversity (both species and structural). Reestablishment of mixed-grass prairie to predisturbance
conditions would be influenced by factors that are both climatic (growing season, temperature,
and precipitation patterns) and edaphic (physical, chemical, and biological) conditions in the soil.
Construction activities, increased soil disturbance, and higher traffic volumes could stimulate the
introduction and spread of undesirable and invasive, noxious species within the project area.
Noxious species invasion and establishment has become an increasingly important result of
previous and current disturbance in western states. Noxious species often out-compete desirable
species, rendering an area less productive as a source of forage for livestock and wildlife.
Additionally, sites dominated by invasive, noxious species often have a different visual character
that may negatively contrast with surrounding undisturbed vegetation. Currently, the project area
is relatively free of noxious weeds; however, the cultivated fields and wetland basin margins are
dominated by numerous invasive, non-native weed species.
Construction, operation, and maintenance activities could introduce or spread noxious weeds into
currently uninfested areas. Construction equipment, vehicles, or imported materials may disperse
plants, seeds, or pests if the appropriate preventative measures are not taken. The introduction of
noxious weeds can have direct or indirect long-term effects on vegetation resources, wildlife and
wildlife habitat, and special-status plants and animals in more mesic environments, including
river and stream channels, burned areas, and eroded slopes. Noxious species are largely confined
to road edges, newly graded areas, and other areas where existing vegetation is crushed and soils
are impacted. Potential impacts associated with noxious weed introductions and spread would be
minimized through the implementation of the prescribed mitigation measures listed in Section
4.17.
4.7.1.3 Wetlands and Riparian Areas
The dominant native plant communities in this region are native mixed-grass prairie interspersed
with wetland and riparian communities located in moist swales and along watercourses.
Agricultural land consists largely of croplands interspersed between low-lying basins which
typically contain prairie pothole wetlands. Most of the soils in the wetlands are silty clay loam
with some silt loams and loams. In most cases, wetlands are bordered by agricultural or other
developed land uses, which may have altered the extent and quality of the wetlands.
Land ownership along the pipeline and transmission lines is primarily private. The proposed
pipeline and transmission routes have not been surveyed for wetlands or navigable waters of the
U.S. However, wetland acreages were estimated using FWS - National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
wetland data coverage.
Temporary and permanent impacts related to project construction and access road clearing, and
new transmission line and oil and natural gas pipeline construction may potentially impact
wetlands and ephemeral and intermittent drainages.
Refinery
A wetland delineation was conducted on the 468.39-acre proposed project site. The USAGE
determined that wetland PEMF#2 is a jurisdictional water of the United States (Figure 3-12)
(Cimarosti 2005). A portion of wetland PEMF#2 was reportedly constructed in 1976 under
NDSWC Permit #661 and Ward County Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
authorized maintenance of the drainage in 1994. The other fifteen delineated wetland basins are
isolated, intrastate, non-navigable waters not subject to jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
CWA (Cimarosti 2005).
August 2009 4-58 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Construction of the refinery facilities under Alternative 1 is expected to directly result in the loss
of approximately 2,000 linear feet and an approximate ten feet of width or approximately 0.5 acre
of waters of the United States delineated as part of wetland PEMF#2. The loss of the
jurisdictional wetland due to discharge of dredge and fill material would be addressed through the
CWA 404 permit process.
It is important to note that wetland PEMF#2 would be re-routed and constructed around the
wastewater storage facilities. The proposed reroute of the drainage would consist of grading and
excavation to create a new channel and outfall in wetland PEMF#2. The reroute of the drainage
would be approximately 2,650 linear feet, extending west from the upper portion of wetland
along the half section line, then due north approximately 2,650 linear feet rerouting flow to the
lower portion of wetland PEMF#2. The channel would be trapezoidal, and depths would vary
from 5 to 15 feet. The side slopes and bottom would be hydroseeded to establish a grass-lined
channel. The outfall would be constructed with energy dissipaters and bank armor for erosion
control to prevent channel scour in the wetland outfall area.
The refinery site plan may impact wetland PEM/ABF#3, which is 0.3 acres in size and adjacent to
the existing railroad. The proposed rail spur would be built on this wetland. The USAGE
identified Wetland PEM/ABF#3 as isolated, intrastate non-navigable water that is not subject to
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. This wetland is not located within a 100-year
floodplain nor is it adjacent to the jurisdictional wetland PEMF#2.
There would be a loss of 0.5 acres of jurisdictional wetland and a loss of 0.3 acres of non-
jurisdictional wetland with this alternative. These losses may require compensatory mitigation.
Transmission Lines
Construction of the transmission line would occur within the existing Highway 23 road ditch
ROW for a majority of its length, with the remaining segment built within the ROW of 366th
Street. Construction of the transmission line is not expected to directly or indirectly result in the
loss of any waters of the United States, including wetlands. The average span between
transmission poles would average approximately 300 feet. Therefore, most, if not all wetlands
would be avoided by placing transmission towers outside of wetland boundaries. If a large
wetland is encountered, in which the linear extent is greater than 300 feet, the transmission line
route would switch to the opposite side of the road ROW to avoid affecting the wetland.
Therefore, construction of the transmission line is not likely to impact any waters of the United
States, including wetlands.
Oil Pipeline
Enbridge would construct a pipeline to connect the terminus of its Wabek/Plaza field pipeline to
the crude oil storage tanks in the refinery's tank farm (Figure 2-12). Additionally, Enbridge
would construct four new 30,000-bbl storage tanks between Outlook, Montana and the refinery
(Figure 2-1).
Construction of the oil pipeline would require approximately 4 miles of new pipeline. A
significant portion of the pipeline would be constructed on the north side of the existing C.P.R.
ROW, with the remaining portion constructed on the east side of the gravel road ROW.
As detailed in Table 4-10, the oil pipeline route would cross a total of 5 wetland sites. Since the
centerline of the oil pipeline route would be within the railroad ditch, it would not cross any
designated NWI wetlands. Assuming a 50 foot construction ROW, construction would result in a
maximum total temporary disturbance area of approximately 0.7 acres. Temporary disturbance
August 2009 4-59 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
would primarily occur in palustrine emergent wetlands or wetlands that include the palustrine
emergent community type.
Table 4-10 NWI Wetlands Potentially Affected by Construction and Operation of
Linear Infrastructure including Pipelines and Transmission Lines
Emergent Wetland
Project # of wetlands Construction area
Component crossed (acres)1
Transmission Lines 14 0.4
Oil Pipeline2 5 0.7
MDU Resources Natural Gas Pipeline2 42 26.9
Bear Paw Natural Gas Pipeline 11 3.0
Note:
1 Construction impacts are based on a proposed 50-foot wide construction ROW. The calculated acreage
assumed impacts to the entire 50-foot wide construction ROW.
2 The Enbridge oil pipeline and the MDU Resources natural gas pipeline would share the same corridor.
Therefore, the impacts to certain wetlands are overestimated.
Source: FWS National Wetland Inventory metadata.
Natural Gas Pipeline
Two options are provided to deliver natural gas to the refinery: MDU Resources Group, Inc. and
Bear Paw Natural Gas Company. MDU would supply natural gas using a new pipeline that would
connect its existing Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline to the refinery (Figure 2-12 and Figure 2-
13). Under the second option, Bear Paw Natural Gas Company would supply natural gas using a
new pipeline that would connect its existing Plaza pipeline to the refinery (Figure 2-12).
Construction of the natural gas pipeline would require 4 or 29 miles of new pipeline, depending
on which option is constructed. Part of the pipeline would be constructed on the south side of the
existing C.P.R. ROW. The remainder of the MDU Resources pipeline option would primarily
follow the Ward and Mountrail County border until it interconnects with the existing MDU
Resource pipeline in Section 24, Township 156 North, Range 88 West.
Numerous NWI wetlands would be intersected by the construction of the gas pipeline. Based on
wetlands indicated on the NWI, it is anticipated that temporary impacts would occur to numerous
palustrine emergent wetlands. Temporary wetland loss would primarily occur from the active
pipeline trench, temporary workspace/pads, and access roads.
The MDU natural gas pipeline corridor route would cross a total of 42 wetland sites resulting in a
maximum total temporary disturbance area of approximately 26.9 acres. In addition, the
centerline of the MDU pipeline would cross approximately 3,030 feet of wetlands, Temporary
disturbance would primarily occur in palustrine emergent wetlands or wetlands that include the
palustrine emergent community type.
Conversely, the Bear Paw natural gas pipeline route would cross a total of 11 wetland sites
resulting in a maximum total potential disturbance of 3.0 acres. The centerline of the Bear Paw
would cross approximately 2,611 feet of wetlands. Because the new pipeline would be classified
as a utility line5, it is anticipated that a USAGE Nationwide 12 permit would be required prior to
5 A "utility line" is defined as any pipe or pipeline for the transportation of any gaseous, liquid, liquefiable,
or slurry substance, for any purpose, and any cable, line, or wire for the transmission for any purpose of
electrical energy, telephone and telegraph messages, and radio and television communication. The term
"utility line" does not include activities that drain a water of the United States, such as drainage tile;
however, it does apply to pipes conveying drainage from another area.
August 2009 4-60 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
initiation of any construction activities. Nationwide 12 permits generally cover discharges of
dredged or fill material associated with excavation, backfill, or bedding for utility lines, including
outfall and intake structures, provided there is no change in preconstruction contours.
Oil Storage Facilities
In addition to the pipeline which would supply synthetic crude oil feedstock to the refinery,
Enbridge would also construct four new 30,000-bbl storage tanks between Outlook, Montana and
the refinery. Construction of the oil storage facilities would occur on existing pads that have
previously been developed, thereby avoiding additional wetland impacts.
Current and Potential Site Conditions
Cattails and reed canary grass are plants that currently dominate many of the wetlands the
pipelines and transmission would disturb. Cattails comprise one recognized type of wetland
habitat, and although not valued as highly as a sedge meadow or other wetland types, they
nevertheless form an important component of the wetland ecosystems in the region.
It is anticipated that all areas affected by the pipeline and transmission line ROWs would be
returned to their current land uses following completion of construction and restoration activities.
The temporary nature of planned construction and restoration activities should not result in any
conflicts with existing land uses. Implementation of the mitigation measures would ensure that
construction of the pipelines and transmission lines would result in no permanent impacts to
jurisdictional wetland sites. Invasion by other non-native species may also be difficult to control,
considering the long history of disturbance in many of these wetlands. Lastly, all wetlands
affected by the project pipelines and transmission lines would be restored to pre-construction
conditions following construction.
4.7.1.4 Effluent Discharges
Under this alternative (Alternative 1 and A), all wastewater would be treated to meet the
refinery's discharge limits in the NPDES permit and discharged into wetland PEMF#2. PEMF#2
is on the western side of the site next to Highway 23 in the NW % of Section 19. The total area
for wetland PEMF#2 is approximately 11.7 acres. The wetland connects to an unnamed tributary
of the East Fork of Shell Creek, located about a mile downstream of the proposed outfalls. The
wetland has been classified as a palustrine emergent send-permanently flooded (PEMF#2)
(Wetlands Technical Report, BIA, November, 2005). It is an ephemeral prairie pothole wetland
that has been altered by road construction and construction of a drainage system in the 1970's.
The wetland is fed by surface runoff from precipitation.
The proposed refinery would change flow conditions in the wetland PEMF#2 and the unnamed
tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek. Flow would be discharged more continuously
throughout the year, depending on the how much water is being recycled at the refinery. When
the refinery is recycling water, the average discharge rate would be 10 gpm (5.1 million gallons
per year or 16 acre feet), with a peak discharge rate of 89 gpm. If water is not being recycled, the
average discharge rate would be 50 gpm (26 million gallons per year or 80 acre feet) and the peak
discharge rate would be 130 gpm.
The primary impacts from the proposed effluent discharges to vegetation would be to the
riparian/wetland resources on-site and downstream of the site. Vegetation would be affected by
changes in hydrology and water quality. The proposed refinery would change flow conditions in
the wetland PEMF#2 and the unnamed tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek. Flow would be
discharged more continuously throughout the year, depending on the how much water is being
recycled at the refinery. When the refinery is recycling water, the average discharge rate would be
August 2009 4-61 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
10 gpm (5.1 million gallons per year or 16 acre feet) with a peak discharge rate of 89 gpm. If
water is not being recycled, the average discharge rate would be 50 gpm (26 million gallons per
year or 80 acre feet) and the peak discharge rate would be 130 gpm.
Under a full recycle scenario it is expected that much of the runoff water would be used by the
refinery. This would reduce the volume that flows into wetland PEMF#2 from the refinery site.
However, this decreased volume of is not anticipated to be significant as the flow from the south
of the site will still be maintained through the created diversion channel.
If the refinery does not recycle process water or use runoff, the additional water to wetland
PEMF#2 would likely cause the wetland area to become more permanently flooded. This would
result in changes to wetland characteristics such as increasing obligate vegetation (cattails) within
the wetland or increasing open water areas. The size of the wetland would be controlled by
discharge through the culvert under Highway 23. The wetlands to the north of Highway 23 would
also be impacted by the additional water. As a result of the development of the refinery, the
amount of surface runoff and/or shallow subsurface water discharge to the wetland would likely
increase. This would contribute to the likelihood of a shift from a semi-permanent wetland with
periodic drying to permanent wetland type for PEMF#2. There would be a similar shift to the
unnamed tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek.
Wetlands/riparian areas may also be affected during the unlikely events of a pipeline failure or
tank rupture. As discussed in the Spill Section of this Chapter, these events are very unlikely to
occur.
Erosion and sedimentation impacts to wetland PEMF#2, and the unnamed tributary from
increased stream flow are not expected due to the limited discharge volume. However, any
potential impacts would be mitigated by implementing BMP for stream channel erosion
prevention. Over time, the wetlands and the tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek would adjust
through erosion or additional sediment deposition to the changes in hydrologic conditions.
Potential impacts would be mitigated by implementing BMPs for stream channel erosion
prevention. A SWPPP detailing sediment and erosion control measures and any BMPs would be
developed in accordance with the facility's NPDES permits.
4.7.2 Construction Alternatives
4.7.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-acre
project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred
for decades. The MHA Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce feed or forage
hay for buffalo, or the land could be included in BIA's leasing program. Based on the foregoing,
impacts to vegetative resources would be similar to the existing conditions.
4.7.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the magnitude and type of effects would be similar to those presented
under Alternatives 1 and A.
4.7.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
The effects to vegetative resources from implementation of this alternative would be similar to
the no recycle option for Alternatives 1 and A. The modification of the proposed refinery site
plan would reduce the wetland impacts caused by filling wetland PEMF#2 from 0.5 acres in
August 2009 4-62 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 to 0.1 acres in Alternative 4. Wetland PEM/ABF#3 would still be impacted.
Cumulative impacts to the PEMF#2 wetland are likely to be the same for both Alternatives 1 and
Alternatives 4 if the refinery requires future expansion for technological and/or regulatory
changes requiring additional process units or other modifications, as this was the space eliminated
from the Alternative 1. The production of forage for the MHA Nation's herd of buffalo would be
the same.
4.7.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status or apply for an
NPDES permit. Therefore, the project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes,
which have occurred for decades. The types of direct and indirect effects occurring to vegetative
resources from agricultural practices would continue under existing conditions.
4.7.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.7.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
With this alternative, surplus treated wastewater would be disposed of through land application to
irrigate crops as practicable otherwise wastewater would be discharge through NPDES permitted
outfalls. There would be some reduction in flow to the wetlands. There would be impacts to
vegetation from irrigation wastewaters. The land has not previously been irrigated, and irrigation
could potentially cause changes in the types of crops grown and farming practices. The impacts
from land application of treated wastewater would depend on the level of treatment prior to land
application and rate of land application. The irrigation management plan should identify the
appropriate land application rates and treatment levels necessary to protect vegetation, human
health, and the environment.
4.7.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would discharge all effluent from the WWTP to a Class
I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. Since the well would be
finished deep below the ground surface, no additional impacts would occur to vegetation.
4.7.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed Refinery would not be constructed. Thus, no discharges of
water of any kind would be permitted and no additional impacts would occur to vegetation or
wetlands.
4.7.4 Cumulative Impacts
Wetlands in the area have been previously impacted through agricultural practices such as
cultivation of uplands and wetlands. Wetland hydrology has also been affected by roads and
railroad tracks; and agriculture; in particular, some farm fields have been recontoured to enhance
drainage of wetlands. Ongoing agricultural practices would continue to be the primary contributor
to cumulative impacts to wetlands. Long-term impacts to wetlands from this project affect a very
minor portion of cumulative impacts to wetland resources in the area.
If Alternative 4 is selected, it is possible that future expansions of the petroleum refinery would
increase wetland impacts to the same level as Alternative 1. Refinery operation expansions of the
processing area are common due to new technologies and regulatory requirement changes.
August 2009 4-63 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 already includes an area for refinery expansion. The expansion area was not
included in Alternative 4 to avoid direct wetland impacts.
4.8 Wildlife
4.8.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
4.8.1.1 Big Game Mammals
A variety of big game mammals, as described in Chapter 3, inhabit the project area and make use
of all habitats present. These habitats include wetlands, drainages, field edges, shelterbelts,
agricultural fields, and mixed-grass prairie. This analysis of possible direct and indirect effects to
big game mammal species include: (1) loss or degradation of habitats, (2) displacement, (3)
vehicle collisions, (4) noise, (5) dust, (6) habitat fragmentation; and (7) population effects. Each
of these effects is discussed below.
Loss or Degradation of Habitats
Habitat loss associated with construction and operation of facilities would result in a reduction of
available forage and other habitat components in the affected area. Habitats adjacent to areas that
are directly disturbed could be affected by changes in vegetation, including the potential invasion
of noxious weeds. The exact location and concentration of this effect would vary depending on
the timing and extent of development, but is not expected to result in the alteration of seasonal
habitat use or herd movements of big game mammals within the project area.
The direct loss of habitats caused by construction of the refinery infrastructure is not anticipated
to have significant adverse effects to big game mammals. In general, the direct habitat removal of
approximately 190 acres is expected to have minimal impacts on big game mammals. The direct
loss of cultivated field habitat would not result in any loss of wintering range or impact a major
corridor in the region. Therefore, it is concluded that the capacity of the remaining undisturbed
portions of the project site that could support big game populations should remain essentially
unchanged from current conditions.
D/sp/acemenf
Disturbances from construction of the linear facilities may affect utilization of habitat(s)
immediately adjacent to these affected areas. Areas of habitat that are avoided because of human
activities or the consequences of human activities are generally less effective at supporting
populations of big game. The area subject to this impact is not lost to each species, but their use
of this area is reduced by some unknown amount that depends on many factors such as the spatial
and temporal scale of the disturbance, natural history characteristics of each species, and the
habituation of individual animals to each type of disturbance.
It is envisioned that most big game mammal responses would consist of avoidance of areas
proximal to the construction and operational areas, with most individuals carrying out normal
activities of feeding and bedding within adjacent suitable habitats. However, big game mammals
are adaptable and generally adjust to non-threatening, predictable human activity. It is anticipated
that the magnitude of displacement would decrease over time as: (1) the animals have more time
to adjust to the operational circumstances, and (2) the extent of the most intensive construction
activities, such as pipeline trenching and transmission line construction, would be short-term. By
the time the refinery is under full production, construction activities would have ceased, and
traffic and human activities in general would be greatly reduced. As a result, this impact would be
greatly reduced, and it is unlikely that big game mammals would be displaced under full project
August 2009 4-64 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
development. The level of big game mammal use of the project area is more likely to be
determined by the quantity and quality of forage available.
Vehicle Collisions
Increased vehicle traffic is anticipated in association with all phases of the project. The potential
for vehicle collisions with big game mammals would be directly correlated with the volume of
traffic. The volume of project-related traffic is expected to be greatest during the construction
phase and to gradually diminish during the production phase. Speed limits set for project roads
would reduce the potential for collisions; however, most collisions occur on county roads and
highways, where speeds are higher and are regulated by the state. Overall, a 30 percent or more
increase in traffic is anticipated, which may result in additional collisions between big game
mammals and vehicles. However, the incidence of vehicle collision impacts to big game
mammals is anticipated to occur infrequently, and no long-term adverse effects are expected.
Noise
Noise is one factor in the displacement of big game mammals from areas of otherwise suitable
habitat and was considered as part of this analysis. Elevated levels of noise associated with
increased human activity and facility operations may affect big game. The effects would depend
on the occurrence pattern and intensity of produced noise. Big game responses may vary from a
developed tolerance overtime to complete avoidance of affected habitats.
Dust
Dust would be generated and deposited on vegetation that provides forage for big game mammals
along existing and any new access roads within the project area. Deposition of road dust on
vegetation can affect vegetation health, nutrition, and palatability. These effects are typically
most severe immediately adjacent to roads, but can extend up to 1A mile away. Vegetation within
these areas represents a relatively small proportion of the total available forage within a typical
big game mammal range. In general, habitats along roads are avoided because of the disturbance
caused by vehicle traffic; therefore, the loss of forage productivity attributable to dust would have
only minimal effects on big game because this forage is typically under-used.
Habitat Fragmentation
Construction of the proposed project and appurtenant facilities would result in some degree of
habitat fragmentation throughout the project area. The effects of habitat fragmentation and the
subsequent suitability of big game mammal ranges would depend on several factors, including
current range condition, carrying capacity, current population levels, species habitat requirements,
degree of disturbance, and availability of suitable habitats. In addition, critical life stages of big
game mammals are tied to seasonal use patterns, migration corridors to spring and winter ranges,
as these animals use different portions of their range at different times of the year. Habitat
fragmentation is an issue for some wildlife species because of the creation of barriers between
suitable and unsuitable habitats. These barriers often limit species occurrence and movement
among habitats. Construction activities in some portions of the project area may make these areas
less available or fragmented to a degree that they would be unsuitable to several species of big
game mammals.
The pattern of fragmentation that would occur under this project alternative would consist of the
loss of 190 acres of a seasonal, agricultural (cereal grain, row crop) field, and narrow strips of
habitats within the pipeline and transmission line ROW. However, because the pipeline and
transmission line would be constructed primarily within existing road and railroad ROW, these
areas have already been fragmented. Therefore, any new disturbances to these corridors would
have minimal effects on big game habitat.
August 2009 4-65 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Population Effects
The effects of the proposed project on big game mammal populations are difficult to predict
because of the many unknown factors associated with each of the potential effects and the
potential for a synergistic or antagonistic relationship among the individual effects. The scale and
nature of the anticipated effects, particularly in terms of indirect effects, suggests that some minor
declines in big game mammal populations may occur. The degree of this potential decline is not
known, but is not likely to occur to the extent that viability of any local population is
compromised in the project area or across the range of the species as a whole, due to the
adaptability of local populations.
Based on the foregoing, neither short-term nor long-term adverse effects are expected to occur on
any localized big game mammal populations.
4.8.1.2 Birds
A variety of passerine, waterfowl and raptors inhabits the project area and makes use of all
habitats present. These habitat areas include wetlands, drainages, field edges, shelterbelts, trees
and shrubs, agricultural fields, and mixed-grass prairie. Possible effects to passerine, waterfowl
and raptor species include: (1) direct mortality (including vehicle collisions and collisions with
power lines), (2) harassment and displacement, (3) habitat loss, (4) noise, (5) availability of prey,
(6) population effects, and (7) habitat fragmentation. Each of these effects is discussed below.
Raptor, passerine, and waterfowl species may be affected in several ways. Vehicle collision and
collision with and electrocution by power lines could cause direct mortality of raptor, passerine,
and waterfowl species.
Vehicle Collisions
Raptor and Passerine Species
Access roads would be constructed as part of the proposed pipeline and transmission line
construction. Based on the construction schedule, increased vehicle traffic is anticipated in
association with all construction and operational phases of the project. The literature on avian
mortality caused by collision with vehicles is reviewed by Erickson et al. (2001). Most birds
killed by vehicle collision are passerines, although raptors, particularly owls, are also killed.
Raptors may be struck by vehicles while they hunt or feed on carrion near roads. Most raptors,
however, do not focus their foraging efforts on carrion (Ehrlich et al. 1988), thereby reducing
their potential for being struck by vehicles along roads.
The potential for vehicle collisions would be directly correlated with the volume of traffic.
Project-related traffic is expected to be greatest during the construction phase and to gradually
diminish during the production phase. The use of speed limits on project roads would reduce the
potential for collisions; however, most collisions occur on county roads and highways, where
speeds are higher and regulated by the state. Foraging raptors may tend to avoid areas of heavy
traffic, further reducing their potential for being struck by vehicles on busy roads. Overall, a 30
percent or more increase in traffic is anticipated, which may result in a similar increase in
mortality to raptors. This impact is not expected to have a substantial effect on raptor or passerine
populations because of the low incidence of mortalities from vehicle collisions compared with the
relatively large size of the raptor and passerine populations in the region.
Waterfowl
It was estimated that 13,500 ducks are killed each year by vehicle collisions in the PPR of North
and South Dakota (Erickson et al. 2001). An average number of 0.04 duck fatalities per mile of
August 2009 4-66 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
road has been used by several authors to estimate total waterfowl mortality from vehicle
collisions in the PPR (Erickson et al. 2001). Most of these studies have been conducted along
paved, high-speed roads, rather than low-speed dirt roads. The rate of mortality with mostly
unpaved project roads in the project area would be much lower than reported for the study. Thus,
the effects of collisions of waterfowl with vehicles on the local populations of waterfowl within
the project area are anticipated to be much less than the study estimate.
Collisions with Power Lines
The presence of new aboveground power lines may increase the potential for birds to be killed by
collision. Water birds and waterfowl are the most common groups of birds killed by collision
with power lines. Raptors also collide with power lines; however, the proportion of raptor
mortalities attributed to collision is minimal compared with mortalities attributed to
electrocutions (Erickson et al. 2001). Specific measures that would help reduce the potential for
raptor collision with power lines, such as avoiding areas of high avian use, would be implemented
where feasible.
Raptors
The presence of new aboveground power lines also could increase the potential for raptor
electrocutions. Support structures associated with aboveground power lines could be used as
perches by raptors. These new perches would provide raptors with new opportunities for hunting
and capturing prey, which could increase the efficiencies and success of raptors that hunt from
perches. This increase in success could result in an increase in the local population of raptors that
hunt from perches and reduce the populations of the species on which these raptors prey.
Installing devices to prevent raptors from perching in or on structures supporting power lines near
sensitive areas (e.g., grouse leks) could eliminate these facilities as perches for raptors. Therefore,
all aboveground structures would be designed and equipped with Avian Power Line Interaction
Committee (APLIC) (2006) devices intended to prevent and reduce the risk of electrocution to
perching raptors.
Waterfowl
Few comprehensive studies have been conducted on collisions of birds with power lines.
However, where nationwide annual estimates of avian mortality caused by such collisions have
been made, they range widely from more than 10,000 to more than 174,000,000 birds per year
(Erickson et al. 2001). Waterfowl are most susceptible to colliding with power lines that span or
occur near streams, water bodies, and wetlands. Considering the existing distribution and
proposed height of transmission lines, the potential for waterfowl colliding with power lines is
limited.
Harassment and Displacement
Raptor species inhabiting the region are strongly drawn to mixed-grass prairie and cultivated
agricultural fields, and they would often nest within proximate shelterbelts or woodland habitats.
Therefore, raptors potentially occupying suitable habitats could be temporarily displaced from
habitats in areas of human activity. Displacement during the construction phase could alter
patterns of habitat use for foraging individuals. The extent of displacement would depend on the
duration and intensity of the activity and on the sensitivity and habituation to disturbance of
individual animals. In addition, construction may result in displacement from affected habitats
during the entire construction phase (a time frame of weeks to months), while operation of the
refinery would result in permanent displacement from the 190-acre project footprint. If raptors are
displaced, it is anticipated that individuals would move to other adjacent habitats, but may
encounter inter- and intra-specific competition for resources, depending on niche availability and
density of raptors.
August 2009 4-67 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Disturbance associated with construction activities can cause nest failure, nest abandonment, and
unsuccessful fledging of young to nesting raptors. It is also important to note that nests not used
in 1 year may potentially be used in subsequent years. Subsequent development within close
proximity to these nests may preclude use of the nest in following years. Therefore, protection of
nests that may potentially be used in future years may require limiting construction activities
within a specified line of distance to minimize impacts. In addition, ground-nesting raptors would
experience a greater loss of nesting habitats relative to tree-nesting raptors because trees are less
likely to be disturbed by the project.
Habitat Loss
Passerine and Raptor Species
The direct disturbance and loss of approximately 190 acres of wildlife habitat in the project area
would likely reduce the availability and effectiveness of habitat for a variety of passerine bird and
raptor species. The initial phases of surface disturbance and increased construction noise could
result in some direct mortality to small and medium sized mammals and would displace some
bird species. In addition, mortality from increased vehicle use of roads in the project area is
expected.
The temporary disturbances that occur during the construction period would tend to favor
generalist wildlife species such as ground squirrels and ground-dwelling passerine species (e.g.,
horned larks), and would have more impact on specialist species (e.g., lark buntings and
grasshopper sparrows). Overall, it is believed that the long-term disturbance of 190 acres would
have a minor effect on common wildlife species. This is because of the current land use and
subsequent disturbance regimen. The production cycle of cereal crops requires extensive
management treatments over the course of a growing season. Birds are highly mobile and tend to
disperse into surrounding areas, using suitable habitats and open niches to the extent that they are
available. In addition, because of the high reproductive potential of these species, they can rapidly
repopulate vacant niches as those habitats become suitable. While there is no way to accurately
quantify the changes associated with construction activities, the impact is likely to be minor in the
short term.
Waterfowl
Wetlands are the habitat types of highest importance to the waterfowl in the project area. The
amounts of these habitat types that would be lost are relatively small compared with the areal
extent of these habitats that would not be affected. Thus, direct loss of habitats would have
minimal effect on waterfowl. Most birds would avoid construction equipment, and most
construction would not occur within or near wetland habitats. However, nests placed in locations
subject to disturbance (agricultural field edges near wetlands) could be lost. This effect would be
relatively minor because of the low potential for direct mortality, the short breeding season for
waterfowl, and the small percentage of the project area that would be directly affected during the
breeding season. It is anticipated that surface disturbance associated with the construction and
operation of the facilities would have little potential to cause direct mortality to waterfowl.
Holding ponds would consist of rectangular 2-acre, 10-foot-deep ponds with 2:1 side slopes. The
ponds are designed to handle discharge from the WWTP as well as storm water runoff from the
refinery. If water depth is sufficient, the holding ponds may attract waterfowl and other avian
species. To minimize the use of refinery retention ponds by birds, four inch to six inch rock
should be used to line exposed in-slopes of all wastewater/storage ponds. In addition, any ponds
having the potential to hold contaminated (oily) water should be netted. The larger rock and
netting will prevent the creation of an attractive nuisance for waterfowl and other avian species.
August 2009 4-68 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Overall, impacts to waterfowl and avian species should be negligible. Because of the design of
the side slopes, it is unlikely that any emergent vegetation would grow within the holding ponds.
In addition, the ongoing pumping and discharge of the ponds would discourage use by waterfowl
or other avian species.
Noise
Noise is one factor in the displacement of raptors from areas of otherwise suitable habitat.
Elevated levels of noise associated with increased human activity and facility operations may
affect raptors. The effects of project-related noise levels on raptors depend on the patterns of
occurrence and intensity of the noise. Responses of individual raptors may vary from a high
degree of tolerance to avoidance of affected habitats. Increased noise in areas adjacent to new
noise sources is expected to have minimal effects because raptors would avoid these areas or may
become accustomed to this type of disturbance.
Availability of Prey
The raptor species that occur in the project area rely on a variety of prey species that make use of
different habitats. The primary small mammals found on the project area include, but are not
limited to, eastern cottontail, deer mice, thirteen-lined ground squirrel, white-footed mouse,
meadow jumping mouse, and northern pocket mouse. The development of the proposed refinery
site would initially disturb an estimated 190 acres of potential habitat for several species of small
mammals such as mice and rabbits that may serve as prey items for raptors. These prey species
would experience localized population losses; because of direct mortality, and loss of habitat.
Overall, the collective distribution and occurrence of these prey species would decrease in the
project area and may be reduced to the extent that the availability of prey is reduced for foraging
raptors, especially in areas of high and concentrated development. However, the small amount of
short-term change in prey base populations created by the construction activities is minimal in
comparison with the overall status of the small mammal populations in the region. Also the high
reproductive potential of these small mammals would enable populations to quickly repopulate
adjacent habitats. For these reasons, implementation of the project is not expected to produce any
appreciable long-term negative changes to the raptor prey base.
Population Effects
The effects of the proposed project on avian populations are difficult to predict because of the
many unknown factors associated with each of the potential effects, differing sensitivity of
species to each of these effects, and the potential for synergistic or antagonistic relationships
among the individual effects. The widespread nature of the anticipated impacts, particularly in
terms of collisions, displacement, and availability of prey species, suggest that some minor
declines in raptor populations may occur. The degree of this potential decline is not known, but is
not likely to occur to the extent that any avian population viability is compromised in the project
area or across the range of any specific species as a whole.
Habitat Fragmentation
In some areas, disturbance could also result in fragmentation of existing vegetation
communities/habitats. Fragmentation occurs whenever a large continuous habitat is transformed
into smaller patches that are isolated from each other by both natural and human-induced
mechanisms. The changed landscape functions as a barrier to dispersal for species associated with
the original vegetation community/habitat. These smaller and more isolated habitats also support
smaller populations, which are more vulnerable to local, randomly determined extinction events,
thereby causing smaller, more isolated habitats that ultimately contain fewer species and lower
biodiversity. As more "edge" habitat becomes available because of fragmentation, the "edge-
August 2009 4-69 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
dwelling" species have the opportunity to "invade" the interior vegetation community/habitat and
become a major threat to the survival of the "interior-dwelling" species.
The potential effects of habitat fragmentation are dependent upon several factors, including
current habitat condition, proximity of additional suitable habitats, degree of proposed
disturbance, density and distribution of noxious weeds, and local population size. Given the
sensitivity of wildlife species to the relationship to edge effects and noxious weed invasions,
construction of the new natural gas and oil pipelines would create essentially all edge habitat and
would therefore have a much higher potential for impact than construction of the refinery itself.
The siting of the proposed pipelines and transmission lines looked to maximize the linear extent
of the lines along the existing C.P.R., Highway 23 ROW, and section lines to the maximum
extent feasible because these ROW areas are devoid of native tracts of mixed-grass prairie that
have a high susceptibility to impacts. The pattern of fragmentation that could occur from the
proposed project would have minimal effects on raptors because their ability to make use of both
disturbed and edge habitats would not be affected. However, an indirect affect may occur to
populations of some prey species, especially smaller mammals, which could be affected by
fragmentation, resulting in a decrease in population size, ultimately affecting the availability of
prey for some raptor species. As a result, the effects of potential fragmentation would not likely
adversely affect wildlife habitats, because of the minimal amounts of new habitat disturbance and
the widespread occurrence and availability of suitable habitats adjacent to and throughout the
project area.
Oily Ponds
Many bird species are attracted to open water including refinery ponds and tanks. Oily ponds may
present a hazard to birds, and cause increased bird mortalities. The FWS Section 7 Consultation
on the refinery dated August 22, 2006 and January 11, 2006 memorandums recommended,
among other measures, that all potentially oily ponds be netted. Therefore, oily ponds should be
netted to keep birds from coming into contact with oily waters.
4.8.1.3 Aquatic Species
This section describes the potential direct and indirect effects of each of the proposed alternatives
on aquatic species in the project area. These effects include: (1) changes in timing and quantity of
stream flows, (2) changes in temperatures, (3) accidental spills of fuels, and (4) changes in
species diversity.
This analysis is based on the three types of wastewater effluent: (1) sanitary wastewater, (2)
uncontaminated (non-oily) wastewater, and (3) contaminated (oily) or potentially contaminated
(oily) water. Each of these streams of wastewater would be handled separately and would receive
different levels of treatment as described briefly below.
(1) Sanitary wastewater from the offices and other buildings would be collected and
disposed of via a sanitary sewer system. All water collected by this system would be
discharged via a septic system into a leach field.
(2) Non-oily wastewater would consist of non-oily water from the boiler plant. This water
would be routed to a WRP. This waste stream would be segregated from the potentially
contaminated (oily) wastewater to minimize the production of hazardous sludge.
(3) The third stream of wastewater would consist of process wastewater and potentially
contaminated (oily) water. This is water collected directly from process units or storm
water collected from the process area, product loading area, and tank farm. All process
August 2009 4-70 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
wastewater and potentially contaminated (oily) water would be routed to a WWTU for
treatment. Following treatment, previously contaminated (oily) water would be held in
the three holding ponds and tested. If the water meets the refinery's criteria for
discharge, it would be released to a discharge outfall. If testing suggests that additional
treatment is needed, the water would be recycled through the WWTU.
Wastewater Discharges
Treated wastewater and uncontaminated (non-oily) storm water would be discharged into or near
the wetlands on site. The wastewater would be required to meet the NPDES permit limits (EPA
issued permit). The limits have been developed to protect aquatic life, wildlife and birds, and
other designated uses such as agricultural and livestock uses. However, the discharge of treated
wastewater and storm water would change water quality from existing conditions. It is predicted
that there would be some shifts in the aquatic life communities. For example, macro-invertebrate
species that prefer more nutrients and additional flow would grow in preference to those
communities that are more sensitive to nutrients levels and prefer dry conditions during most of
the year.
Timing and Quantity of Stream Flows
Modification of flow is one of the most widespread human disturbances of stream environments
(Bain and Finn 1988). A change in stream flow translates into a change in the water depth and
velocity for any specific location in a stream. Consequently, changes in stream flow can be
regarded as modifications to the physical composition of the aquatic habitat (Bain and Finn
1988). Fish that inhabit the East Fork of Shell Creek are frequently exposed to disturbances from
both flood and drought periods, and must persist in environments that are characterized by
fluctuating flows. Changes in the pattern of these fluctuating flows can be viewed as a
disturbance in the stability of stream habitat. Potential negative effects to fish and invertebrates
caused by changes in flow include physical, behavioral, habitat, and food changes that may occur
if stream flows are increased or decreased substantially, especially during spawning.
Increased stream flows can make it difficult for certain species to migrate upstream to spawning
and rearing areas. Increased flows in rearing areas may also make survival more difficult for
young fish. Bain et al. (1988) and Fausch and Bramblett (1991) reported that the shallow and
slow-water fishes were adversely affected by an artificially high variability in flow. Conversely,
decreases in flow force fish that are restricted to shallow areas to relocate to maintain the specific
habitat conditions. Rapid increases in flow may expose shallow-water fish to increased predation
because shallow shoreline areas become accessible to larger fish-eating wildlife as depth
increases (Bain and Finn 1988). In contrast, generalist species that use mid-stream type habitats
responded positively to increased variability in flows (Bain and Finn 1988). Very few scientific
studies have addressed the changes to macroinvertebrate populations caused by changes in stream
flow (Gore 1987). It has been assumed that responses of macroinvertebrates to stream flow
changes would closely match those offish; however, macroinvertebrates lack the rapid reinvasion
capabilities offish when they live in an environment of fluctuating discharges (Gore 1987). More
research is needed to support the general application of studies of macroinvertebrate response to
instream flows for regulated flow management (Gore 1987).
Stream flows are expected to increase to varying degrees to the East Fork of Shell Creek under
the proposed alternative. Increasing stream flows could have both positive and negative effects on
aquatic species. The main positive effect would be to provide habitat to fish and
macroinvertebrates in areas that are normally dry. This new habitat could provide opportunities
for population growth. Conversely, aquatic species may be affected by the amount of water
discharged to the surface receiving drainage under the proposed alternative, especially during
periods of low flow and spawning. Based on the fish species found within the East Fork of Shell
August 2009 4-71 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Creek (Table 4 11), it is likely that an increase in stream flow would favor some species such as
the Iowa darter. Other species that favor slower-moving streams, such as the fathead minnow,
spottail shiner, brook stickleback, and white sucker may be negatively affected by an increase in
stream flow. See Section 4.3, Surface Water Resources, for a complete discussion of anticipated
effluent and storm water discharge flows.
Table 4-11 Fish sampled per site on East Fork of Shell Creek - June 2001
East Fork of Shell Creek
Species
Brook stickleback
Fathead minnow
Iowa darter
Spottail shiner
White sucker
Total
Reach 2A
6
701
1
1
100
809
Reach 2B
89
211
0
0
0
300
Reach 2C
7
7
0
0
0
14
Source: Confluence Consulting, Inc. 2001
Water Temperature
Water temperature can affect growth, metabolism, reproduction, emergence, and distribution of
aquatic species (Vannote and Sweeney 1980). The magnitude and pattern of historical, annual,
seasonal, and daily fluctuations in temperature may be important when selecting and maintaining
a variety of aquatic insects in a stream reach (Vannote and Sweeney 1980). Sudden increases or
decreases in water temperature could result in population- and community-level changes in
aquatic insects within the project area.
The temperature of discharge water would vary seasonally. The discharge water is expected to be
ambient temperature during spring, summer, and fall seasons. It is anticipated that the discharge
effluent would range between 2 and 24°C with a median of 12°C. The temperature of streams
within the project area can range from 1°C during winter to 24°C or more during summer;
therefore, changes in temperature are not expected to be dramatic but would vary depending on
the volume and timing of the discharge.
Sp/7/s and Surface Water Discharge
If a large spill occurs, there may be discharges of oil and petroleum fractions. [Gasoline and crude
oil are complex mixtures of hydrocarbons. When spilt, the compounds in gasoline or crude oil
tend to separate into "fractions" with similar chemistries.] See section 4.4 for more information
about spills. The NPDES permit would also allow the discharge of minor concentrations of oil
and grease (15 mg/L) during storm water events. The relatively low density of many petroleum
fractions can pose short-term concerns, especially for fish and wildlife resources. Many
petroleum fractions float in water and form thin surface films. Gasoline, diesel, or other fuel oils
spilled into water quickly spread out into a film generally 0.1 millimeter thick. Therefore, a very
small amount of refined fuel or oil product can create a film over a very large water surface area.
While natural physical and biological weathering processes would dissipate or degrade such oil
slicks in time frames ranging from days to a few weeks, there is considerable short-term
opportunity for damage to waterfowl, aquatic mammals, fish, and other aquatic organisms.
Some heavier petroleum fractions show neutral buoyancy or may be heavier than water. Some
fraction components may have the potential to accumulate in substrates. Depending on the
frequency and clean-up of spills and leaks, the heavier (sinking) fractions can impact benthic
organisms and bottom-feeding fish species. Other fish species may also be impacted through
reductions in food supply.
August 2009 4-72 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The effluent holding ponds may attract waterfowl and other shorebirds. These birds and other
aquatic animals (e.g. muskrats and mink) may become oiled in the event of a spill that is
contained within these ponds prior to treatment, if mitigation measures such as hazing or netting
are not employed to decrease wildlife use of the ponds.
Spills of oil and other contaminated waste material that may potentially reach the unnamed
surface drainage and East Fork of Shell Creek could result in fish and macroinvertebrate kills and
degradation of habitat. The severity and scope of a stream kill would depend on the volume of
material spilled, the distance of the spill from surface water, and the chemical and toxicological
properties of the materials spilled. However, it is important to note that the refinery has been
designed with state-of-the-art technology to capture all surface water runoff, including oil spills
and other potentially contaminated waste material. Site generated storm water and any subsequent
waste material generated on the site would be captured and treated in the WWTU prior to being
discharged into holding ponds. Therefore, potentially contaminated (oily) surface runoff
generated on the site would be treated, stored, and tested prior to discharge into the East Fork of
Shell Creek Basin.
Species Diversity
As discussed previously, the effects of the surface discharge on aquatic species, such as changes
in water flow and temperature could have an effect on multiple levels of biodiversity (genetic,
population/species, community/ecosystem, and landscape). The amount of positive effects would
increase as the baseline condition remains altered for any period. The longer discharge effluent
produced at the site enters the basin drainage, the higher the probability for effects to species
diversity over large portions of drainage. Potential changes in species diversity would be the
greatest under Alternative 4 because this alternative would have the most continuous flow of all
the Alternatives, therefore, the greatest impact on aquatic ecosystems.
4.8.1.4 Special-status Species
The ESA was enacted in 1973 to address the decline offish, wildlife, and plant species in the
United States and throughout the world. The purpose of the ESA is to conserve "the ecosystems
upon which endangered and threatened species depend" and to conserve and recover listed
species (ESA [§ 2, 16 U.S.C. 1531]). The law is administered by the FWS. The EIS analysis of
threatened and endangered species constitutes a Biological Assessment prepared in accordance
with 50 C. Federal Register Part 402. BIA and EPA submitted the DEIS to the FWS for review.
The FWS reviewed the Biological Assessment (DEIS) and responded in an August 22, 2006
memorandum. The FWS concurred with the "no effect" and "may affect, not likely to adversely
effect" determinations in the DEIS.
Under the ESA, species may be listed as either "endangered" or "threatened." The ESA defines
an endangered species generally as any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range (ESA, Section 3(6)). A threatened species is one that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant part of
its range (ESA, Section 3(20)). All species of plants and animals, except pest insects, are eligible
for listing as endangered or threatened.
The ESA also affords protection to "critical habitat" for threatened and endangered species. The
definition of "critical habitat" includes the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by
the species at the time it is listed, on which are found physical or biological features essential to
the conservation of the species and which may require special management considerations or
protection (ESA, Section 3(5)(A and B)). Except when designated by the Secretary of the
Interior, critical habitat does not include the entire geographical area that can be occupied by the
threatened or endangered species (ESA, Section 3(5)(C)).
August 2009 4-73 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Some species may also be proposed and candidates for listing (ESA Section 4(b). The FWS
defines proposed species as any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed under
Section 4 of the ESA; while candidate species are those for which the FWS has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to propose them for listing as endangered or
threatened under the ESA, but for which development of a listing regulation is precluded by other
higher-priority listing activities. Candidate species receive no statutory protection under the ESA,
but by definition, these species may warrant future protection under the ESA. There are no
proposed species known to occur in North Dakota.
Bald Eagle
Species Description
Bald eagles occur throughout North Dakota where there is suitable habitat, which usually entails
rivers or lakes as well as trees for nesting and roosting. Bald eagles are uncommon breeders in
North Dakota; however, in 1997, 8 nests were located in North Dakota along the Missouri River
and one nest along Devils Lake. Man-made reservoirs have provided winter habitat. Fish are the
primary food source, but bald eagles also prey upon a variety of birds, mammals, and turtles as
well as carrion when fish are not readily available.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
The proposed action would place a 468.39-acre tract of land in trust land status and construct a
190-acre refinery. Construction of the refinery would expand human disturbance on the 190-acre
tract.
There currently are no known nest sites or winter roost areas in the project area or within the
proposed pipeline and transmission line corridor alignments. However, eagles are known to use
the Missouri River corridor south of the project area for nesting, roosting, and as a migration
corridor. Therefore, bald eagles may occasionally forage in the project area. If eagles occur in
proximity to the project area, it is envisioned that they would most likely alter foraging patterns,
as they would be expected to avoid active construction and operational areas. However, based on
the unique habitat affinity for the Missouri River system, the occurrence of a bald eagle in
proximity to the project area would be a rare and random incident.
Use of the roads accessing the refinery site would continue after the refinery is constructed, which
may result in vehicular collisions and roadside carcasses for up to 20 to 25 additional years. The
presence of roadside carcasses can result in bald eagle foraging along roads, which creates the
potential for road kills of foraging bald eagles. In addition, no suitable roosting habitat or
concentrated prey or carrion sources for bald eagles are present on the project area. Therefore, it
is not anticipated that any bald eagle foraging habitat would be lost during construction or
operation of the refinery. Finally, the potential for bald eagles to collide with or be electrocuted
by transmission lines would be minimal because of use of low voltage power lines that would be
properly designed to avoid electrocution of raptors.
Determination
Construction and operation of the refinery under the proposed action "would have no effect" on
the bald eagle. This determination is based on the lack of project actions that would disturb or
remove roosting or foraging habitat for bald eagles.
Since the publication of the DEIS, the bald eagle has been removed from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Species, effective August 8, 2007. The National Bald Eagle
Management Guidelines (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007) were reviewed relative to the
project actions. There are no nests, roosts, or foraging habitat within the project area that would
be disturbed or removed by the project actions.
August 2009 4-74 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Analysis of Effects from Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
and Alternatives
EPA's proposed NPDES permitting action would permit surface water discharges from the
refinery to tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek. EPA believes that neither the proposed
permit issuance nor any of the effluent discharge alternatives would have an effect on the bald
eagle or its habitat. There would be no effect to this species or its habitat from the proposed
NPDES action or any of the effluent discharge alternatives considered. There is no suitable
roosting habitat or concentrated prey or carrion sources and the occurrence of bald eagles in
proximity to the project area would be a rare incident. In addition, the proposed NPDES-
permitted discharge of effluent from the refinery would meet permit limits and would result in
water quality in the tributary and mainstem that would have no effect on any bald eagle that
might ingest the water or prey on species residing in the discharged water. The pollutants likely to
be discharged by the facility and proposed effluent limits are noted in the draft NPDES permit
and Fact Sheet attached to the EIS. In addition, the location of the NPDES discharge is not within
the general habitat of the bald eagle.
Determination
EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit or any of the other effluent discharge alternatives would
have "no effect" on the bald eagle or its habitat. This determination is based on EPA's finding
that eagles are not expected to occur in the project area.
Whooping Crane
Species Description
Whooping cranes require open exposed wetlands, prairie potholes, or freshwater marshes. They
seek shallow lakes and lagoons containing small islands of cattails, bulrushes, and sedges. Their
diet consists of insects, crustaceans, small mammals, frogs and berries, and is often supplemented
with roots and grains.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
Whooping cranes do not breed in North Dakota. However, they are known to migrate through
North Dakota during the spring and fall migration periods. According to Austin and Richert
(2001), 279 whooping crane observations have occurred in North Dakota between 1943 and
1999. In addition, the migratory path of the whooping crane has been extensively documented.
The documented migration path, as outlined by the distribution of whooping crane observations,
follows a relatively straight line north-northwest from Aransas National Wildlife Refuge to
central North Dakota, then curves northwest along the Missouri Coteau to the North Dakota-
Saskatchewan border. The Aransas-Wood Buffalo population, as of January 4, 2006, numbered
approximately 217 birds including 189 adults and 28 young. Current and historic records show
the proposed construction area to be an important corridor for the migration of the whooping
crane. Based on this migration corridor path, the presence of new transmission lines may pose a
collision risk to the whooping crane.
Conservation Measures
To minimize the collision and electrocution risk hazard, the transmission lines will be constructed
according to APLIC, Edison Electric Institute's Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on
Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 and Edison Electric Institute's "Mitigating Bird
Collisions with "Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994."
Determination
Implementation of the proposed refinery construction and operation action "may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect" the whooping crane.
August 2009 4-75 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Analysis of Effects from Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
and Alternatives
EPA's proposed NPDES permitting action would permit surface water discharges from the
refinery to tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek. EPA believes that neither the proposed
permit issuance nor any of the effluent discharge alternatives would have an effect on the
whooping crane or its habitat. There would be no effect to this species or its habitat from the
proposed NPDES action or any of the effluent discharge alternatives considered, because the
proposed NPDES-permitted discharge of effluent from the refinery would meet permit limits and
would be of such quality that it would have no effect on a whooping crane that might ingest
receiving waters for some brief period or prey on species residing in the receiving water. In
addition, the location of the NPDES discharge would not be within the general habitat of the
whooping crane.
Determination
EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit or any of the other effluent discharge alternatives would
have "no effect" on the whooping crane or its habitat.
Interior Least Tern
Species Description
The interior least tern is migratory and its breeding range extends from Texas to Montana and
from eastern Colorado and New Mexico to northern Indiana. Of the approximately 2,500 pairs of
interior least terns, about 100 pairs are known to occur in North Dakota.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
Interior least terns occurring throughout North America nest in areas with habitat attributes
similar to those of the project area. The riverine nesting areas of interior least terns are sparsely
vegetated sand and gravel bars within a wide, unobstructed river channel, or salt flats along lake
shorelines. Nesting locations are usually at the higher elevations and away from the water's edge
because nesting starts when the river flows are high and small amounts of sand are exposed. The
size of nesting areas depends on water levels and the extent of associated sand bars.
Under the proposed action, no direct effects to the interior least tern or its habitat are expected to
result from any construction activities. There are currently no known nest sites within the project
area or within the proposed pipeline and transmission alignments. However, the interior least tern
is known to use the Missouri River corridor for nesting and as a migration corridor, and may
occasionally use the project area as a transient migratory pathway.
Determination
Implementation of the proposed action "would have no effect" to the interior least tern or its
habitat. This determination is based on the lack of project actions that would disturb or remove
breeding, roosting, or foraging habitat for the interior least tern.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
and Alternatives
EPA's proposed NPDES permitting action would permit surface water discharges from the
refinery to tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek. EPA believes that neither the proposed
permit issuance nor any of the effluent discharge alternatives would have an effect on the interior
least tern or its habitat. There would be no effect to this species or its habitat from the proposed
NPDES action or any of the effluent discharge alternatives considered because the interior least
tern is not expected to utilize the receiving waters. To the extent interior least terns may briefly be
August 2009 4-76 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
present in the tributaries or mainstem, the proposed NPDES-permitted discharge of effluent from
the refinery would be of such quality that it would have no effect on an interior least tern that
might ingest the receiving water or species residing in the receiving water. In addition, the
location of the NPDES discharge would not be within the general habitat of the interior least tern.
Determination
EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit or any of the other effluent discharge alternatives would
have "no effect" on the interior least tern or its habitat.
Piping Plover
Species Description
Piping plovers breed in open, sparsely vegetated habitats. The Great Plains population nests along
sand and gravel shores of rivers and lakes. They have been observed eating marine worms, fly
larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates. As of 2001, a piping plover census
found 1,112 plovers in North Dakota including 643 along the Missouri River. Critical habitat was
designated for the piping plover in the September 11, 2002, Federal Register. This included
critical habitat in the counties of the proposed action. However, no critical habitat has been
designated in the area proposed for the refinery and/or effluent discharge.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
The piping plover is known to breed on a wetland within close proximity to the proposed refinery
site. Since piping plovers breed and forage on unvegetated, gravel shorelines of wetlands, it is
reasonable to expect that piping plovers would potentially use exposed shorelines of constructed
ponds while foraging.
Conservation Measures
To minimize the use of refinery retention ponds, four inch to six inch rock should be used to line
exposed in-slopes of all wastewater/storage ponds. In addition, any ponds having the potential to
hold contaminated (oily) water should be netted. The larger rock and netting will prevent the
creation of an attractive nuisance for piping plovers.
Determination
Implementation of the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the
piping plover.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
and Alternatives
EPA's proposed NPDES permitting action would permit surface water discharges from the
refinery to tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek. EPA believes that neither the proposed
permit issuance nor any of the effluent discharge alternatives would have an effect on the piping
plover or its critical habitat. There would be no effect to this species or its critical habitat from the
proposed NPDES action or any of the effluent discharge alternatives considered because the
piping plover is not expected to utilize the receiving waters. To the extent the piping plover may
briefly be present in the tributaries or mainstem, the proposed NPDES-permitted discharge of
effluent from the refinery would be of such quality that it would have no effect on a piping plover
that might ingest the receiving water or species residing in the receiving water.
Determination
EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit or any of the other effluent discharge alternatives would
have "no effect" on the piping plover or its critical habitat.
August 2009 4-77 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Gray Wolf
Species Description
The gray wolves have been documented in North Dakota at the rate of about 1 to 2 verified
reports per year. These are mostly dispersing males from Canada or Minnesota. They once had a
variety of habitats including boreal forest, temperate forests, and temperate grasslands. They now
occur primarily in forested areas. Prey species for the gray wolf includes larger prey species such
as deer, elk, moose, caribou, bison, musk ox, and mountain sheep. They also take smaller prey
consisting of rabbits, hares, beaver, and smaller rodents which are generally taken when larger
prey are scarce or an easy kill presents itself.
Analysis of Effects of the Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
and the Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
There would be no effects to wolves from either the proposed refinery construction and operation
or the proposed NPDES-permitted effluent discharge and discharge alternatives. Breeding wolves
are not known to occur in or near the project area. Additionally, there is no recent evidence of
wolf pairs or packs in the region. Because of the highly mobile nature of this species, it is
possible that wolves would periodically travel through the project area. It is anticipated that any
use of the project area would be of short duration because of the transitory nature of the species,
and would occur at localized habitats within the region. There would always be a low to moderate
level of human activity in proximity to the refinery, and wolves are expected to avoid areas with
this type of human activity. The proposed action has little potential for affecting local or range-
wide prey availability for gray wolves.
Determination
Implementation of the proposed refinery construction and operation action or the NPDES-
permitted effluent discharge action would have "no effect" to the gray wolf. This determination is
based on the low likelihood for gray wolves to occur within the project area and their tendency to
avoid areas of human activity
Pallid Sturgeon
Species Description
The pallid sturgeon is a large fish known to occur only in the Missouri River, the Mississippi
River downstream from the Missouri River, and the lower Yellowstone River. Pallid sturgeons
require large, turbid, free-flowing riverine habitat with rocky or sandy substrate. The pallid
sturgeon feeds on aquatic insects, crustaceans, mollusks, annelids, eggs of other fish and
sometimes other fish. In April of 2001, 11 pallid sturgeon were caught in the upper Missouri
River and Yellowstone River (not in Lake Sakakawea). No reproduction has been documented in
North Dakota in more than a decade.
Analysis of Effects from the Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
The pallid sturgeon is found only in major rivers such as the Missouri River. Pallid sturgeon
habitat is not found in the East Fork of Shell Creek or its tributaries. The proposed refinery and
effluent discharges to a tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek would have no effect on the
pallid sturgeon as the refinery is located about 25 miles upstream of Lake Sakakawea (on the
Missouri River) and discharge limitations will be protective of aquatic life from the point of
discharge.
Determination
Implementation of the proposed action would have "no effect" on the pallid sturgeon.
August 2009 4-78 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Analysis of Effects from Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
and Alternatives
EPA's proposed NPDES permitting action would permit surface water discharges from the
refinery to tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek. EPA believes that neither the proposed
permit issuance nor any of the effluent discharge alternatives would have an effect on the pallid
sturgeon or its habitat. There would be no effect to this species or its habitat from the proposed
NPDES action or any of the effluent discharge alternatives considered because there are no pallid
sturgeon in the tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek, which is where the permit discharge
point would be located; nor are there any pallid sturgeon in the East Fork of Shell Creek itself. By
the time the treated discharge reaches Lake Sakakawea, located more than 20 stream miles
downstream from the refinery, the discharge would be so diluted and mixed with the receiving
waters, that there would be no effect to the lake waters. In addition, the pallid sturgeon is not
presently known to occur in Lake Sakakwea. Moreover, even at the point of discharge, effluent
from the refinery would meet permit limits and would be of such quality that it would have no
effect on the pallid sturgeon. The pollutants likely to be discharged by the facility and the
proposed effluent limits for the pollutants are noted in the draft NPDES permit and Fact Sheet
attached to the EIS. These limits should ensure no effect on the pallid sturgeon.
Determination
EPA's issuance of an NPDES permit or any of the other effluent discharge alternatives would
have "no effect" on the pallid sturgeon or its habitat. This determination is based on EPA's
finding that refinery effluent discharged through an NPDES permit would be discharged to a
tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek where there are no pallid sturgeons. Likewise, there are
no pallid sturgeons in the East Fork of Shell Creek. By the time the discharge reaches Lake
Sakakawea, the discharge will be diluted to the extent that it would have no effect on the species
or its habitat. In addition, the NPDES permit would ensure that the discharged water is of such
quality that it would have no effect on the pallid sturgeon or its habitat. Stored, land applied, or
reinjected water would have no effect on the pallid sturgeon or its habitat.
Dakota Skipper
Species Description
The Dakota skipper butterfly inhabits fragments of high-quality tallgrass and mixed grass
prairies. As both a larva and as an adult, it feeds on specific plants found in low and upland
prairie habitats.
Analysis of Effects from Proposed Refinery Construction and Operation
and the Proposed NPDES-Permitted Effluent Discharge
The Dakota skipper is a candidate species. Historically, the butterflies were found in grasslands in
the north-central U.S. and south-central Canada. Currently, the butterflies are found in remnants
of high quality native prairie containing a high diversity of wildflowers and grasses. Dakota
skipper habitat is very restricted in selection, as feeding of both larval and adult stages is limited
to low prairie and upland prairie habitats. The nearest extant metapopulation located on
Reservation lands is within McKenzie County, a significant distance west of the project area.
Because a significant portion of the project area has been tilled for agricultural uses, only remnant
tracts of mixed-grass prairie exist around the edges of wetlands, ditches, and section lines.
Because of the small patch sizes of these habitats, it is not believed that any of these existing
tracts would be of a size or contain the right diversity of plant species consistent with niche
habitat patch requirements. In addition, construction activities associated with linear
infrastructure would be constructed within previously disturbed ROWs. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that any extant metapopulations of Dakota skipper would exist in proximity to these
disturbed habitats.
August 2009 4-79 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Determination
Implementation of the proposed refinery construction and operation action or the NPDES-
permitted effluent discharge action would have "no effect" on the Dakota skipper. This
determination is based on the lack of project actions that would disturb or remove any required
habitat for the Dakota skipper and that it is highly unlikely that any extant metapopulations of
Dakota skipper would exist in proximity to the project area.
4.8.1.5 Wildlife, Birds and Aquatic Species Ecological Risk
Evaluation
This section evaluates risk to wildlife from air emissions resulting from the proposed alternative
and all other construction options during the operation of the refinery through application of a
food chain model. For the purpose of this ecological risk evaluation, four areas of interest were
examined. See Figure 4-1 for the locations that were analyzed in the food chain model (through
air deposition).
> Maximum air concentration was modeled at location R-l - Located along the process
area fenceline to the southeast
> Maximum soil concentration was modeled at location R-2 - Located along the process
area fenceline to the northwest
> Farmhouse location - the nearest residence outside the refinery site was modeled to
determine soil concentrations from air deposition.
> Forage Location - location within the site boundary where forage for buffalo may be
grown in the location of highest expected deposition of chemicals, and where wildlife
may be expected to graze.
Receptor locations for areas of possible impact were identified from aerial photos and maps;
locations are shown respective to the 16 facility emission sources (units within the refinery) and
process boundary on Figure 4-1. Soils concentrations of each F£AP were modeled at each of the
four locations in the Industrial Risk Assessment Program Human Health (IRAP-h) View model
according to methods described in Section 4.16 of the FEIS. Soil concentrations were calculated
from the wet and dry deposition rates of chemicals emitted as a vapor and chemicals emitted as
particles or bound to particles. Deposition rates were determined in the air dispersion model from
the cumulative emissions from the 16 sources. At each of the four receptor locations, the
maximum soil concentrations were conservatively assumed to represent the lifetime exposures of
each ecological receptor.
To assess the potential for refinery emissions to adversely affect ecological receptors, maximum
concentrations of chemicals in soils at each of these areas were compared to applicable ecological
screening values (Table 4-12).
Screening values from the following four sources were used in the evaluation:
> Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) Level II Screening Level
Values (ODEQ 2001). Where sufficient data are available, ODEQ publishes receptor-
specific soil screening level values for plants, invertebrates, birds, and mammals.
However, for three of the four TAT refinery HAPs modeled, ODEQ has published
mammalian values only. Mammalian values are based on exposure to an unspecified
mammal via incidental soil ingestion, assuming a diet of 10% soil.
> EPA Region 5 (EPA 2003b) Ecological Screening Levels. Values are based on
exposure to the masked shrew (Sorex cinerus).
August 2009 4-80 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
> EPA Region 4 (EPA 200Ib) Ecological Screening Values. Values for the TAT HAPs
are based on Beyer (1990) and Dutch Target Values (MHSPE 1994).
> Toxicity Reference Values from EPA's Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities (EPA 1999); includes values
developed to protect terrestrial plants and soil invertebrates.
Estimated maximum soil concentrations were all well below (i.e., at least four orders of
magnitude or 10,000 times) applicable ecological screening values (Table 4-12). While some
uncertainty arises from the fact that available screening values are primarily based on exposures
to mammals only, effects to other terrestrial receptors such as birds, plants, and invertebrates are
unlikely given the magnitude of estimated maximum soil concentrations. These contaminant
concentrations would not be detectable using standard analytical methods.
To confirm that the estimated maximum soil concentrations are unlikely to adversely affect
terrestrial receptors other than mammals, an analysis of screening values was conducted for
chemicals other than the four principal chemicals of concern. EPA has developed Ecological Soil
Screening Values (EPA 2007) for 19 chemicals, including 14 metals and five organics. Where
data are available, EPA publishes four receptor-specific Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-
SSL) per chemical, developed to protect, plants, invertebrates, birds, and mammals. For six of the
19 chemicals for which Eco-SSLs have been published, values are available for all four receptors,
and for 18 of the 19 chemicals, values are available for at least two receptors. An analysis of Eco-
SSL values indicates that, for any given chemical, Eco-SSLs for all the various terrestrial
receptors are typically within two orders of magnitude, and are always within three orders of
magnitude, of each other. A similar analysis conducted on ODEQ (2001) values for volatile and
semivolatile organics indicates that, with the exception of two phthalate compounds, screening
values for different terrestrial receptors are also always within three orders of magnitude of each
other. Thus, given that estimated maximum soil concentrations are at least four orders of
magnitude less than the available screening values, refinery operations are unlikely to adversely
affect terrestrial receptors.
4.8.2 Construction Alternatives
4.8.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the entire 468.39-acre site would be accepted into trust status, but
construction and operation of the project would not go forward. Therefore, the 468.39-acre
project site would most likely continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred
for decades. The MHA Nation could decide to use the entire project site to produce forage for
buffalo or the land could be included in a tenant farm-leasing program. Based on the foregoing,
impacts to wildlife would be similar to the existing conditions.
4.8.2.2 Alternative 3 - No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the magnitude and type of effects would be similar to those presented
under Alternatives 1 and A.
4.8.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in effects similar to those as described in
Alternatives 1 and A. The pipelines and power lines would be constructed the same as Alternative
1. The revised site layout avoids disturbing most of the wetland PEMF#2 and replaces wastewater
storage ponds with tanks, resulting in some changes in impacts to wildlife. Avoiding the wetland,
retains 0.5 acres of wetlands habitat; however the habitat would be located within the refinery
August 2009 4-81 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
site. The replacement of wastewater holding ponds with tanks would reduce the "shore" like and
pond areas that may be attractive to waterfowl and plovers. There would still be fire ponds and an
evaporation pond under this alternative. In order to minimize impacts to piping plovers and other
water birds, these ponds would have to be lined with cobbles not gravel. This alternative would
have the most continuous flow which could cause a shift in aquatic organisms to more water
dependent species within the wetland system.
August 2009 4-82 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Proposed MHA Nation Refinery Site
Legend
Thi1 bvu* m*p ii!ura««ftt by GUT.
other EPA i
-------
-------
Table 4-12 Comparison of Maximum Cumulative Soil Concentrations to Ecological
Chemical of Interest
Farmhouse
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Forage Location
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
RI 1
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
RI 2
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Formaldehyde
Toluene
Maximum
Cumulative Soil
ConcentrationA
(mg/kg)
1.8740E-009
1.0225E-006
7.2537E-005
7.8083E-009
3.4028E-009
1.8313E-006
1.3176E-004
1.4194E-008
6.8018E-009
4.4999E-006
2.6312E-004
2.8359E-008
1.5850E-009
1.1287E-005
6.1392E-005
6.6283E-009
ODEQ Level II
Screening Level
Value for Plants8
(mg/kg)
NA
NA
NA
2.00E+02
NA
NA
NA
2.00E+02
NA
NA
NA
2.00E+02
NA
NA
NA
2.00E+02
ODEQ Level H
Screening Level
Value for
Mammals0
(mg/kg)
3.30E+03
1.25E+02
3.90E+03
1.44E+03
3.30E+03
1.25E+02
3.90E+03
1.44E+03
3.30E+03
1.25E+02
3.90E+03
1.44E+03
3.30E+03
1.25E+02
3.90E+03
1.44E+03
EPA Region 5
Ecological
Screening Level"
(mg/kg)
2.55E-01
1.52E+00
NA
5.45E+00
2.55E-01
1.52E+00
NA
5.45E+00
2.55E-01
1.52E+00
NA
5.45E+00
2.55E-01
1.52E+00
NA
5.45E+00
Screening Values
EPA Region 4
Ecological
Screening ValueE
(mg/kg)
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
5.00E-02
l.OOE-01
NA
5.00E-02
EPA SLERAP
TRV for
Terrestrial Plants"
(mg/kg)
NA
1.20E+00
NA
NA
NA
1.20E+00
NA
NA
NA
1.20E+00
NA
NA
NA
1.20E+00
NA
NA
EPA SLERAP
TRV for Soil
Invertebrates0
(mg/kg)
NA
2.50E+01
NA
NA
NA
2.50E+01
NA
NA
NA
2.50E+01
NA
NA
NA
2.50E+01
NA
NA
August 2009
4-85
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Notes:
A Calculated from the cumulative emissions of 16 sources in the air dispersion modeling; further discussed in Section 4.16 of
FEIS
B Based on Oak Ridge National Laboratory toxicity value for plants (ODEQ 2001).
0 Based on exposure via incidental soil ingestion, assuming a diet of 10% soil (ODEQ 2001).
D Based on exposure to the masked shrew (Sorex cinerus) (EPA 2003b).
E Values are as published (EPA 200 Ib); value for benzene is based on MHSPE (1994), value for benzo(a)pyrene is based on Beyer (1990), and value for toluene is based on both MHSPE (1994) and Beyer
(1990).
F Value from EPA (1999); based on chronic No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) for
wheat.
G Value from EPA (1999); based on chronic NOAEL for woodlouse (Porcellio scaber).
August 2009 4-86 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.8.2.4 Alternative 5 - No Action
Under this alternative, the 468.39-acre site would not be accepted into trust status. Therefore, the
468.39-acre project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes, which have occurred
for decades. The types of direct and indirect effects occurring from agricultural activities to
wildlife that have occurred over decades would continue under existing conditions.
4.8.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.8.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
Under this alternative, surplus treated wastewater would be disposed of through land application
to irrigate trees and crops on the project site, as practicable; otherwise, there would be discharge
through NPDES permitted outfalls. Since most of Sections 19 and 20, Township 152 is already
used in an agricultural crop rotation, no additional impacts are expected to occur to wildlife
species, as long as wastewaters are properly treated prior to land application.
Unlike Alternative land A, this alternative would involve irrigating crops potentially consumed
directly by humans or crops used as forage for livestock that would be consumed by humans.
These same crops may provide forage for wildlife that utilize the irrigated parcel. As a result,
there is a potential for exposure to wildlife from contaminants in wastewater via food chain
exposure pathways. Potential plant uptake of certain contaminants present in irrigated wastewater
may result in accumulation of contaminants in soils or plant tissues at concentrations greater than
those present in wastewater. In particular, uptake and storage of metals, such as mercury,
chromium, and lead, in plant tissue could potentially pose a risk to wildlife that consumed crops
irrigated with wastewater from the refinery.
While it is unclear if these scenarios will occur, they represent an uncertainty that has not been
quantitatively evaluated, and must be considered when evaluating each alternative. Until such
time as a quantitative analysis of the potential risks posed by discharge of refinery wastewater via
irrigation of crops has been performed using actual site-specific data, it cannot be determined that
alternative B will be protective of human health and the environment. Therefore, refinery
wastewater effluent should not be used to irrigate food chain crops until a quantitative risk
assessment is conducted.
The refinery wastewater is considered to be (by definition) a solid waste under RCRA. As such,
all wastewater proposed to be used for irrigation should be treated to meet appropriate standards
to protect human health and the environment. In addition, unless the wastewater is treated
sufficiently, it will continue to be considered a solid waste containing hazardous waste
constituents, and RCRA Corrective Action requirements would apply for the irrigated land parcel.
This is because the irrigated land parcel would be considered a SWMU. Therefore, a RCRA TSD
permit may establish additional treatment levels for irrigation water.
The determinations of effects on Threatened and Endangered species would be the same as
described for Alternative 1 and A; "no effect" for: whooping cranes, interior least tern, gray wolf
and pallid sturgeon; and "may affect, not likely to adversely effect" for the piping plover. Under
Alternative B, piping plovers may use the irrigated parcel for forage. However, that parcel would
not be used preferentially over other forage areas.
August 2009 4-87 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.8.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would discharge all effluent from the WWTP to a Class
I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. Since the well would be
finished deep below the ground surface, no additional impacts would occur to wildlife.
For Alternative C, reinjecting wastewater would have no effect on Threatened or Endangered
species.
4.8.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed refinery would not be constructed. Thus, no discharges of
water of any kind would be permitted and no additional impacts would occur to wildlife.
4.8.4 Cumulative Impacts
The primary economy in the region is derived from agriculture. Therefore, agricultural activities
are a leading cause of habitat loss within the project area and the region. Much of the rural
settlement and development of agriculture took place in this area after the construction of the
railroad to Plaza, which was in the early 1900s. The location of the project area near Makoti and
Plaza provided access to major agricultural markets by way of the railroad. Therefore, significant
conversion of mixed-grass prairie occurred in this region between 80 and 100 years ago.
Livestock grazing typically occurs in the hillier regions. Because of topographical relief, these
areas generally preclude the ability to till the lands. These areas are generally west and north of
the project area. It is not envisioned that a regional expansion of grazing would occur in the
future.
Recreation occurs year-round in the cumulative-effects area. Primary activities are centered on
both small and big game hunting. Increased human use of the project area over time can result in
wildlife disturbance and, in the extreme, wildlife displacement. Because a significant amount of
land is held in private ownership and the balance held in trust by BIA for individual Indians or the
MHA Nation, it is not envisioned that construction of the refinery and appurtenant linear facilities
would attract additional hunting activities nor would it open up more land to recreation and
hunting than is currently allowed by the land owners.
4.9 Cultural Resources
4.9.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Implementation of Alternatives 1 and A are not expected to substantially affect cultural resources
in the project area. The till plain and pothole setting of the project area has soils that are generally
good for cultivation, but support a comparatively low diversity of natural resources. These
conditions correspond to a low potential for prehistoric or historic cultural resources other than
readily visible farm complexes.
The North Dakota SHPO (Swenson 2005) and the Cultural Preservation Office of the Three
Affiliated Tribes (Crows Breast 2005) have reviewed the available information for the project
area. Both offices have concurred that there is a low potential for significant cultural resources in
the project area, and both have recommended a determination of no historic properties affected.
The farm complex near the refinery site would not be affected by the proposed action and the
farm complexes near the pipeline and power line corridors can be avoided.
August 2009 4-88 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The primary affect resulting from implementation of these alternatives would be modification of
the old Soo Line Railroad branch line that runs through the property. The line itself would not be
moved or removed, but a new siding would be constructed from the line into the refinery. This
addition would not adversely impact the historic character of the rail line. The farm house and
outbuildings would not be disturbed for construction of the refinery or production of the forage
for buffalo.
Under these alternatives, the year-round effluent discharge of 10 gpm would equal 5.25 million
gallons or about 16 acre-feet discharged annually into the drainage ditch and ultimately into the
wetland PEMF#2 and the tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek. This discharge of effluent is
not expected to affect cultural resources. The locations of the outfalls were disturbed previously.
Therefore, construction of the outfalls would not affect cultural resources. The discharges of
effluent also would not affect cultural resources.
4.9.2 Construction Alternatives
4.9.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Implementation of this alternative would not affect cultural resources. The refinery would not be
constructed, so no potential would exist for disturbance to prehistoric or historic cultural
resources. Additionally, the production of forage for the MF£A Nation's herd of buffalo would not
involve a change from current land uses. Thus, the continued agricultural use of the project site
would not affect any cultural resources potentially present on the site.
4.9.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described for Alternatives 1
and A. The same refinery, pipelines, and power lines would be constructed, so effects attributed
to these facilities would be the same. BIA's decision to not accept the project site into trust status
would not affect the MHA Nation's proposal for use of the property for refining oil and
producing forage for buffalo. Consequently, the effects would be the same as those described for
Alternatives 1 and A.
4.9.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.9.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in no effects to cultural resources. The refinery,
pipelines, and power lines would not be constructed, so no potential would exist for disturbance
to prehistoric or historic cultural resources. Additionally, current uses of the project site would
continue into the future, so no changes in effects to cultural resources would occur from
continued agricultural use.
August 2009 4-89 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.9.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.9.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
With this alternative, the Project would irrigate when possible, but also would be able to
discharge when conditions for irrigating are not optimal. For the reasons discussed for
Alternatives A, no effects to cultural resources are expected from the implementation of this
alternative.
4.9.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would discharge all effluent from the WWTP to a Class
I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. Because the well would be
drilled at a location that already is disturbed, no additional impacts would occur to cultural
resources.
4.9.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed Refinery would not be constructed. Thus, no discharges of
water of any kind would be permitted and no impacts would occur to cultural resources.
4.9.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects to cultural resources are expected to be negligible. No other projects or
activities have been identified in the project area that could cumulatively contribute to adverse
effects to cultural resources.
4.10 Land Use
This section discusses the effects to existing land uses that are anticipated to occur from
implementation of the alternatives.
4.10.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
4.10.1.1 Project Site
Under these alternatives, BIA would accept the project site, which the MHA Nation purchased
from a private landowner, into trust status. With the project site in trust status, MHA Nation
would be able to supplement their existing land base within the Fort Berthold Reservation
Boundaries and no longer pay taxes to a non-Indian government. The trust land would be exempt
from property taxes paid to the Ward County government, which would lose an estimated $1,960
per year of property taxes. All other lands adjacent to the parcel are privately owned.
There would be no other impacts on existing land ownership or management status from the
siting, construction, and operation of the refinery, as it would affect only trust lands owned by the
MHA Nation. The croplands surrounding the project site would continue under existing land uses
and zoning. Because there are no current plans for other types of development (such as
subdivisions) in the immediate vicinity of the project, no long-term impacts to planned land uses
on lands surrounding the project site are expected from the construction and operation of the
refinery. It is anticipated that the refinery facilities would be constructed on the western portion of
the property. Croplands in the eastern portion of the property would be used for the production of
forage crops for buffalo.
August 2009 4-90 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Short-term disruption during construction from the physical intrusion of the crew and equipment,
the generation of dust and noise, and the obstruction of traffic would affect one residence located
on the northwest side of the project site. The residence would be affected primarily by noise
generated by construction activities, although there would be some air quality impact from dust
generated by construction activities and pollutants generated by refinery operations. Other
residences along Highway 23 could be affected by construction traffic.
The project site is privately owned and is not used for any recreational activities. In addition, no
noteworthy recreational use occurs on or near the project site. Dispersed activities, such as
hunting, do occur on lands within the Reservation, however it is primarily on non-crop lands.
Recreational activities on the Reservation would not be affected by the construction and operation
of the refinery.
Access into the project site from Highway 23 would be provided via a new access road. The
proposed access road would be entirely within the project site and used only for access to the
project site. There would be no disruption to land uses outside of the project site from
construction of the access road. Traffic on Highway 23 would be temporarily disrupted at the
junction with the access road by construction activities, and from construction traffic entering and
exiting Highway 23.
Access to the power lines and pipeline rights-of-way would be from existing roads, which consist
of local and county roads, and the C.P.R. rail line. Because no new access roads would be
constructed and the pipelines and power lines would be constructed along existing linear rights-
of-way, no existing land uses would be affected.
The effluent discharge outfalls associated with Alternative A would fall within the disturbance
footprint of the refinery and would not cause a change in land use.
4.10.1.2 Electric Power Lines
Land ownership along the entire power line ROW is private. If necessary, easements for the
power lines on private lands would be negotiated with the landowners. The proposed power lines
that would not be in a road ROW would be located along the section lines.
During the construction phase of the project, existing land uses would be temporarily disrupted
while the line is constructed. Short-term disruption during construction would consist of the
physical intrusion of the crew and equipment, the generation of dust and noise, and the possible
short-term obstruction of traffic at road crossings. The small area surrounding each pole structure
would be permanently removed from existing uses. There would be no change, and therefore no
long-term impact to other existing land uses within or adjacent to the proposed power line ROW.
There would be no impact to recreational opportunities in the project area from the construction
and operation of the proposed power lines. The lines would be located within or along existing
county road rights-of-way adjacent to privately owned croplands. The affected roads do not
provide access to developed recreational areas or opportunities.
4.10.1.3 Pipelines
The natural gas and crude oil pipelines would be constructed along existing rights-of-way for
roads and the C.P.R. rail line. Because the pipelines would be buried in existing rights-of-way,
they would not affect existing land uses once they are installed. During construction, some minor
disruptions of land use may occur within the rights-of-way; however, they would be short-term.
Reclamation of the rights-of-way would return them to their previous uses.
August 2009 4-91 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
There would be no impact to recreational opportunities in the project area from the construction
and operation of the proposed pipelines. The pipelines would be located within or along existing
county road rights-of-way adjacent to privately-owned croplands. The affected roads do not
provide access to developed recreational areas or opportunities.
4.10.1.4 Crude Oil Storage Tanks
Construction of the four storage tanks along Enbridge's existing pipelines would not affect any
current land uses. The tanks would be constructed within Enbridge's existing, fenced facilities.
Other storage tanks already exist on all four sites.
4.10.2 Construction Alternatives
4.10.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Implementation of this alternative would result in minimal effects to land use. Without the
refinery, the entire project site would be devoted to agricultural uses, similar to those that have
been occurring on the site for decades. Additionally, no changes to land uses along the rights-of-
way for the power lines and pipelines discussed under Alternatives 1 and A would occur.
Under this alternative, BIA would accept the project site, which the MHA Nation purchased from
a private landowner, into trust. With the project site in trust, MHA Nation would be able to
supplement their existing land base within the Fort Berthold Reservation boundaries and no
longer pay taxes to a non-Indian government. The trust land would be exempt from property taxes
paid to the Ward County government, which would lose an estimated $1,960 per year of property
taxes.
4.10.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Implementation of this alternative would result in effects to land use similar to those described for
Alternatives 1 and A. Overall, the effects to land use resulting from construction of the refinery
would be as described for alternative. The one exception would involve the project site. With the
project site not accepted into trust status by BIA, the land would not be exempt from property
taxes paid to Ward County. In fact, Ward County would reassess the property and the MHA
Nation would pay substantially higher property taxes than the most recent assessment of $1,960.
4.10.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.10.2.4 Alternatives No Action
Implementation of this alternative would not affect land use. The refinery would not be
constructed, and BIA would not accept the project site into trust status. Consequently, land uses
on and around the project area would continue as they currently exist, and the MHA Nation
would continue to pay taxes to Ward County.
4.10.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
Implementation of the effluent discharge alternatives is not expected to result in more than
negligible effects to land uses.
August 2009 4-92 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.10.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
The irrigation associated with this alternative would not change the existing agricultural use of
the land, unless the wastewater was not adequately treated or high salinity water was used for
irrigation. If inadequately treated wastewater was applied, the irrigation site could become
classified as a RCRA hazardous waste LTU. If the irrigated land parcel were to be classified as a
LTU, additional land use restrictions would apply.
4.10.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
The UIC well associated with this alternative would fall within the disturbance footprint of the
refinery and would not cause a change in land use.
4.10.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Alternative D would not result in any discharges of effluent or effects to land uses.
4.10.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative effects to land uses from implementing any of the alternatives are expected to be
minimal. The project area is rural and agricultural in nature and that situation is not expected to
change with the construction and operation of the proposed refinery. Consequently, no projects
have been identified where their effects would overlap in time or space with the effects of the
alternatives analyzed here. Without projects or activities that have effects that overlap with the
effects of the alternatives analyzed in this EIS, no cumulative effects would occur.
4.11 Transportation
4.11.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Implementation of Alternative 1 would noticeably affect transportation around the project site
(segment of Highway 23 between the turnoffs to Parshall and Makoti). The refinery would
increase weekly commercial truck traffic by almost 30 percent. Traffic associated with cars would
increase by a similar amount. As distance increases east and west from the project site, the effects
of the additional traffic would decrease until they would not be detectable.
The addition of the access road to Highway 23 and increase in traffic would inevitably lead to an
increase in accidents along Highway 23 where it adjoins the project site. The addition of trucks
accelerating, decelerating, and turning along this segment of the highway would increase the
potential for additional accidents. The greatest potential for accidents would likely occur during
changes of shifts at the refinery. The addition of traffic control lights and nighttime lighting
would help minimize the potential for increases in accidents.
Relatively small levels of directs effects to the primary access routes within the Project Area
including State and County roads would occur as a result of the project-related vehicular traffic
associated with implementation of any of the alternatives. The primary impacts identified are
minimal increases in daily traffic and associated slight increases in risk of accidents during
construction and operation of the refinery. Secondary impacts may include increased road wear
on Highway 23 and additional county feeder routes.
The direct and indirect transportation effects would include an increased risk of traffic accidents
in proportion to the amount of increased daily traffic for each of the alternatives for constructing
and operating the refinery. The potential for an increase in accidents would be most significant
August 2009 4-93 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
during the construction phase. The rates of traffic accidents would most likely rise due to the
increase in the volume of traffic, which is not expected to be significant.
Increased degradation of existing roadways may result from construction and operation of the
refinery when the incremental effects of the proposed refinery traffic are added to the daily
vehicle trips. Once the refinery is operational, worker and product tanker truck daily trips would
account for the majority of refinery vehicle trips. Heavy truck traffic would result in increased
costs for road maintenance because heavy trucks result in more damage to road surfaces relative
to automobiles and light trucks.
There would be no increase in the miles of road open to the public on Indian, State, or private
lands, as all proposed access roads on private lands would be closed under all alternatives.
Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant traffic congestion or
accident rates in the region.
The effluent discharge outfalls associated with Alternative A would fall within the disturbance
footprint of the refinery and thus would not in and of themselves cause a change in transportation
around the project site.
4.11.1.1 Transportation Spills
Risk from flammable materials (e.g., gasoline) is driven by frequently occurring accidents that
involve low numbers of injuries and fatalities. These types of accidents are called high-
probability/low-consequence events. Historical records contain information on many gasoline
incidents.
4.11.1.2 Accident Rates
Accident rates are determined by analyzing historical data. To compare the risks that result from
transporting various hazardous materials, Brown et al. (2000) conducted a National
Transportation Risk Assessment (NTRA) to define the risks associated with rail and highway
transportation of hazardous materials in the United States. At the center of their study was a
detailed risk assessment for the national transportation of (1) six toxic-by-inhalation (TIH)
chemicals, (2) liquefied petroleum (LP) gas, (3) gasoline, and (4) explosives. Results from their
study provide a basis for comparison of the transportation risks associated with various hazardous
material classes, container types, and transportation modes. The results of their risk assessment
study for these chemicals, together with historical data, are provided on Table 4-13.
As summarized on Table 4-13, more than 40,000 Americans die each year and several hundred
thousand are injured in transportation-related incidents, mainly from motor vehicle accidents.
However, results of their study also show that compared to the other types of transportation risks
encountered by the public, the overall risks due to the transportation of hazardous materials is
relatively low. Specifically, a small number of the annual traffic fatalities and injuries result from
the unintentional release of hazardous materials during transport. As detailed on Table 4-12,
during each of the past 15 years, approximately 11 people died as a result of fires that occurred in
gasoline-truck accidents, (with truck drivers accounting for approximately 7 of the 10 deaths).
Also, the results of their study show that approximately 18 fatalities and 122 injuries would occur
on average each year from the combined unintentional releases resulting from highway and rail
transportation of all HAZMAT materials including highway transportation of LP gas, gasoline,
and explosives.
August 2009 4-94 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-13 Comparisons of Risks Calculated in This Study with Other Transportation-
Related Risks in the United States
10- Yr Period
Risk Type
Risks primarily due to trauma
Motor vehicles, including large trucks
Risks due
Source:
Large trucks
Large trucks carrying HAZMAT
Rail accidents (grade crossing)
Rail accidents (nongrade crossing)
to hazardous material releases only
Gasoline transportation
Highway LP gas transportation
Explosives transportation
TIH highway accidents
TIH highway en route/non-accidents
TIH highway derailments
TIH rail en route/non-accidents
Total TIH materials transportation
Total highway risk for HAZMAT releases
Total rail risk for TIH material releases
Total risk of HAZMAT releases considered
in study
Brown et al. 2000
Fatalities
416,160
50,877
2,500
5,439
5,860
108
42
4.9
3.8
0.7
16
2
23
160
18
178
Injuries
22,500,000
1,327,000
66,000
16,905
163,377
205
154
14
149
36
559
103
846
558
662
1,219
Annual
Fatalities
41,616
5,087
250
544
586
11
4.2
0.5
0.4
0.1
1.6
0.2
2.3
16
1.8
18
Injuries
2,250,000
132,700
6,600
1,691
16,338
21
15
1.4
15
3.6
56
10
85
56
66
122
4.11.1.3 Bulk Liquids
Brown et al. (2000) also estimated release probabilities for bulk liquefied gases using commodity
flow and historical release data for gasoline including aviation fuel, distillate fuel oil and sulfuric
acid. The results of their analysis for these materials are provided on Table 4-14.
Table 4-14 Release Probability Analysis for Bulk Liquids
03
S
-
PH
MC
MC
MC
S.
l"s.
§ ^
306
306
312
-fe1
a
0
S
o
U
Gasoline/
aviation fuel
Fuel oil
Sulfuric acid
*£
log
5 £3 &
u E
17,000
6,600
2,700
bX3 0 S ^
2 Ef S «
4* c3 a O
^j ^ C5 ^-^
8,500
7,000
4,000
bp a>
fl
fl> &
*5 *r"
25
21
28
a
2,
x
bb
^
1^
^ S
3 o
s 3
^
690
310
96
"S S*
^^ ^o
a o
"S >-
« a
2.5
3.0
1.3
°|
19,000
11,000
1,400
° 1
h2 *
1,125
720
53
>,
ra
2^
«
PH
0.06
0.07
0.04
Note:
1. Gasoline and fuel oil were used in estimating release probabilities for MC 306 cargo tanks, whereas sulfuric acid was used in estimating
the release probability for MC 312 cargo tanks.
Source: Brown et al. 2000
As summarized on Table 4-14, the release probabilities for transporting gasoline, fuel oil, and
sulfuric acid are equal to 0.06, 0.07, and 0.04, respectively. In considering these results, the
annual commodity flow when compared to the accident rates for gasoline/aviation fuel is in the
middle of the results. The total number of releases and accidents resulting from gasoline/aviation
August 2009
4-95
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
fuel transportation exceeds that of fuel oil and sulfuric acid by a large margin. However, this is a
direct result of the high commodity flow for gasoline relative to other materials considered.
In summary, total transportation-related injury risk for gasoline is relatively low. The accident
rate for 1 million truck miles is equal to 2.5. Or stated another way, of the 690 million truck miles
drive annually, about 19,000 accidents occur with about 1,125 resulting in releases. Based on the
foregoing, the transportation of gasoline which results in a spill is a low consequence event. It is
important to note the transportation of gasoline materials has the highest total fatality risk in
comparison to the other materials. While someone is more likely to be injured as a result of a
transportation-related TIH release, that same person is more likely to be killed as a result of a
gasoline or LP-gas related incident.
4.11.2 Construction Alternatives
4.11.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Implementation of this alternative would not detectably affect transportation resources. Without
the construction and operation of the refinery, no real increase in traffic would occur. The project
site would experience some additional traffic as the MHA Nation produces forage and transports
that forage off the site to its herd of buffalo. However, the increase in traffic would be minor and
widely dispersed overtime.
4.11.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Implementation of this alternative would result in effects that would be the same as described for
Alternatives 1 and A. The same level of traffic would occur with the MHA Nation's construction
and operation of the refinery. The same level of traffic associated with the production and
transport of forage for the buffalo would also occur.
4.11.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same. Wastewater from employee facilities (e.g.
restrooms) may be hauled to Minot or another municipal WWTP. There would be 1 to 2
additional trucks per week to haul sanitary wastewater under this option.
4.11.2.4 Alternatives No Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in no effects to transportation resources. The
refinery would not be constructed, so the increase in traffic associated with that facility would not
occur. Additionally, agricultural use of the project site would continue. Therefore, no change in
traffic would occur.
4.11.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
The three effluent discharge alternatives (Alternatives B, C, and D) would have no effects on
transportation. All three alternatives involve the discharge of effluent to surface or ground waters.
None of these alternatives would involve any of the components of the refinery that would affect
transportation. Therefore, none of the additional effluent discharge alternatives would affect
transportation.
August 2009 4-96 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.11.4 Cumulative Impacts
The refinery is predicted to increase traffic in the immediate area by approximately 30 percent.
Existing usage of the transportation system surrounding the proposed site is generally low.
Currently, Highway 23 is used by residents of nearby communities, travelers to New Town and
for transporting agricultural goods and equipment. Existing uses of the transportation system are
anticipated to continue at the same level. No other projects have been identified in the area which
would increase traffic or rail use. The cumulative impacts to the transportation system, combining
the proposed refinery with existing usage are not expected to be significant.
4.12 Aesthetics
Impacts to visual resources from the development of the refinery would result from changes to
the physical setting and visual content of the landscape, and from effects on the landscape as
viewed from sensitive viewpoints, including travel routes, recreation areas, and residences. The
proposed facilities and associated access roads would introduce new elements into the landscape,
and would alter the existing form, line, color, and texture which characterize the existing
landscape.
4.12.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Project Site
The refinery would be apparent on the existing landscape and would be in the foreground to
background distance zones as viewed by people on county roads, Highway 23, rural residences,
and Makoti. The refinery buildings in the foreground distance zone of up to 1 mile from the
refinery site would be viewed by people on Highway 23, surrounding county roads, and rural
residences. The geometric, rectangular block forms of the refinery buildings would dominate the
landscape for those viewers nearest to the site, such as the residence on the north side of the site
and on county roads near the site. These county roads are used primarily by residents of the area,
and there are a small number of residents and travelers on local roads that would view the
refinery in the foreground distance zone of the landscape.
There are similarly a very small number of potential viewers in the middleground distance zone
between 1 and 3 miles surrounding the refinery site. The refinery buildings would be visible from
some residences, although at a 1- to 5-mile distance the refinery buildings would not dominate the
landscape viewed by the residents
Beyond a 5-mile radius, the refinery buildings would be in background views, and would be
indistinct to viewers in rural residences located throughout the area. The geometric, rectangular
block forms of the refinery would be visible in the background zone from the highway, but would
be painted to harmonize with landscape colors, which would result in a low contrast with the
surrounding landscape because the forms and lines of the buildings would be indistinct at a
distance of 3 or more miles. The apparent size of the refinery at this distance relative to the scale
of the surrounding landscape is small.
The most visible refinery facility from all viewpoints would be the exhaust stacks. The refinery
would have two stacks that would be 180 feet tall and 20 feet in diameter, creating a strong linear,
vertical form that would contrast with the surrounding flat, horizontal landscape and be obvious
to viewers on the local county roads in the vicinity of the site and visible to nearby rural
residences. The remaining six stacks would be 60 feet high and 12 feet wide. The smaller stacks
would be similar in height to other refinery buildings, and would not be as obvious to viewers.
The refinery would not include cooling towers; therefore there would be no visual impact from a
steam plume emanating from the towers.
August 2009 4-97 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Refinery facilities would be lit at night to enhance the safety of project personnel and the public.
Night-lighting would increase the visibility of project facilities to all viewpoints. The primary
impact of night-lighting would be to increase the distance from which the proposed facilities
would be visible. The light, glare or backscatter illumination visible to sensitive viewpoints
would be minimized by the use of directional shielding of lights. The off-site visibility and
potential glare of the lighting would be restricted by the screening structures to be placed around
the facility's major equipment, specification of non-glare fixtures, and placement of lights to
direct illumination into only those areas where it is needed.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires that any permanent object exceeding an
overall height of 200 feet above ground level or exceeding any obstruction standard contained in
Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Part 77 (Federal Aviation Administration 2000a) be
lighted with a flashing lighting system. Because the flare stacks are 180 feet high and more than 3
nautical miles from the nearest airport (as per FAR Part 77), blinking safety lights would not need
to be installed (Federal Aviation Administration 2000b).
The year-round effluent discharge, under Alternative A, of 10 gpm would equal 5.25 million
gallons or about 16 acre-feet discharged annually into the drainage ditch and ultimately into
wetland PEMF#2 and a tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek. The outfalls would be located
within the disturbance footprint of the proposed refinery. Therefore, the outfalls would be
indistinguishable from the rest of the refinery. The discharge of effluent would increase flow in
the wetland system increasing vegetation and ponded water, thereby changing the aesthetics. If
the drainage has more water, it may appear to be greener than other wetlands in the area that
periodically dry out.
4.12.1.1 Power Lines
Several effects to visual resources can result from the introduction of power lines into the
landscape. The poles introduce straight, vertical lines and color contrasts. There may also be a
glare when sunlight is reflected from the conductors.
Long-term impacts to the visual quality of the landscape result primarily from the addition of pole
structures into the characteristic landscape. Short-term impacts would result from the construction
of the lines. Construction activities, including the transport of materials on local roads, would be
obvious to viewers during the construction period. For the duration of construction, the
underlying landform colors of light tans and browns would be exposed during the installation of
the pole structures. This would not be particularly obvious where the adjacent agricultural land is
cultivated.
The power lines would be in the foreground of views seen by travelers on nearby county roads.
The power lines would be obvious to viewers on the roads; however, local traffic is relatively
sparse. While the power lines would be a new addition to the landscape that would require new
ROWs on lands that have not previously been disturbed by any development other than
agriculture, it would be viewed by only a small number of residents and travelers. Additionally,
the characteristic landscape is common for the area and is not scenic landscape. The power lines
would be isolated by distance from any areas that would be sensitive to changes in the landscape.
4.12.1.2 Pipelines
Impacts to visual resources from the construction and operation of the oil and gas pipelines would
be primarily short-term and construction-related. Minimal visual impacts would be associated
with clearing of vegetation because the existing rights-of-way contain disturbed vegetation from
previous road and railroad construction. Once vegetation in the construction ROW is
August 2009 4-98 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
reestablished, the remaining permanent ROW would be similar in appearance to the existing
rights-of-way. Once the pipelines are installed, the visual impacts resulting from construction
would continue until vegetation has been reestablished on disturbed areas. The pipeline ROW,
while visible, would not be a prominent feature in the landscape.
4.12.2 Construction Alternatives
4.12.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Implementation of this alternative would not result in any notable effects to aesthetics. The MHA
Nation would not construct the refinery; therefore, none of the effects described for Alternatives 1
and A for the refinery, power lines, or pipelines would occur. Use of the project site for the
production of forage for the MHA Nation's herd of buffalo would not result in effects to
aesthetics. The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes. Thus, the continued use of
the site for agricultural purposes would not cause any effects.
4.12.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects to aesthetics as those described
for Alternatives 1 and A. The MHA Nation would construct and operate the same refinery and
produce forage for its herd of buffalo on the rest of the project site. No effects to aesthetic
resources would result from BIA's decision to not accept the project site into trust status.
4.12.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.12.2.4 Alternatives No Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in no effects to aesthetic resources. The MHA
Nation would continue to use the project site for agricultural purposes similar to those that
currently occur on the site. Thus, no noticeable change in the aesthetics of the project site would
occur.
4.12.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.12.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
With this alternative, surplus treated wastewater would be disposed of through land application to
irrigate crops or discharged through NPDES permitted outfalls. The effects associated with this
alternative would be similar to the effects discussed for Alternative A. Effects due to irrigation
would be visible, but those associated with the outfalls would not be detectable to casual
observers.
4.12.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would discharge all effluent from the WWTP to a Class
I, Non-hazardous UIC well that would be drilled on the project site. Because the well would be
drilled within the disturbance footprint of the proposed refinery, no additional impacts would
occur to aesthetics.
August 2009 4-99 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.12.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the proposed Refinery would not be constructed. Thus, no discharges of
water of any kind would be permitted and no additional impacts would occur to aesthetics.
4.12.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to aesthetics would result from other planned or foreseeable development
activities that could occur on lands adjacent to or located near to the proposed project in addition
to existing developments. No development activities have been identified for the project site's
environs. Thus, no changes would occur in the project area whose effects would overlap in time
or space with any of the four alternatives. Without any such overlapping effects, no cumulative
effects would occur.
August 2009 4-100 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.13 Air Quality
The primary sources of air pollutants for the proposed refinery would be the various heaters and
boilers that would serve the refinery's processes and general facility heating requirements. Other
emission sources would include tail gas emissions from the sulfur recovery unit and VOC
emissions from the storage tanks, product loadout, and piping components. A soybean/oilseed oil
extrusion process and a bio-diesel production process would also be included in the proposed
project. The Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) provides a detailed discussion of the
sources of air pollutants evaluated in the analysis and the processing and modeling of the air
emissions data.
4.13.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
Under these alternatives, the MHA Nation would construct and operate the clean fuels refinery.
The effluent discharge outfalls associated with Alternative A would have no effect on air quality.
The discharge of effluent to surface or ground waters does not involve any of the components of
the refinery that would affect air quality emissions.
4.13.1.1 Clean Air Act Applicable Requirements
Estimated annual air pollutant emissions for the proposed refinery are summarized in Table 4-15.
The criteria pollutants include oxides of nitrogen (NOx), CO, VOCs, SO2, and particulate matter
with a nominal aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers and 2.5 micrometers (PMio and
PM2 5). The HAPs include benzene, formaldehyde, hexane, toluene, etc.
Table 4-15 Estimated Annual Emissions for the Proposed MHA Nation's Proposed
Clean Fuels Refinery
Pollutant Annual Project Emission Rate (ton/yr)
NOX 35.7
CO 78.3
SO2 51.2
VOC 77.0
PM10/PM2.5 16.8
Benzene 0.0704
Cyclohexane 0.0493
Ethylbenzene 0.0004
Formaldehyde 0.0883
Hexane (-n) 0.0057
PAH -Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons 0.0005
Toluene 0.0063
Xylene (Total) 0.0020
In an April 2005 letter to the MHA Nation, EPA made a non-applicability determination for
federal air permits for the proposed refinery. Based on the proposed equipment, emissions
projections (includes fugitive emissions), and feedstocks (primary feedstock of a low sulfur
synthetic crude oil), EPA determined that the proposed refinery was not subject to the permitting
requirements of a pre-construction PSD permit or a Title V (40 CFR part 71) operating permit.
The "potential to emit" or potential maximum emissions estimated for the refinery were based on
the refinery operating 24 hours per day, 365 days a year. Since the estimated "potential to emit" is
below 100 tons per year (TPY) of any regulated pollutant and below 10 TPY of any one HAP or
25 TPY of a combination of hazardous pollutants, the proposed refinery would not be considered
August 2009 4-101 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
a major stationary source as defined in the PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(l)(i) and in the
Title V operating permit regulations at 40 CFR 71.2. Therefore, the proposed refinery would be
classified as a new minor stationary source due to the refinery design and proposed feedstocks.
An increase in the proposed refinery's emissions due to any modifications could trigger
additional permitting reviews for applicability of the PSD and Title V programs. The applicability
of Title V could also be triggered by a new applicable NSPS, as discussed below.
EPA is promulgating new regulations to establish a preconstruction air permitting program for
minor stationary sources throughout Indian country. The rule was proposed in the August 21,
2006 Federal Register. The effective date for implementing the new regulations is anticipated to
be 60 days after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. These regulations may
apply to the refinery depending upon when construction on the refinery commences relative to the
effective date of these regulations.
The proposed refinery will be subject to several CAA NSPS (40 CFR part 60) and National
Emission Standards for F£APs (NESFfAP) (40 CFR part 61), which will impose emission limits,
fuel gas specifications, or design requirements and require testing, monitoring, recording keeping,
and reporting of emissions for many units. However, not all emissions will be required to be
monitored under these regulations. Table 4-16 summarizes the applicable NSPS and NESFfAP
that the refinery will be subject to once constructed, as well as, the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements. Table A-l in Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical
Report (December 2007) lists the refinery units, their capacity, inherent unit emission controls (if
any), and the applicable NSPS and/or NESHAP (if any).
On November 7, 2006, EPA proposed new regulations under NSPS for equipment leaks of VOC
in petroleum refineries. These proposed regulations were put out for public comment and the
proposal was made final on November 16, 2007. These revised standards are codified at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart GGGa, and were effective on November 16, 2007. NSPS subpart GGGa is
applicable to the proposed refinery since construction of the affected refinery units will
commence after November 7, 2006. [See 72 Federal Register 64896, November 16, 2007.] This
new regulation will increase the stringency of the leak definition for pumps in light liquid service
from 10,000 parts per million (ppm) to 2,000 ppm and for valves in gas/vapor service or light
liquid service from 10,000 ppm to 500 ppm. Finalization of NSPS subpart GGGa triggered the
requirement for the refinery to apply for a 40 CFR part 71 operating permit within 12 months of
commencing operation.
August 2009 4-102 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-16 MHA Nation's Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery, Applicable and Proposed Clean Air Act Requirements
Summary1 New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
New Source Performance
Standards or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Testing and Monitoring Requirements
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
General Provisions
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A
The general provisions apply, except where other
subparts are more stringent.
At all times, the owner/operator must maintain and
operate any affected facility in a manner consistent
with good air pollution control practice to minimize
emissions.
[40 CFR 60.1-60.13]
Performance tests must be conducted after achieving
maximum production; and in accordance with the EPA
test methods referenced in each applicable subpart.
Notify EPA of the date of construction, date of startup,
prior to conducting any performance tests, the date the
continuous monitoring commences, and of any
physical/operational change to the existing refinery
which may increase air emissions.
Maintain a file of all measurements, tests,
maintenance, reports, and records (including
equipment startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions) for
at least 2 years.
Flare Standards - General Provisions
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart A
The flare must be designed/operated with no visible
emissions, be operated with a flame at all times, and
meet heat content and tip velocity specifications.
[40 CFR 60.18]
The owner/operator must monitor the presence of a
flare pilot flame and conduct initial performance tests
to determine compliance.
Record all periods of operation during which the flare
pilot flame is absent, and report to EPA.
Boiler Standards - Small Units
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DC
Boilers not subject to SO2 limits since firing natural
gas/refinery fuel gas.
[40 CFR 60.40c- 60.48c]
No testing or monitoring requirements, since not
subject to SO2 or PM emission limits.
Record and maintain records of the fuels combusted in
the boilers during each calendar month.
Tank Standards for VOCs
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Kb
Fixed roof tanks with an internal floating roof must
meet specific requirements for seals, procedures for
The owner/operator must conduct annual visual
inspections and repair items within 45 days of
Keep records of tank inspections and other specified
tank information; and submit an inspection report to
August 2009
4-103
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
New Source Performance
Standards or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Testing and Monitoring Requirements
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
tank filling, bleeder vents, rim space vents, opening
covers, etc.
detection.
EPA when tank defects are found.
Tanks with a fixed roof must be equipped with a
closed vent system and VOC emissions sent to the
processes or flare.
[40CFR60.110b-60.116b]
The owner/operator must meet the flare requirements
in 40 CFR 60.18 for testing/monitoring and measure
for leaks using EPA methods.
Meet the flare requirements in 40 CFR 60.18 for
recordkeeping/reporting.
Equipment Leaks of VOCs
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart GGGa
The owner/operator must minimize leaks by
complying with individual equipment requirements for
pumps, compressor seals, pressure relief devices,
sampling connection systems, open-ended valves, and
valves in vapor/light liquid service. The definition of a
leak varies by individual pieces of equipment from 500
ppm to 2,000 ppm.
The closed vent system and flare must be operated at
all times emissions are vented to them. [40 CFR
60.590a-60.593a]
Each pump must be equipped with a sensor to detect
failure of the seal and monitored monthly. Each pump
must be checked by visual inspection, each calendar
week, for dripping liquids.
Valves in vapor/light liquid service must be monitored
monthly using the EPA test method for leaks.
A first attempt at pump repair must be made no later
than 5 days from detection. All other leaks must be
repaired within 15 days from detection.
The owner/operator must conduct annual inspections
of the closed vent system.
The owner/operator must keep a record of all
inspection information (date/time of monitoring,
operator identification, instrument reading, etc), the
design requirements for the closed vent system, the
date and results of weekly visual inspections of pumps
for dripping liquids, equipment identification numbers,
etc.
The owner/operator must submit semiannual reports to
EPA that identify monthly the equipment from which
leaks were detected and the dates of process unit
shutdowns.
VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems
40CFR Part 60, Subpart QQQ
The owner/operator must comply with equipment
design and operational requirements for individual
drain systems, oil-water separators, the closed vent
system, and the flare.
[40 CFR 60.690- 60.698]
The owner/operator must inspect wastewater system,
such as drain system components and oil-water
separators for problems that would produce VOC
emissions and must complete all repairs within 15 days
of identified problems.
The owner/operator must use the EPA test method to
measure for VOC leaks from the closed vent system
and complete any repairs within 30 days of detection.
The owner/operator must keep a copy of the design
specifications for all subject equipment; and a record
of information about the operation/ maintenance of the
closed vent system and process units that required a
shutdown for repair.
The owner/operator must record the location, date, and
corrective action when VOC emissions are detected
during inspections for individual drain systems, oil-
August 2009
4-104
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
New Source Performance
Standards or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Testing and Monitoring Requirements
Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Proposed Fuel Gas Combustion Unit Standards -
Effective May 14, 2007, if promulgated as proposed
40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Ja
The owner/operator must develop a
startup/shutdown/malfunction plan and not routinely
release fuel gas to the flare.
Sulfur recovery plant (SRP) must meet 99% sulfur
removal and H2S < 10 ppm determined hourly on a 12-
hour rolling average.
Process heaters/fuel gas combustion devices must meet
a 3-hour rolling average SO2 limit of 20 ppm and a 365
successive day rolling average SO2 limit of 8 ppm.
Process heaters > 20 MMBtu/hr must meet NOx limit
of 80 ppm on a 24-hr rolling average.
[40CFR60.100a-60.108a]
The owner/operator must conduct performance tests
for the SRP, process heaters, and fuel gas combustion
devices using EPA test methods.
The owner/operator must install and operate O2 and
flow monitors for the SRP and/or process heaters/fuel
gas combustion devices, as specified.
The owner/operator must install and operate
continuous SO2 and H2S monitors for the SRP,
continuous SO2 monitors for the process heaters/fuel
gas combustion devices, and continuous NOx monitors
for the subject process heaters.
water separators, and the closed vent system and
submit an initial report and semiannual reports with
this information.
Submit results to EPA of all performance tests.
Submit semiannual reports to EPA that include
revisions made to the startup/shutdown/ malfunction
plan and actions taken for startup/
shutdown/malfunction exceedances.
Keep records of discharges to the flare gas system.
For the SRP, keep records of hourly sulfur production
rate and hours of operation.
Submit semiannually to EPA a report of excess
emissions from the SRP/process heaters/fuel gas
combustion devices.
Benzene Emissions from Waste Operations
40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF
If the total annual benzene (TAB) is less than 10
Mg/yr, the owner/operator is exempt from managing
and treating the facility waste.
If the TAB is greater than or equal to 10 Mg/yr, the
owner/operator must be in compliance at initial startup
of the facility and must treat and manage the waste
streams containing benzene as required by 40 CFR
61.342(c).
The owner/operator must determine the TAB at the
point of waste generation using EPA methods detailed
in40CFR61.355(c).
The amount of the TAB will determine if the TAB
must be calculated annually or if the facility must treat,
manage, and monitor the waste streams. The TAB
must be re-calculated whenever there is a change in the
waste generating process.
Records must be kept for 2 years. Records must
identify each subject waste stream and identify if it is
controlled for benzene emissions. Records also consist
of test results, measurements, calculations, etc.
Submit to EPA by the initial startup of the facility, a
report that summarizes the regulatory status of each
waste stream.
When the TAB is greater than 1 Mg/yr, a report must
August 2009
4-105
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
New Source Performance Testing and Monitoring Requirements Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Standards or National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
[40 CFR 61.340 - 61.357] be submitted annually with updated information (TAB,
etc.) and at all times whenever there is a change in the
waste generating process.
Note:
1. Table A-2 in Appendix A of the report details the specific emission limits, design requirements, fuel specifications, testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements that are summarized in Table 4-16 above for the refinery units subject to a NSPS or a NESHAP.
August 2009 4-106 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
On May 14, 2007, EPA proposed NSPS for new, modified, or reconstructed process units at
petroleum refineries. Once finalized these standards will be codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Ja. [See 72 Federal Register 27177, May 14, 2007.] These proposed standards include emissions
limits for several types of affected facilities (see proposed section 60.100a(a)) and the associated
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for these facilities. If promulgated as proposed,
NSPS subpart Ja will be applicable to the proposed refinery since construction of the affected
refinery units will commence after May 14, 2007. Finalization of NSPS subpart Ja will also
trigger the requirement for the refinery to apply for a 40 CFR part 71 operating permit within 12
months of commencing operation. Table 4-16 also summarizes the proposed NSPS subpart Ja
requirements for the proposed refinery.
The storage tanks with fixed roofs in combination with internal floating roofs will have to meet
specific design requirements, such as primary and secondary seals, vents equipped with gaskets,
openings equipped with covers, etc. under NSPS, subpart Kb. The storage tanks with fixed roofs
will be equipped with a closed vent system for capturing VOCs with no detectable emissions 500
ppm above background. The VOC emissions will be vented back to the processes and sometimes
sent to the flare. Tanks will have to be inspected and seals, gaskets, etc. repaired as needed.
To reduce fugitive VOC emissions, leakless valves will be used for valves in gas, light liquid, and
heavy liquid service, double seals will be used for the pump seals, open ended valves will be
plugged, the compressed seals will be recycled to the process units, and the sample connections
will be enclosed. NSPS, subpart GGGa requires a leak detection and repair program for various
refinery components, including valves, flanges and pump seals.
NSPS, subpart QQQ also requires that the closed vent system and flare be operated at all times
when emissions may be vented to them. The closed vent system is also subject to the leak
detection and repair program. A leak is indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 ppm
above background. The flare must be designed and operated with no visible emissions.
The proposed refinery will also be subject to a F£AP standard based on the process design
information. This standard is the National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations
found at 40 CFR part 61, subpart FF. The purpose of this regulation is to monitor and control
emissions resulting from the handling, processing, and storage of benzene containing waste
streams. While the quantity of these benzene containing waste streams is expected to be minimal,
they will be sufficient enough to require the refinery to keep records on the amount of waste
created and report these quantities to EPA.
Unit specific emissions in tons per year for both criteria and F£AP pollutants are listed in Tables
16, 17, 19, and 21 of the Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007). Data and example
calculations can be found in Appendices B and C of the report.
The Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) details in Table A-2 the new proposed
requirements for the process heaters, other fuel gas combustion devices, and the sulfur recovery
unit that would be codified at 40 CFR, part 60, subpart Ja and which is summarized in Table 4-16
above. Subpart Ja would require the sulfur recovery unit to be continuously monitored for
compliance and to meet a 99% sulfur removal efficiency and a H2S limit of less than 10 ppm
determined on a 12-hour rolling average. Process heaters with a capacity greater than 20,000,000
Btu/hr would have to be continuously monitored for compliance and would be required to meet a
NOx limit of 80 ppm on a 24-hour rolling average. All process heaters and fuel gas combustion
devices would be required to be monitored continuously and would have to comply with an SO2
August 2009 4-107 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
limit of 20 ppm on a 3-hour rolling average and an SO2 limit of 8 ppm determined daily on a 365
successive day rolling average. The refinery combustion units will all have "Low NOx" burners.
EPA has authority under CAA sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) to promulgate "Federal
Implementation Plans" (FIP) as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality (40 CFR 49.11).
EPA may develop a FIP for the refinery which could include additional monitoring, testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the refinery units as needed to ensure protection of air quality.
4.13.1.2 Air Quality Analysis
An air quality analysis for the proposed refinery project was conducted to model the impact the
project would have on the NAAQS, the PSD increments for the Class I and II areas, the Class I
AQRV, and the concentrations of HAPs in the project area and surrounding area. The air quality
impact analysis for the proposed refinery and surrounding area was conducted using EPA's
ISCST3 air model and Chapter 5 of the Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) provides
a detailed discussion of the analysis, including the modeling of inputs and outputs. The results of
the modeling analysis are detailed below. Further modeling of air emissions was conducted to
evaluate the potential for food chain exposures from HAPs, the results of which are describe in
the Human Health and Wildlife sections of this chapter.
4.13.1.3 Class II Area
The refinery project and surrounding area is classified as a Class II area as defined in Chapter 3 of
this FEIS.
Ambient air quality monitoring data for the various criteria pollutants was used to establish
background concentrations in the refinery project area. This data came from ambient air quality
monitors in White Shield, Beulah, and Fargo and reflects the impacts from existing regional
sources such as power plants and mobile sources as well as transported pollutants from
neighboring states. The modeled incremental impact from the proposed refinery project was
added to these monitored values to estimate total cumulative air quality impacts in the project and
surrounding area. The total cumulative air quality impacts are shown in Table 4-17 Modeled
Maximum Class II Ambient Air Impacts for each applicable criteria pollutant (6th column) and
are compared, as a percentage (7th column), to the NAAQS. The NAAQS pollutants are measured
based on various time frames in order to address impacts from short-term and long-term
exposures (i.e. SO2 is measured at 3 hours, 24 hours, and annually). The maximum ambient
cumulative impacts associated with the proposed refinery are below all NAAQS.
August 2009 4-108 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-17 Modeled Maximum Class II Ambient Air Impacts
Pollutant
N02
CO
PM2.5
PM10
SO2
Period
Annual
1-Hour
8-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
24-Hour
3-Hour
24-Hour
Annual
NAAQS
(Mg/m3)1
100
40,000
10,000
35
15
150
1,300
365
80
Background
(Ug/m3)
7.1
10,832
5,474
16.07
5.82
37
106.5
31.9
4.3
Modeled
Impact
(Mg/m3)2
0.79
67.7
30.3
16.443
2.94
26.31
45.50
17.49
1.34
Modeled
Impact with
Background
(Mg/m3)
7.89
10,899.70
5,504.30
32.51
8.76
63.31
152.00
49.39
5.64
Relative to
NAAQS
(percent)
8
27
55
93
58
42
12
14
7
PSD
Class II
Increment
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
512
91
20
Relative to
PSD Class II
Increment
(percent)
3
88
9
19
7
Note:
1. ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
2. For 1-, and 8-, and 24-hour standards the modeled impacts are
3. For the 24-hour PM2.5 standard the modeled impacts are the 95
1st highest short term values, except PM2.5.
1th percentile value, per the standard requirements.
Use of these monitored data to establish existing baseline conditions in the project area may, in
fact, overestimate future concentrations because several of the largest power plants in the region
are subject to EPA regulations that will require them to install Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) over the next five years. These mitigation measures are projected to reduce
SO2 and NO2 emissions from the affected facilities by up to 95 percent. Cumulative impacts of
emissions from power plants will decrease in the area over time.
The analysis of potential air quality impacts was based on conservative estimates (maximum
potential) of the proposed refinery's emissions. Emissions are not expected to increase as the
project ages. Potential air emissions from future, local developments in the area are expected to
be very minor. Estimated increases in vehicle and rail traffic and new commercial/residential air
emissions induced by the proposed refinery are predicted to be too minor to cumulatively affect
air quality.
The air quality analysis also modeled the proposed refinery's impact on the PSD increments for
the area. Table 4-17 also shows that the proposed refinery project will not violate any of the Class
II PSD increments for the area. There are no other increment consuming sources nearby the
proposed project area that would contribute significantly to the project's maximum increment
consumption, so the maximum increment consumption is based on the contribution of the refinery
only. The last column in the table shows the relative percent of the various pollutant increments
that the proposed refinery would consume.
Near-field acid deposition for the project and surrounding area was estimated using the wet
deposition function of ISCST3. A gas-scavenging coefficient of 0.0001 hours per second-
millimeter was used for emissions of SO2 and NOX. Precipitation data for Bismarck were used
because precipitation data were not represented in the Minot surface meteorological data. As a
basis for comparison, the results (Table 4-18) for this Class II area are below the natural
background total nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition level for western Class I areas, which is
0.25 kilogram per hectare-year (kg/ha-yr) for each element (National Park Service and U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2005).
August 2009
4-109
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-18 Modeled Near-Field Wet Deposition
Year
1984
1985
1987
1988
Total Nitrogen and
(kg/hi
N
0.08
0.06
0.08
0.04
Sulfur Deposition
i-yr)
S
0.11
0.08
0.14
0.06
4.13.1.4 Class I Areas
The air quality analysis includes an analysis of impacts from the proposed project at the two
federally mandated Class I areas closest to the project area: Theodore Roosevelt National Park
and Lostwood Wilderness.
The results of the Class I SO2 increment consumption analysis for the proposed refinery are
shown in Table 4-19. Both Class I areas were assessed for each model year, and Table 4-20 lists
the Class I area where the maximum impact occurred. The Class I SO2 increment consumption
was evaluated using similar methods (e.g. meteorological data, modeling switches, receptor
locations, etc.) as were used in the EPA Region 8 North Dakota increment modeling analysis (U.
S. EPA 2003a). This modeling included the same sources and receptors as the EPA 2003 analysis
with the addition of the proposed refinery. Table 4-19 shows the potential impacts from the
proposed refinery project on the SO2 increment at TRNP are minimal, as demonstrated by the 3-
hour project impact of 0.0000 to 0.0060 (ig/m3; 24-hour impact of 0.0000 to 0.0050 (ig/m3; and
annual impact of 0.0005 to 0.0024 (ig/m3. Table 4-20 lists the Class I area where the maximum
estimated increment consumption for NO2 and PMi0 would occur due to the project's emissions.
The data in Table 4-20 shows that the project would consume a minimal amount of the NO2
(0.10% to 0.14%) and PM10 24-Hour (0.21% to 0.47%) increments.
August 2009 4-110 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-19 CALPUFF Class I SO2 Increment Analysis
Averaging
Period/Year
3-Hour
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
24-Hour
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Annual
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Class I Area
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
PSD Class I
Project Impact Increment
(Hg/m3) (Jig/m3)
25
0.0060
0.0030
0.0000
0.0020
0.0000
5
0.0030
0.0040
0.0050
0.0010
0.0000
2
0.0005
0.0024
0.0005
0.0005
0.0015
Table 4-20 Project Increment Consumption at Class I Areas
Maximum Modeled Impacts (ug/m3)
NO2 Annual PM10 24-Hour
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Class I
Area
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
Project
Impact
0.0029
0.0036
0.0034
0.0035
0.0024
Percent
Of
Increment
0.12%
0.14%
0.13%
0.14%
0.10%
Project
Impact
0.0082
0.0171
0.0189
0.0174
0.0122
Percent
of
Increment
0.21%
0.43%
0.47%
0.43%
0.31%
The impact of the proposed project emissions on the increment consumption in the TRNP and
LW is minimal for two primary reasons. First, the refinery SO2 and NO2 emissions are small as
compared to existing sources in the Class I airshed. For example, the refinery is projected to emit
51.2 tons per year of sulfur dioxide, as compared to the existing power plant 2004 SO2 emissions
of 148,726 tons per year. The refinery is projected to emit 35.7 tons per year of nitrogen dioxide,
as compared to the existing power plant 2004 NO2 emissions of 77,589 tons per year. Second,
because the proposed facility is located 73 miles from the TRNP and 55 miles from LW, the air
quality modeling showed the air emissions from the proposed refinery would disperse to minimal
amounts by the time they reach the Class I airsheds. Consequently, the relatively low emissions
of SO2, NO2 and PMi0 from the proposed project, combined with the dispersion of those
emissions, would result in minimal impacts from this project on the Class I airsheds. The
proposed project's contribution to cumulative air impacts at the Class I areas would likewise be
minimal.
August 2009
4-111
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-21 presents the estimated project impacts on AQRVs (visibility and acid deposition) on
the two nearby Class I areas. Both areas were assessed for each model year, and this table lists the
Class I area where the maximum impact occurred. The estimated change in Class I visibility from
the operation of the refinery was modeled using five years of historical meteorology data. The
highest impacts occurred at the Lostwood Wilderness area with visual range reductions of
between 1.59 percent and 4.14 percent depending on the weather data used in the modeling. The
estimated maximum visual range extinctions resulting from the project emissions are below the
5% threshold or 0.5 deciview that EPA's BART guideline establishes as a threshold for defining a
"contribution" to visibility impairment or considered to be perceptible. The impacts are also well
below the 10% or 1.0 deciview that is the general level of concern for Federal Land Managers
(FLAG 2000). Similar impacts on visibility would be expected over the 20 year lifetime of the
facility while operating at its proposed capacity.
The estimated maximum deposition values resulting from the project emissions shown in Table
4-21 are well below the natural background total nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) deposition level for
western Class I areas, which is 0.25 kilogram per hectare-year (kg/ha-yr) for each element
(National Park Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2005).
Table 4-21 Class I Area AQRV Analyses
Estimated Maximum Total Wet Deposition
Year
Modeled
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Maximum
Nitrogen
kg/ha-yr
0.010
0.011
0.010
0.011
0.013
0.013
Class I Area
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
LW
LW
Sulfur
kg/ha-yr
0.013
0.012
0.014
0.011
0.018
0.018
Class I Area
LW
TRNP
TRNP
TRNP
LW
LW
Estimated Maximum
Visual Range Extinction
Percent
1.59
3.68
4.14
3.89
2.38
4.14
Class I Area
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
LW
4.13.1.5 Hazardous Air Pollutants
A modeling analysis was conducted to determine the potential human health impacts resulting
from inhalation of emissions of F£APs from the refinery, and Table 4-22 presents the F£AP
ambient concentrations (|ig/m3) results. This table describes HAP ambient concentrations in the
project area for 1-hour, 24-hour and annual periods. The results of F£AP emissions modeling and
current health based inhalation benchmarks are shown together in the Human Health section of
this Chapter, in Table 4-27. The Human Health section also describes the site-specific hazardous
emissions modeling for the proposed refinery to determine the potential for human health impacts
from the following HAPs: benzene; cyclohexane; formaldehyde; hexane; polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons; toluene; and xylene. The HAPs emissions are compared to chronic health effects
levels (i.e., long-term exposure). The analysis is related to lifetime exposure to a hazardous
emission; thus, assessing a one-year average concentration against the criteria is a conservative
estimate of exposure over a lifetime. The Human Health section describes that the estimated
ambient HAP concentrations from the proposed refinery are below the federal risk based
concentrations for inhalation and that the proposed refinery would not have significant adverse
effects on the human health of the local area communities.
August 2009
4-112
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-22 Hazardous Air Pollutants Ambient Concentrations
Estimated Ambient
Concentrations pig/m3)
HAP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane (-n)
PAH
Toluene
Xylene
1-Hour
4.04E-01
3.05E-01
2.38E-03
4.36E-01
3.50E-02
6.22E-02
1.52E-01
1.06E-01
24-Hour
8.77E-02
6.63E-02
5.20E-04
1.34E-02
7.60E-03
4.80E-04
3.37E-03
1.59E-03
Annual
1.32E-02
9.91E-03
8.00E-05
1.81E-03
1.14E-03
5.00E-05
6.00E-04
2.70E-04
4.13.1.6 Upset Emissions
Table 4-23 identifies upset emissions (including malfunctions, startups, shutdowns, and
maintenance) from several refineries in Texas and Louisiana and lists their production capacities
and reported upset emissions over a one year period.
Typical excess emissions can be prevented by better operational and maintenance practices.
Leaks from cooling towers have been identified by refineries as the source of some of the largest
excess emissions, especially for VOC emissions. Power interruptions are one of the most
frequently cited causes for some of the worst upsets. Sometimes outages occur due to a loss of
power from a source outside the plant or to other malfunctions of electrical components within
the plant. The failure of sulfur recovery units will trigger flaring and the release of excess SO2
emissions. These excess SO2 emissions can be avoided by adequately sizing and maintaining a
sulfur recovery unit.
As described in Chapter 2, the proposed refinery would have a detailed maintenance plan in place
for commencement of operation. The plan would include defining the requirements for equipment
inspections and shutdowns and startups. Scheduled turnarounds (shutdowns and startups) for
individual process units would occur approximately every three to five years to allow for cleaning
out accumulated undesirable residues, replacing catalysts, replacing absorbents, conducting
repairs, etc. The plan would include a shutdown of a portion of the plant each year on a rotational
basis utilizing tanks to store intermediate products, so there would not be a total outage for any of
the individual units every year and flaring of emissions would be minimized. Unscheduled
shutdowns result from upset plant conditions usually related to power failure, loss of cooling
water, or a fire. To minimize unscheduled shutdowns and startups and associated emissions due
to flaring, the refinery design includes two independent sources of power to mitigate the risk of
power failure, and an Emergency Generator and a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) for
critical equipment. In addition, the proposed refinery does not have a Cooling Tower, which as
described above is a source of some of the largest excess VOC emissions. The process units will
be liberally spaced for isolation and segregation in the event of fire.
As detailed in Chapter 4 of the Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007), normal operation
for the flare was designed for a loading rate of 15 Ibs/hour (65.7 tons/year). However, to account
for potential process upsets and startup/shutdown activities that could increase emissions releases,
a loading rate of 500 Ibs/hour (2,190 tons/year) was used to calculate potential air emissions from
the flare. The loading rate of 500 Ibs/hour is over 30 times the normal operation loading rate of 15
August 2009 4-113 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Ibs/hour. The potential flare emissions were also calculated based on operating the flare 24 hours
a day, 365 days a year [See Flare Example NOx calculation in Appendix C of the Air Quality
Technical Report (December 2007)]. Therefore, potential emissions from startups, shutdowns and
equipment malfunctions would be greater than air emissions during routine operations. Potential
air emissions during upset conditions were conservatively estimated for the proposed refinery.
August 2009 4-114 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-23 Upset Emissions from Large Refineries1
Refinery
Atofina (Port Arthur, TX)
BP Products North America
(Texas City, TX)
Chalmette Refinery
(Chalmette, LA)
Citgo (Lake Charles, LA)
Exxon (Baytown, TX)
Exxon Refinery (Beaumont, TX)
Exxon-Mobil (Baton Rouge, LA)
Flint Hills (East & West)
(Corpus Christi, TX)
Motiva (Norco, LA)
Motiva (Port Arthur, TX)
Murphy Oil USA (Meraux, LA)
Phillips 66 (Borger, TX)
Premcor (Port Arthur, TX)
Valero (East & West)
(Corpus Christi, TX)
Western Refinery (El Paso, TX)
Production
Capacity
(bbl per day)
175,068
437,000
182,500
324,300
523,000
348,500
491,500
259,980
219,700
250,000
95,000
143,800
255,000
134,000
90,000
voc
Emissions
(Ibs/yr)
24,600
294,206
294,298
72,088
188,538
346,541
122,778
3,800
37,156
36,286
390,852
26,082
80,517
56,706
31,524
52,974
8,518
SO2
Emissions
(Ibs/yr)
5,012,808
219,857
1,050,746
351,406
598,756
247,846
1,435,604
36,495
84,803
25,086
97,871
135,716
243,756
407,486
455,990
613,268
141,196
1 For Texas refineries, 2003 upset data was gathered and compared to Texas 2002 emissions inventory data.
For Louisiana refineries, 2001 and 2002 upset data was gathered and compared to Louisiana emission inventory
H2S
Emissions
(Ibs/yr)
95,983
6,721
2,632
3,181
6,821
3,945
3,223
0
2,967
194
2,764
28
1,757
4,739
4,546
6,515
1,541
data for 2001 and 2002.
CO
Emissions
(Ibs/yr)
43,323
498,955
10,880
380
591,139
695,345
13,381,005
10,780
260,516
44,456
10,688
165,782
252,401
15,088
29,246
118,232
411
NOx
Emissions
(Ibs/yr)
16,808
18,952
8,276
1,750
57,613
6,863
163,054
6,804
1,717
153,263
12,735
23,030
47,524
10,910
3,293
39,154
487
August 2009
4-115
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.13.1.7 Global Climate Change
Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Refinery
Construction and operation of the proposed petroleum refinery would generate greenhouse gas
emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by refineries with lesser
amounts of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20). The main sources of greenhouse gases from
refineries are from the combustion of fuels in boilers, burners, heaters and flares. There will also
be some fugitive greenhouse gas emissions from equipment leaks, seals, gaskets and valves.
Methods to calculate greenhouse gas emissions from existing petroleum refineries are based on
the types of refinery processes and energy use at each facility. These methods use detailed
operating and energy use information. In order to fully calculate greenhouse gas emissions from
the proposed refinery, detailed refinery-specific information would be needed. That information
will not be available until after the refinery has been in operation, generally a year after startup
shakedown. Since this type of data is not available for a proposed refinery in preliminary design,
another method was developed to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from this proposed refinery
by comparing greenhouse gas emissions from existing refineries. Greenhouse gas emission data
from existing refineries in Canada was used for this analysis because of the similarities in
facilities and because the data are readily available. The emissions are expressed in terms of
carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent, a unit of measure used to allow the addition of or the
comparison between gases that have different global warming potentials. A metric tonne or tonne
equals 1,000 kilograms. A comparison of the proposed refinery to similar facilities can provide an
approximation of the likely greenhouse gas emissions.
An estimate of greenhouse gas emissions was prepared by comparing the proposed refinery to
refineries in Canada of similar size and feedstock. Greenhouse gas emissions were reported for 19
petroleum refineries in Canada in 2005. Greenhouse gas emissions from these 19 facilities ranged
from 106,661 to over 3 million tonnes in CO2 equivalent per year. The average greenhouse gas
emissions from Canadian refineries in 2005 were slightly over 1 million tonnes (CO2
equivalents). The facility found to be most similar to the proposed refinery is the Prince George
Husky oil refinery in British Columbia. In 2005, the Husky facility processed 10,000 bbl per day
of light crude oil, which is the same capacity as the proposed refinery. The Husky refinery
processes light crude oil from British Columbia, whereas the proposed refinery oil will refine
synthetic crude which has already been refined once in Alberta. The Husky refinery also has
additional greenhouse gas-emitting refinery processes such as a catalytic cracker. The refineries
will also have comparable product mixes, primarily gasoline and diesel, although the Husky
refinery does produce heavy fuel oil which will not be produced by the proposed MHA Nation
Refinery. The Husky refinery has been used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions from the
proposed refinery because the facilities have the similar capacity (the Husky facility expanded in
2006), and both facilities use relatively light feedstocks. As described in Table 4-24, the George
Husky refinery emitted 106,719 (rounded to 107,000) metric tonnes greenhouse gases in 2005.
August 2009 4-116 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-24 Projected Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Refinery
Estimated from Prince George Husky Refinery 2005 Data
Gases
CO2
CH4
N20
Totals:
Source: Environment Canada website:
Sum in metric tonnes
106,000
33
1
2005 Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks
Metric tonnes in CO2 equivalent
106,000
700
300
107,000
To put the annual estimated 107,000 metric tones of CO2-equivalent emissions from the proposed
refinery into a context that is easy to conceptualize, EPA used a greenhouse gas equivalencies
calculator to identify equivalent emissions. (See http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-
resources/calculator.html. The annual estimated 107,000 metric tones of CO2-equivalent
emissions from the refinery is the equivalent of:
> CO2 emissions from the energy use of 31,414 homes for one year;
> CO2 emissions from burning 1,859 railcars worth of coal; and
> CO2 emissions from 65,187 passenger vehicles for one year.
To put the proposed refinery's estimated emissions of 107,000 tonnes annually in further
perspective, individual coal fired power plants in North Dakota emitted between 780,000 and
9,620,000 tonnes per year, based on 2004 data. In North Dakota, electrical power generation
emitted 31.7 million tonnes of CO2 in 2004. CO2 emissions for the entire state of North Dakota
were estimated at 47.6 million tons in 2004. Emissions in North Dakota were determined for five
categories in millions of metric tones: 1.0 commercial, 7.7 industrial, 1.3 residential 5.9
transportation and 31.7 electrical power. Figure 4-2 below compares the estimated 107,000 tons
of CO2 emissions from the proposed refinery with North Dakota power plants based on 2004
data.
August 2009 4-117 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Figure 4-2 Comparison of Projected CO2 Emissions from the Proposed Refinery and
Existing North Dakota Power Plants
Comparsion of ND Power Plant CO2 Emissions (2004 data)
to Proposed Refinery Emissions
Coal Fired Power Plants
Coal Creek - Washburn
Antelope Valley - Beulah
Milton R Young - Center
D Leland Olds - Stanton
Coyote - Beulah
D Stanton - Stanton
D RM Heskett-Mandan
D Proposed Refinery - Makoti
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00 12.00
Million Metric Tonnes of CO2
Power Plant emissions from eGRID2006 Version 2.1 Plant File (Year 2004 Data), EPA database
It is also noteworthy that activities associated with the chain of commerce and full life-cycle of
the proposed refinery's process inputs and outputs may emit greenhouse gases, e.g., the
production of synthetic crude or end-use by consumers. These activities are shown in Table 4-25
Table 4-25 Indirect Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Proposed Refinery
Process Inputs
Source
Electricity Coal-fired power plant
Synthetic crude Tar sands mining, initial refining, and pipeline transportation
Field butane, biodiesel, other feedstocks Production and transportation
Natural gas Production, processing and compression
Process Outputs
Source
Gasoline, diesel fuel, propane
Product transportation
Used as fuel by consumers
Truck and rail transportation
August 2009
4-118
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Environmental Effects of Global Climate Change
The estimated 107,000 tonnes (in CO2-equivalents) emitted from the proposed refinery will have
an incremental impact on atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations and global climate change,
when added to the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future human activities affecting
greenhouse gas concentrations and climate. While modeling can predict a slight increase in global
temperature associated with the proposed refinery's emissions6, it is generally not useful to link
specific climatological changes or other environmental effects to a single emissions source, as
such linkages are difficult to isolate and understand. A more useful approach to understanding the
cumulative impact of the proposed refinery's emissions involves consideration of the following
factors: 1) the magnitude of the facility's greenhouse gas emissions compared with other
emission sources, 2) the refinery's greenhouse gas emissions in the context of total greenhouse
gas emissions at the state or regional and national and global scales, and 3) the impacts associated
with climate change generally.
The first factor, the comparative magnitude of the refinery's emissions with other emission
sources, is discussed above in the section estimating the refinery's emissions. As to the second
factor above, the facility's estimated 107,000 tonnes of annual emissions will occur in the context
of total State of North Dakota CO2 emissions which were estimated at 49.9 million tonnes in
2004. See the Energy Information Administration (under the Department of Energy), Emission
Detail by State at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/state/state_emissions.html. United States
emissions for the year 2005 were recently estimated to be 7.2 billion tonnes. See the Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2006, DOE/EIA-0573 (2006), November 2007, available
at: http://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057306.pdf Annual global scale
greenhouse gas emissions for the year 2004 were recently estimated to be 26.9 billion tonnes. See
the International Energy Outlook 2007, DOE/EIA-0484(2007), May 2007, available at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2007).pdf The third factor, the impacts associated with
climate change, are generally discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
In addition to the climate change information in Chapter 3, projections of climate change effects
in the Great Plains region include increased temperatures and increased precipitation in some
areas. (See Ojima DS, Lackett JM. 2002. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change Central Great Plains}. The modeled
minimum temperature increase by the 2090s is over 7 °F (3.9 °C). Modeling shows both increases
and decreases in precipitation over the Great Plains region, although there appears to be a slightly
wetter trend in the region, especially by 2090. The snow season in the Great Plains is projected to
end earlier in the spring, reflecting greater warming in winter and spring. An EPA study drew
similar conclusions and further noted, "[g]roundwater levels also could be reduced by lower
spring and summer recharge." (EPA, Climate Change and North Dakota, Sept. 1998, EPA 236-F-
98-007d). Prairie pothole wetlands are very dependent upon the precipitation regime, and
therefore climate change forecasts are predicted to result in drier wetland systems, with reduced
productivity and habitat degradation. (Johnson, W. Carter, et.al. 2005. Vulnerability of Northern
Prairie Wetlands to Climate Change. BioScience. October 2005/Vol 55 No. 10.).
These changes may affect, either positively or negatively, many sectors in the Great Plains,
including agriculture, ranching and livestock, natural systems, and water. (See Ojima and Lackett
2002). Changes in winter moisture may impact cool season invasive species, the extent of certain
6 An increase in global temperature from the proposed refinery's greenhouse gas emissions was modeled
using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change, available at
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc . For different climate sensitivities, the upper bound
prediction for the amount of warming that the TAT refinery would contribute was 0.0000012 degrees C.
See Technical Report for further explanation.
August 2009 4-119 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
vegetation on the range, shallow aquifer recharge, stream flow timing, and forage availability.
Winter temperature increases may impact the incidence of pest outbreaks, soil organic matter,
plant community composition and invasion of exotics. Increases in summer temperatures and
precipitation may impact hail, tree invasives and fire management. Agricultural areas with
marginal financial and resource reserves (e.g., the U.S. northern plains) are especially vulnerable
to climate change (Antle et al. 2004). Unsustainable land-use practices will tend to increase the
vulnerability of agriculture in the Great Plains to climate change (Polsky and Easterling 2001).
A comprehensive summary of the health and environmental effects of climate change is on EPA's
Climate Change, Health and Environmental Effects website at
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/index.html. The website also includes links to more
detailed information on impacts to specific resource areas such as human health, agriculture and
water resources.
Assessment of Mitigation Measures
This section describes potential measures to both reduce and offset greenhouse gas emissions
produced by refinery operations. Refinery operations that will result in emissions of carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxides and methane include the flaring of waste gases and the operation of
process heaters and boilers. Additional refinery processes that may release greenhouse gas
emissions include hydrogen production for use in the refinery hydrotreater and fugitive
emissions.
Greenhouse gas emissions from refinery operations can be reduced by designing and operating
the facility to improve energy efficiency. For example, rather than flaring waste gases emitted
from process units, the facility may be designed to capture the hydrocarbon gas streams and
reroute the gas back into the refinery fuel gas system. This capture system would likely reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by decreasing the facility's demand for external natural gas and by
reducing the formation of carbon dioxide from the process of flaring waste gases. In addition, the
Energy Star publication Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for
Petroleum Refineries describes energy efficiency design technologies and operation processes
which could reduce the amount of combustion needed for various processes, thereby reducing the
proposed project's greenhouse gas emissions.7 For example, the facility can be designed to
operate with a high efficiency fire box design for process heaters and boilers to ensure that proper
combustion gas retention times are achieved; include adequate thermal insulation of all heated
lines to minimize heat loss; and refinery operations can include a rigorous leak detection system
to provide for repair of leaking pipes, valves flanges and fitting, pumps and compressors.
The facility will need to comply with any CAA requirements applicable at the time the facility is
constructed and in operation. Currently, there are no federal regulatory standards directly limiting
greenhouse gas emissions.8 However, there are a number of voluntary measures available to
address greenhouse gas emissions, including EPA voluntary programs such as Climate Leaders or
Gas STAR. For example, once refinery operations have commenced, the facility could conduct a
7 (Worrel and Galitsky, 2005, Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost Saving Opportunities for
Petroleum Refineries: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant Managers. Ernesto Orlando
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab. University of California.
http://www.energy star.gov/ia/business/industry/ES_Petroleum_Energy _Guide.pdf)
8 Since the issuance of the April 2, 2007 Supreme Court opinion in Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA. 549 U.S.
(2007), EPA has been evaluating the potential effects of the Court's decision with respect to addressing
emissions of greenhouse gases under the mobile and stationary source provisions of the Clean Air Act.
Thus, this EIS for an individual project does not reflect, and should not be construed as reflecting, the type
of judgment that might form the basis for a positive or negative finding, permitting decision or regulation
under any provision of the Clean Air Act.
August 2009 4-120 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
greenhouse gas emissions inventory audit to determine where there are opportunities to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions under various voluntary programs. In addition, there are several
organizations in the United States that develop and implement greenhouse gas offset projects
involving agricultural landfill methane, agricultural soil carbon, forestry, renewable energy, coal
mine methane, and rangeland soil carbon. Specifically, there are examples of voluntary soil
carbon offset projects in the upper mid-west portion of the United States that have involved
applying grassland conservation tillage or rangeland soil carbon management methods. In this
type of project, soil carbon offsets can be issued on a per-acre, per-year basis. Then, the offset
rate depends on the regional soil and crop management improvements. For example, conservation
tillage offsets in Illinois have been issued at a rate of 0.6 metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent per-
acre, per-year. At this issuance rate, it would take approximately 180,000 acres of conservation
tillage improvements to offset the estimated 107,000 metric tonnes per year of greenhouse gas
emissions projected from the refinery. Other rangeland soil carbon management projects in the
North Dakota/South Dakota region have included an issuance rate of between 0.12 tonnes of CO2
equivalent per-acre, per-year on improved lands and 0.52 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per-acre, per-
year on previously degraded lands. Using that range of issuance rates, 200,000 to 900,000 acres
of rangeland would need to be under soil carbon management improvements to offset the 107,000
metric tonnes per year of greenhouse gas emissions project from the refinery. Assuming the
refinery chose to pursue this type of offset project, the net greenhouse gas emissions once the
refinery is operational would affect the amount of acreage required to offset the emissions.
4.13.2 Construction Alternatives
4.13.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would not construct or operate the clean fuels refinery.
Consequently, implementation of this alternative would have no new effects on air quality.
4.13.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would construct and operate the clean fuels refinery. The
refinery would be the same facility as described for Alternatives 1 and A. Consequently,
implementation of this alternative would have the same direct and indirect effects as those
described for Alternatives 1 and A.
4.13.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.13.2.4 Alternatives No Action
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would not construct or operate the clean fuels refinery.
Consequently, implementation of this alternative would have no new effects on air quality.
4.13.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
The effluent discharge alternatives would have no additional effect on air quality. These
alternatives involve the discharge of effluent to surface or ground waters.
4.13.4 Cumulative Impacts
The power plants located near Beulah, North Dakota, roads and agriculture are the main sources
of air quality impacts in the airshed surrounding the proposed refinery. As demonstrated in the
August 2009 4-121 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
modeling analysis and the Class I and II area air quality analysis, the refinery would have
minimal impacts on cumulative air quality within the surrounding airshed. No changes are
anticipated in the area regarding the air emissions from roads and agricultural practices.
Emissions from the power plants around Beulah are anticipated to be reduced over time due to
EPA's regulations requiring them to install BART over the next five years to reduce SO2 and NO2
emissions. Cumulative impacts from air emissions are expected to decrease in the area over time,
even though there are several future energy development projects planned in the surrounding
airshed. There is a proposed 500 MW power plant at Gascoyne that is currently in the State
permitting process. For more information on the permit, contact the NDDH, Division of Air
Quality. There is also a proposed coal gasification plant located in South Heart. Currently, there is
no specific information available regarding air emissions from this facility, since the facility has
not yet applied for a PSD permit. Recently, there has been a resurgence of oil and gas
development in the area, and several exploratory wells are being drilled. Depending on the
success of the exploratory wells, additional development may occur. It is anticipated that the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and BIA will examine air impacts for this new oil and gas
development including quantification of the level of potential level of the development. Other
new sources of air pollution in the planning stages are ethanol plants, one located in Gascoyne.
The cumulative air impact analysis did not specifically include the recently proposed ethanol
plants, because emissions from the ethanol plant combined with the refinery and other sources are
not expected to be significant in the airshed surrounding the proposed site. VOCs, NOX and CO
are the main air emissions of concern from ethanol plants.
The MHA Nation's Environmental Program plans to install and operate a new "ambient" air
quality monitoring station near the proposed refinery site. The ambient monitoring station will not
specifically monitor air emissions from the refinery. Instead the monitoring station will collect
background air quality data near the site for SO2, NO2, PM2 5, and meteorological conditions prior
to construction and operation of the refinery. Air quality data for the same pollutants will be
monitored during operation of the refinery and compared to the background data to verify the
modeling results of minimal impacts from the refinery to the NAAQS.
4.14 Socioeconomics
Primary socioeconomic effects of the project (both positive and negative) would occur on the
Reservation and in Ward County. Communities that would contribute to the available work force,
housing, infrastructure, and goods and services include Minot and New Town, located
approximately 30 miles from the site, and the smaller towns of Makoti, Parshall, Plaza, and White
Shield.
4.14.1 Alternatives 1 and A - Original Proposed Actions
Implementation of these alternatives would allow the MHA Nation to pursue economic
development opportunities in keeping with its tribal sovereignty. In addition, the Project would
provide economic benefits to Ward County and communities within the county. The economic
benefits from construction activities would occur over the 18 to 24 month construction period.
Impacts from the operation of the refinery would occur for the life of the refinery which could be
well over 20 years.
4.14.1.1 Population and Housing
A substantial portion of the construction workers are expected to be members of the MHA
Nation. The rest of the workforce is expected to live in or around Minot. A labor force
availability study (North Dakota Department of Commerce 2002) indicated that workers are
willing to commute to a job within a 60-mile radius of their residences. Portions of the
Reservation, Minot, and several counties are within the 60-mile radius. Consequently, the
August 2009 4-122 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
construction workers are expected to commute to the refinery site daily to work and it is not
anticipated that the Project would require an influx of new employees into the region. Therefore,
there would be no substantial local or regional population impacts and little demand for new
permanent housing. In the event that some workers do migrate into the area for the construction
period, the relatively small number of such workers is unlikely to affect temporary housing stock.
A sufficient supply of temporary housing stock including rental, motels, and recreational vehicle
(RV) sites is located in Minot, as well as smaller communities near the refinery site.
4.14.1.2 Economy and Employment
The primary economic impact would be the economic benefit to the Reservation from the sales of
gasoline, diesel, and propane, which are projected to earn a net profit of an estimated $100
million annually over the estimated 20 or more year life of the Project. In addition, there would
be economic benefits to the MHA Nation and Ward County through payroll earnings over the life
of the Project, which would be spent on items such as housing, food, goods and services.
During the construction phase of 18 to 24 months, economic benefits would occur from the
construction payroll, and construction expenditures on equipment and supplies from local area
vendors. The construction and operation of the project is expected to have minimal influence on
the Ward County economy. In terms of payroll earnings and construction expenditures, the
economic benefit from the Project is small relative to the economy of the county, which is
regional center of economic activity.
The MHA Nation has proposed to grow forage for a buffalo herd on approximately 279 acres of
the Project site that would not be used for the refinery operations. If implemented, forage
obtained from this portion of the parcel would reduce the costs of purchasing forage from other
sources.
The construction and operation of the refinery and associated pipelines and electric transmission
lines would require a labor pool that would be hired through the MHA Nation and through private
contractors. It is anticipated that contractors and the required workforce would be available in the
Reservation and nearby Minot. The majority of the construction and operation workforce would
be local-hire employees. The completion of the Four Bears Bridge project in the summer of 2005
resulted in a substantial pool of available construction workers in the region.
The number of workers at the peak construction period would be 800 to 1,000 workers, the
majority of which are expected to be local hires. The average worker would be paid $55/hour,
resulting in an average annual wage of $106,000.
The Fort Berthold Community College currently offers a 2-year program for construction trades.
The program would provide instruction to local workers in the skills required for the proposed
project.
The permanent workforce for the operation and maintenance of the proposed refinery is
summarized in Chapter 2. Operation of the refinery would require about 86 permanent personnel,
primarily management staff, supervisory staff, and operators. Maintenance would be performed
by contract personnel. The majority (350 workers, or 88 percent) of the contract workers would
be turnaround maintenance tradesmen that would work at the plant for one month annually. Other
contract workers would consist of daily and shift workers involved in security or maintenance.
There would not be any anticipated new employees for the pipelines, other utilities, or railroad.
August 2009 4-123 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.14.1.3 Facilities and Services
Construction and operation of the project have the potential to affect existing community
facilities and infrastructure. Temporary activities, such as importation of construction materials
and work force would have effects on existing infrastructure and may require installation of new
facilities. Operation of the project would have minimal effects on facilities and services. The
refinery would provide some of its own infrastructure such as fire protection, emergency health
care services, ambulance service, and site security, which would be provided as construction
begins and as operations continue. These services would minimize the effects on established
services in the local communities.
The project would require highway access to the site and pipeline and rail access for feedstocks
and product shipments. Installation of these transportation facilities would reduce impacts.
Additional traffic on project area highways would increase the potential for automobile accidents
and spill of materials. See section 4.11 a complete discussion of transportation impacts.
Attendance of community schools in the project area could experience a short-term increase
during the construction period; however, minimal increases would be observed during project
operations.
4.14.2 Construction Alternatives
4.14.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, BIA would accept the 468.39 acres into trust status without construction
and operation of the clean fuels refinery. Consequently, the MHA Nation would not earn the $100
million annually over the estimated 20 or more year life of the Project. This would be inconsistent
with the Tribes' pursuit of economic opportunities as described by the project purpose and need
in Chapter 1. The MHA Nation, however, could decide to use the entire 468.39-acre project site
to produce forage for their buffalo herd, or they could have the land included in the Farm Pasture
Leasing Program. The production of forage from the parcel would reduce the costs of purchasing
forage or grazing leases from other sources.
4.14.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Under this alternative, BIA would not accept the 468.39 acres into trust status. The MHA Nation
would still be able to develop a clean fuels refinery on this property without the trust status. The
social and economic effects described for Alternatives 1 and A would occur under Alternative 3.
However, MHA Nation would pay taxes on the commercial operation to the county. The
production of feed from 279 acres of the project site parcel also would occur under this
alternative, so there would be the same economic benefit from reduction of forage purchases from
other sources.
4.14.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same effects as described in Alternatives 1
and A. The revised site refinery layout, pipelines and power lines would be constructed, so effects
attributed to these facilities would be the same.
4.14.3 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the refinery would not be constructed, the BIA would not accept the
468.39 acres into trust status, and the EPA would issue no environmental permits. The MHA
Nation would continue to own the property outside of trust status. The entire 468.39-acre project
August 2009 4-124 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes similar to those that have been occurring
on the property for decades. Consequently, the MHA Nation would not earn the $100 million
annually over the estimated 20 or more year life of the Project. This would be inconsistent with
the Tribes' pursuit of economic opportunities as described by the project purpose and need in
Chapter 1.
4.14.3.1 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
The additional effluent discharge alternatives would have no effect on socioeconomics. These
alternatives involve the discharge of effluent to surface or ground waters. It is not expected that
any of the additional alternatives would involve any of the components of the refinery that would
affect socioeconomics noticeably. However, as previously discussed, there would be
socioeconomic impacts if the irrigated lands were classified as a RCRA hazardous waste LTU or
if a RCRA corrective action was needed.
4.14.4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to social conditions and the economy of the Reservation and Ward County
resources would likely result from other planned or foreseeable development activities in addition
to the construction and operation of the proposed refinery. There is potential that the increased
economic stability of the MHA Nation would stimulate further industrial, residential and
commercial development in the Reservation and Ward County. These cumulative and indirect
impacts may have positive or negative effects on the economy and social conditions within the
Reservation and Ward County.
4.15 Environmental Justice
4.15.1 Alternatives 1 and A Original Proposed Actions
EPA's evaluation of potential impacts of the project included the potential extent of impacts to
air, water and the surrounding community. EPA concluded that the area within a 1-mile radius of
the project site may experience some changes in conditions associated with releases and/or
potential releases of contaminants to air, surface water, ground water and soils resulting from the
proposed project. None of these impacts, however, are expected to be above levels of concern to
human health, except for unplanned or extraordinary events. Further, air quality impacts would
diminish rapidly with distance from the refinery site, and NPDES discharge limits are required to
be protective of aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture and wildlife uses at the point of
discharge, which is within the refinery site. Thus, no increased area beyond the 1-mile radius was
needed to evaluate these impacts from air emissions and wastewater discharges. In addition, it is
expected that many of the impacts will be negligible and/or short term (i.e., potentially higher
during the construction phase than during normal refinery operations).
The area within this 1-mile radius includes lands located inside the boundaries of the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation as well as non-Reservation lands. There are a total of six residences
located within this same 1-mile radius. The four zip code areas beyond the 1-mile radius of the
project site are not expected to experience measurable environmental or human health impacts.
For a complete analysis of the potential environmental and human health impacts, please see the
other sections in Chapter 4; particularly Ground Water in Section 4.2, Air in Section 4.13, and
Health and Safety in Section 4.16.
The two primary exposure pathways from refinery operations are from air emissions and effluent
discharges. As stated in the Air Quality Analysis, there are no anticipated significant adverse
human health effects from refinery air emissions. This conclusion is based on direct inhalation of
predicted refinery emissions rather than ingestion exposures and is therefore less certain with
August 2009 4-125 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
respect to food chain risks. Nonetheless, the potential for bioaccumulative effects of the predicted
refinery emissions based on their physical and chemical properties is considered to be low, and no
significant adverse human health effects are anticipated from the food chain exposure pathway.
The NPDES permit would require that wastewater discharges from the proposed refinery are
protective of multiple uses including: aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture and wildlife uses.
The discharge limits take into account indirect pathways of exposure, such as humans eating fish,
cattle or bison, and wildlife eating fish or other wildlife. No direct impacts to fish as a result of
refinery construction and operations are expected, given that no fisheries are located in proximity
to the proposed refinery site.
The area surrounding the site may realize both positive and negative socioeconomic impacts
associated with the project. For instance, increased economic activity associated with the project
may lead to increased employment and income. Conversely, this area may also experience
negative impacts to social cohesiveness resulting from a change in population and demographics,
increased traffic, and increased pressure for housing. These negative impacts, however, are
expected to be minor and will not disproportionately affect communities with EJ indicators. In
addition, the negative impacts are likely to be short-term during the construction phase and
subside once full-time operations begin, due to higher employment levels under construction than
during the operation phase. For a complete analysis of potential socioeconomic impacts, please
refer to Chapter 4, Socioeconomics in Section 4.14. The primary economic impact of the
Proposed Action would be the economic benefit to the Reservation from the sales of refinery
products, such as gasoline, diesel, and propane. The Tribes have estimated a net profit of $100
million annually over the 20 or more year estimated life of the project. In addition, the refinery
would provide economic benefits to several communities, including Parshall and New Town,
located on the Reservation approximately 10 and 30 miles, respectively, from the site. Makoti and
Plaza, the towns closest to the refinery, are located outside the Reservation boundaries. Local
communities would contribute to the available work force, housing, and infrastructure, and
provide goods and services for refinery workers. Furthermore, it is expected that a substantial
portion of the construction workers would be members of the MHA Nation. For additional social
impact analyses, please see the following sections of Chapter 4 of the FEIS: Cultural Resources in
Section 4.9, Land Use in Section 4.10, Transportation in Section 4.11, and Aesthetics in Section
4.12.
With respect to impacts throughout the State of North Dakota, it is likely that there will be both
short- and long-term positive impacts associated with increased economic activity. These
impacts, while significant on a local level, are expected to be small relative to the entire state
economy.
Table 4-26 summarizes the type and nature of potential impacts to communities that have been
identified as having indicators of an EJ community and to the state of North Dakota. The table
shows negative impacts as (-), positive impacts as (+), and combined positive and negative
impacts as (±). Negligible impacts are represented as (NG). The table identifies all impacts
regardless of significance and does not represent only those impacts that disproportionately affect
communities with EJ indicators.
Using EPA's criteria for evaluating EJ claims, it is concluded that there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse effects on the communities in the four zip code areas
surrounding the proposed refinery including Tribal communities located on Reservation lands
within these areas. Ensuring that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on
communities surrounding the proposed refinery also ensures that communities located further
away from the proposed refinery would not be subjected to any disparate adverse impact from the
refinery.
August 2009 4-126 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
For more information, see EPA's EJ Tier One Analysis for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara
Nation's "Clean Fuels Refinery" Project, December, 2007. See also the responses to comments
regarding impacts to wildlife and human health in Appendix E.
Table 4-26 Summary of Impacts to EJ and Reference Communities
Environ-
mental
Impacts (Air
and Water)
Human Health
Impacts
Socioeco-nomic
Impacts
Summary of Impacts
Communities Identified with EJ Indicators
58756
(includes
Makoti)
NG
NG
58771
(includes
Plaza)
58770
(includes
Parshall)
59779
(includes
Ryder)
NG
NG
NI
NG
NI
NI
Reference Community: Stale of North Dakota
Nortil NI NI
Dakota
Impacts are expected to occur with releases and/or potential
releases of contaminants to air, surface water, ground water and
soils resulting from the proposed project, though these impacts are
expected to be negligible and to occur within either the boundaries
of the refinery or a radius of 1 mile; socioeconomic impacts are
likely to be both positive and negative in this community
Impacts are expected to occur with releases and/or potential
releases of contaminants to air, surface water, ground water and
soils resulting from the proposed project, though these impacts are
expected to be negligible and to occur within either the boundaries
of the refinery or a radius of 1 mile; socioeconomic impacts are
likely to be both positive and negative in this community
Socioeconomic impacts are likely to be both positive and negative
in this community
Socioeconomic impacts are likely to be both positive and negative
in this community
Socioeconomic impacts will be positive associated with the
increased economic activity, although these are expected to be
very small relative to state wide socioeconomic indicators
+: Positive Impact; -: Negative Impact; NI: No Impact; NG: Negligible impacts
4.15.2 Construction Alternatives
4.15.2.1 Alternative 2 Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
Under this alternative, the MF£A Nation would not construct or operate the clean fuels refinery.
Although the property would be accepted into trust status, the MF£A Nation would continue to use
the property for agricultural purposes. Land uses at the refinery site would remain the same as
they currently are. Consequently, there would be no local jobs and other economic benefit
generated through construction and operation of the refinery. Also the MF£A Nation would not
earn the $100 million annually over the estimated 20 or more year life of the Project.
4.15.2.2 Alternative 3 No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Implementation of this alternative would result in the same environmental effects as described for
Alternatives 1 and A. The effects would be the same because the refinery would be constructed
and operated as indicated under Alternatives 1 and A. However, if the refinery site is not accepted
into trust by the BIA, the refinery is likely to generate less income for the MHA Nation. One of
August 2009
4-127
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
the main issues would be state fuels taxes. The specific arrangements would be negotiated
between the MHA Nation and the State of North Dakota. If the Tribes and the State reach
agreement the economic benefits of the refinery would be very similar to those described for
Alternatives 1 and A. Consequently, the same disproportionate economic benefits discussed
under Alternatives 1 and A would occur with implementation of this alternative.
4.15.2.3 Alternative 4 Modified Proposed Action
Potential effects to EJ communities for the refinery project under the Modified Proposed Action
would be the same as those described under the Alternatives 1 and A.
4.15.2.4 Alternative 5 No Action
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would not construct or operate the clean fuels refinery.
Land uses at the refinery site would remain the same. Consequently, implementation of this
alternative would have no discernable effects to EJ communities in the affected area.
4.15.3 Effluent Discharge Alternatives
4.15.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge through an NPDES Permit
and Some Storage and Irrigation
With this alternative, surplus treated wastewater would be disposed of through land application to
irrigate crops or discharged through NPDES permitted outfalls. For the same reasons presented
for Alternatives 1 and A, implementation of this alternative would not result in adverse effects to
the EJ communities in the affected area that would be disproportionate relative to the surrounding
area.
4.15.3.2 Alternative C Effluent Discharge to an UIC Well
Under this alternative, all wastewater would be discharged to an UIC well after treatment in the
refinery's water treatment plant. A Class I UIC well permit requires the disposal of water into a
deep aquifer that is of too poor quality to be a source of drinking water. Consequently, the water
disposed in the well would be isolated from all sources or potential sources of drinking water for
the long term. Because the aquifer used for disposal would be completely isolated,
implementation of this alternative would not result in adverse effects to the EJ communities in the
affected area that would be disproportionate relative to the surrounding area.
4.15.3.3 Alternative D No Action
Under this alternative, the MHA Nation would not construct or operate the clean fuels refinery.
No NPDES discharges would occur and land uses at the refinery site would remain the same.
Consequently, implementation of this alternative would have no discernable effects to EJ
communities in the affected area.
4.15.4 Cumulative Impacts
No cumulative impacts were identified for EJ. No reasonably foreseeable actions were identified
that would have effects in the affected area that would overlap in time or space with the direct and
indirect effects discussed above.
4.16 Health and Safety
This section addresses health and safety impacts associated with the proposed MHA Nation
Refinery project. The proposed refinery would be located in a rural setting with the closest
August 2009 4-128 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
community of Makoti approximately two miles away. The types of impacts considered in this
section are those resulting from exposure to chemicals and from accidents caused by working
with equipment related to refinery construction and operation. Other health and safety issues are
also examined, including potential impacts to receptors living off-site.
For all alternatives that involve refinery construction, there is potential for impacts to occur to the
health and safety of people and to the environment during both construction and operation of the
refinery. Impacts associated with construction activities would be comparable to any major
industrial construction project. These impacts would be largely confined to the project site,
although they would also occur at construction sites for storage tanks, pipelines, and transmission
lines and along delivery routes for supplies and equipment. The occurrence of impacts to health
and safety during operations would extend throughout the projected 20 years or more of refinery
operations and, for some impacts, into the time period assumed necessary to decommission the
refinery and reclaim the site.
Health and safety impacts would be largely confined to the project site, but would also occur
along supply routes and at locations where support facilities are operating. In addition, during
refinery operations and decommissioning, chemicals present in emissions to the air from the
project site may migrate downwind, and chemicals in effluents discharged to the environment
may move downgradient from the project site. The current area of influence for these chemical
effects is estimated to be within the project site fence line, and within the refinery process area in
particular, as emissions tend to be less concentrated beyond that point and effluents would be
regulated under the conditions of an effluent discharge permit.
The refinery has been designed to avoid many of the types of exposure that could lead to these
potential impacts and to minimize other types of exposure. Typical refinery-related impacts to
human health may include damage to specific organs or tissues from excessive direct exposure to
hydrocarbons, metals, and other site-related chemicals. Increased risk of specific types of cancer
from long-term exposure to lower concentrations of these chemicals is another potential impact to
human health. Such chronic health impacts are typically caused by repeated and long-term direct
contact with such chemicals. Ecological receptors, such as plants and animals, can be similarly
impacted, although their impacts are typically evaluated at the population level rather than for
individuals (except for threatened, endangered, or other special-status species).
In addition to health impacts, safety concerns are present at the site. Examples of safety issues
include: physical injury from the operation of heavy equipment during construction; exposure to
hazards associated with cleaning of equipment during operation and turnaround maintenance,
such as the steam used for cleaning tanks; and slip/trip/fall hazards around the refinery facility.
These safety issues are similar to those commonly found at other large industrial facilities. Such
safety concerns, as well as many health concerns, could be minimized, because refinery
construction and operation are usually subject to the requirements of OSHA, which establish
protocols to ensure occupational safety and health. It is the MHA Nation's intent to apply OSHA
regulations during construction and operation of the proposed refinery.
The nature and scale of health and safety impacts associated with the proposed MHA Nation
Refinery may be evaluated in a number of ways. EPA typically examines health risk in the
context of increases in the incidence of cancer and non-cancer (or systemic) disease. For risk to
exist or to be increased due to releases of chemicals, there must be a complete pathway between
the source of the contaminant and the human or ecological receptor. Further, once exposed to the
chemical, the receptor must exhibit susceptibility to the chemical by demonstrating one or more
measurable adverse effects (i.e., disease, reduced growth, mortality). Several points of departure
regarding protection of human receptors are described later in this section. Additionally, impacts
to the environment and ecological receptors have generally been discussed in other sections of
August 2009 4-129 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
this document, but the impacts of chemicals on plants and animals, some of which may be
harvested and eaten by people directly or that may be fed to livestock and subsequently consumed
by people, are considered here. Such impacts would be considered significant if they provide an
important exposure route to humans or cause plant or animal populations to decline.
Under the refinery construction alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3, and 4), part of the land would be
used for cultivation of forage to be fed to the MHA Nation buffalo herd. Under Alternatives 2, the
entire parcel would be used for forage production, and the refinery would not be built. Under
Alternatives 5, there would be no change from current use of the land. Under Alternatives 2 and
5, there would be no impacts from new chemicals brought to the site for the refinery; the ongoing
potential for accidents during use of agricultural equipment would be the only health and safety
concern.
A more detailed discussion of potential health and safety concerns is provided in the sections that
follow.
4.16.1 Alternatives 1 and AOriginal Proposed Actions
4.16.1.1 Refinery Emissions and Effluents
During construction, the primary chemicals present on-site would be fuels for construction
vehicles and possibly substances used to minimize airborne particulates. During refinery
operation, the diversity and volume of chemicals that are present on the site would be
considerably greater. Specifically, the refinery chemicals will include large volumes of diverse
hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, butane, crude oil, ethane, gasoline, light and heavy diesel fuel,
gasoline, isobutene, isobutylene, iso-octane, kerosene, methane, naphtha, and propane), small
amounts of metals (e.g., selenium, chromium), and other chemicals (e.g., alcohols, ammonia, CO,
hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, sodium hydroxide, and sulfur dioxide), all of which are
potentially harmful to human health and the environment at certain concentrations.
Refinery Air Emissions and Sources
The MHA Nation proposes to construct and operate a 13,000 BPSD of synthetic crude oil clean
fuels refinery. Additional feedstock for the refinery would include 3,000 BPSD of field butane, 6
MMSCFD of natural gas, and 300 bbl of bio-diesel or 8,500 bushels per day of soybeans. From
the feedstock, the refinery would produce about 5,750 BPSD of diesel fuel, 6,770 BPSD of
gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane.
Table 4-15 provides a summary of the estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions for the
refinery. Total estimated emissions are approximately 207 tons per year, with the largest
estimated quantities consisting of the following: NOx, CO, non-methane-ethane VOCs, SO2, and
PMio and PM25. F£APs estimated to be released include benzene, cyclohexane, ethylbenzene,
formaldehyde, n-hexane, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), toluene, and total xylenes.
According to the air quality technical report (December 2007), all production emission sources at
the proposed refinery are assumed to operate continuously (24 hours/day, 7 days/week and 52
weeks/year). The primary sources of air pollutants include the hydrocracking unit and various
heaters and boilers that serve the refinery's processes and general facility heating requirements.
Other emissions would result from a soybean/oilseed oil extrusion process and a bio-diesel
production process, also included in the proposed project. In addition, an emergency generator
and fire pump would operate periodically for testing and maintenance. Fugitive emissions at the
refinery would include VOC emissions from processes and material handling (e.g., tank farm, rail
August 2009 4-130 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
loading, truck loading), and fugitive dust (PMi0) from vehicle traffic during the construction and
operation phases of the facility.
Refinery Water Effluent and Sources
The refinery would generate three types of wastewater: (1) sanitary wastewater, (2)
uncontaminated (non-oily) wastewater, and (3) process wastewater and potentially contaminated
(oily) stormwater. Under Alternatives 1 and A, each of these streams of wastewater would be
handled separately and receive different levels of treatment.
EPA has developed draft NPDES effluent limits for wastewater discharges anticipated at the
refinery. These limits have been developed based on criteria to protect aquatic life, drinking water
quality, and wildlife. Table 4-2 in this chapter lists the EPA draft effluent limitations for refinery
process wastewater and contaminated (oily) stormwater for the following effluent characteristics:
flow, Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand, oil
and grease, phenolic compounds, several metals, and VOCs. Uncontaminated (non-oily)
stormwater discharges would also be covered under the permitted NPDES outfall.
Other Contaminants Present at the Facility
In addition to those contaminants emitted from the construction and operation of the facility, the
current status and quality of the various environmental media (e.g., surface water, air, and ground
water) are presented in Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Some media at the refinery site are
already impacted by certain contaminants, thereby presenting the potential for additional human
health exposures. Specifically, surface water concentrations of arsenic exceed both the aquatic
and human health criteria in the East Fork of Shell Creek. In addition, other constituents in the
East Fork of Shell Creek are at levels above concentrations typically found in undeveloped areas.
Existing ambient air quality has been monitored for SO2 and PMi0 in an area 25 miles (40
kilometers) south of the project site in White Shield, North Dakota, which is close to most of the
existing emission sources. NO2 has been monitored in Beulah, North Dakota, which is 47 miles
(76 kilometers) south of the project site. While maximum annual average concentrations of SO2
(4.8 (ig/m3), PM10 (11.6 (ig/m3), and NO2 (7.1 (ig/m3) show these pollutants have been detected,
none exceed NAAQS or North Dakota Ambient Air Quality Standards. Ambient background
concentrations of SO2, PMi0, NO2 and CO were all considered in the NAAQS impact analysis
(Table 25, Greystone 2004). For ground water, ten ground water monitoring wells on the project
site were sampled, and quarterly sampling events indicated that all PCBs and pesticides were at
non-detectable levels, RCRA metal concentrations were below MCLs in all samples, and very
low concentrations of some VOCs were detected in some samples, but were non-detectable in
duplicate samples.
4.16.1.2 Fate and Transport of Emissions and Effluents
Air emissions and water discharges from the facility construction and operations would result in
the release of contaminants via air dispersion and deposition and water discharges to the
surrounding environmental media. The fate and transport of each contaminant would likely differ
depending on the specific chemical properties and where the dispersion, deposition, and
discharges occur. This section discusses the air emissions and effluent discharges under both the
construction and operational phases of the facility, and the potential fate and transport in the
various environmental media, including air, water, and soil. Chemical transport properties such as
volatility, solubility and sorption potential are important factors to consider for the fate and
transport into the various media. There would be minimal exposure to chemical hazards other
than dust and heavy equipment emissions during construction. During refinery operation,
however, air and water exposure pathways would be used by a much greater number of
chemicals, as discussed below. Exposure to the chemicals present during operational phases of
August 2009 4-131 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
the project could be through direct contact, or these chemicals could be dispersed to air, water,
and soil resulting in indirect exposures to receptors through the food chain pathway.
Air Pathway
Under the construction phase, the primary emissions would be from mobile sources (vehicles)
and dust generation. Specific contaminants would include CO, NOx and PMi0. This would result
in emissions to the air and likely local dispersion and deposition to the surrounding soil and
surface water. Humans are likely to be exposed via inhalation or incidental ingestion of soil
and/or surface water.
During operations, NOx, CO, SO2, and PMi0/PM25, as well as multiple HAPs (i.e., benzene,
cyclohexane, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, n-hexane, PAHs, toluene, and total xylenes) are
expected to be emitted from the facility. These contaminants are a result of either the combustion
process or products of incomplete combustion and would transport via advection [air movement,
wind] and disperse into the atmosphere. An ambient air quality analysis was conducted using the
ISCST3 model. The results of this analysis indicate that some deposition would occur to the
surrounding soil and surface water, and humans and environmental receptors may be exposed to
low levels of contaminants via the inhalation pathway or incidental ingestion of soil and/or
surface water.
Water Pathway
Construction activities would disturb soils and potentially result in transport of sediment during
precipitation events. This transport could enter nearby drainages or wetlands and cause adverse
effects on surface water quality. Humans can be exposed via incidental contact with surface
water. Construction activities are not expected to impact ground water quality. While there are
potential impacts to soil from inadvertent spills of hazardous materials, protective measures such
as BMPs, required by the Stormwater Construction General NPDES permit, the SWPPP, and the
SPCC plan, would minimize contamination into soils and consequently shallow ground water at
the site. No impacts to water quality in deeper aquifers are anticipated during construction
activities.
During facility operations, all water effluent discharged from the outfalls would meet the
refinery's NPDES permit effluent criteria. Any potential impacts would be a result of water
discharge and oil spills and leaks. Contamination to ground water could result from the
dissolution and mobilization of exposed oil and refined products by precipitation and subsequent
downward migration into the underlying soils. However, design engineering and operating
practices (e.g., spill response plans) would minimize impacts to surface and ground water quality.
Contaminants distributed via air emissions would undergo dispersion and deposition onto local
surface water bodies including Shell Creek and East Fork Shell Creek drainages. If those surface
water bodies are used as sources for drinking water, humans could be exposed via ingestion of
potable water. If there are aquatic species residing in the surface water bodies, then humans could
be exposed via ingestion of contaminated fish. If treated wastewater is used as a source of
irrigation water, it is possible that the irrigated soil, ground water, vegetation, and animals could
subsequently become contaminated. Thus, humans could be exposed via the food chain pathway.
So/7 Pathway
Under the construction phase, the primary emissions would be from mobile sources (vehicles)
and dust generation. This would result in emissions to the air and likely local dispersion and
deposition to the surrounding soil. Humans are likely to be exposed via incidental ingestion of
soil.
August 2009 4-132 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Once emitted during facility operations, contaminants would undergo dispersion and deposition
onto the soil of the facility and surrounding area. Spills and accidents impacting soil may include:
synthetic crude oil, refined petroleum products (e.g., gasoline, diesel), lubricating oils, hydraulic
oils, or sludge contained in storage tanks or equipment. If crops are grown on this soil, it is
possible that both the vegetation and the livestock that feed on this vegetation could uptake the
contaminants. In addition, it is possible that contaminants could infiltrate into the underlying
ground water. Humans could be exposed via incidental soil ingestion, ingestion of the various
food crops or livestock, or ingestion of the ground water.
Food Chain Pathway
As discussed above, there would be some minor releases of chemicals to the environment via air,
water, and soil pathways that would become available for uptake by receptors through the food
chain. EPA completed a quantitative analysis of food chain risks posed by refinery emissions to
determine the potential for adverse effects from these exposures. See the Qualitative and
Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Report for more information. The results
of this analysis indicate that the releases would be greatest within the refinery process area and
the area immediately surrounding the site. Chemicals that are airborne as individual molecules,
adsorbed onto particulates, or absorbed by them can be inhaled by animals in the area influenced
by the site. In addition, these airborne particles can be deposited to soil and surface water both
within and beyond the site boundary. Chemicals that are suspended or dissolved in the water can
be contacted directly by aquatic plants and animals, or ingested as drinking water by terrestrial
animals either on the site or downstream from their point of origin. Such chemicals can also be
deposited in the soil if they drop out of suspension as surface water flow decreases. Once in the
soil, these chemicals can be taken up by plant roots, ingested incidentally by animals as they dig
burrows, take dust baths, or feed on organisms in or covered with soil. Even if the chemicals are
not ingested, they may pass through the moist skin or mucosa of some species, such as
amphibians.
Once within a plant or animal, a chemical may be broken down to harmless components,
excreted, or may remain intact and be stored in tissues such as hair, fat, fingernails, or bone.
Chemicals that are stored in forage plants or prey animals are consumed when the plant or animal
is eaten. Because a given predator typically eats numerous individual prey items, it could receive
multiple doses of stored chemicals. This predator might in turn be eaten by another predator or by
a person. The further up this "eat and be eaten" food chain chemicals move, the more
concentrated they may become. Even at high concentrations, the chemicals may not affect their
host organisms, as long as they are stored in tissue and physiologically unavailable. Alternatively,
impacts to ecological receptors from stored chemicals may occur when the organism goes
through a period of stress and uses up its body fat, releasing its store of chemicals. This may
happen as birds near the end of a long migration, or big game reach the end of a long hard winter.
The risk characterization resulting from the quantitative evaluation of food chain risks (see
Qualitative and Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Report) indicates that
both cancer and non-cancer risks are many times less than the lower end of EPA's target risk
cancer range and target non-cancer hazard index, respectively.
4.16.1.3 Impacts to Human Health and the Environment
Human Receptors
Impacts to human health and the environment posed by Alternatives 1 and A are assumed to
occur during two distinct components of the project: 1) construction, and 2) operation and
maintenance of the clean fuels refinery.
August 2009 4-133 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The MHA Nation intends that all phases of the construction and operation and maintenance of the
clean fuels refinery would be subject to safety and health regulations outlined by the U.S.
Department of Labor, OSHA. OSHA assures the safety and health of workers by setting and
enforcing standards; providing training, outreach, and education; establishing partnerships; and
encouraging continual improvement in workplace safety and health. As such, it is anticipated that
workers involved in refinery construction and operation and maintenance would be protected by
health and safety standards and work practices afforded through OSHA compliance.
Construction Impacts
Construction of the proposed project is expected to result in only temporary impacts to human
health and the environment. As previously mentioned, construction activities may result in risks
to worker health and safety. Compliance with OSHA standards and regulations, however, would
minimize potential impacts to worker health and safety.
Nearby residents would be the most likely human receptors impacted by construction activities.
Construction would begin with the stripping of topsoil, the grading of the refinery site, and the
excavating of foundations and spaces for underground work. The most likely exposure pathway
for off-site residential exposure associated with construction of the proposed project would
include increased exposure to dust, emissions from construction equipment, and any entrained
chemicals associated with windborne dust or surface erosion. Soil erosion from all construction
activities is expected to be minimal, because the proposed project would be constructed following
standard practices and permit conditions to control wind erosion by limiting the removal of
vegetation, avoiding construction on steep and erosive slopes, revegetating or covering any
topsoil that was removed and stockpiled, surfacing roads, and reclaiming areas in a timely
manner. In addition, active construction sites would be watered, as necessary (except during
periods of rain), to minimize the potential for wind erosion.
Increased vehicular traffic associated with construction of the clean fuels refinery under
Alternative 1 is also a potential factor that could impact human health. The primary impacts to
human health are a minimal increase in daily traffic, specifically heavy equipment and truck
traffic, and an associated increase in risk of accidents during construction of the refinery. The
addition of traffic control lights and nighttime lighting would help minimize the potential for
increases in accidents.
Operation and Maintenance Impacts
During the operation and maintenance phase of the proposed clean fuels refinery, releases of
various chemicals and hazardous materials during refinery operations are the most significant
concern for impacts to human health. The proposed refinery would use a number of hazardous
materials at the site to manufacture clean fuels. Transporting, handling, storing, and disposing of
chemicals and hazardous materials inherently pose a risk of a release to soil, ground water, air,
surface water, and sediment. In addition, air emissions generated during refinery operations
associated with making clean fuels are a source of potential adverse impacts to human health.
Finally, secondary release mechanisms (e.g., plant uptake of contaminants from soil impacted by
air deposition) are also of concern, which also may be irrigated using water from refinery
operations under Effluent Discharge Alternative B.
The following sections discuss potential impacts to human health due to potential releases from
the refinery of hazardous constituents by various mechanisms. Because limited data are available,
quantitative evaluations of the risks posed to human health by release of hazardous constituents
are only addressed for direct or indirect exposure to air emissions from refinery operations. A
qualitative discussion is provided for other release mechanisms.
August 2009 4-134 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Transportation
Increased vehicular traffic associated with operation of the clean fuels refinery under Alternative
1 would be a potential factor that could impact human health. The primary impacts to human
health relate to increases in daily traffic, specifically heavy equipment and truck traffic, and an
associated increase in risk of accidents. These and related issues have been discussed earlier in
this chapter.
On Site Releases
Various chemicals, synthetic crude oil, and refined products would be stored at the refinery
facility in aboveground storage tanks, containers, or drums. The movement and storage of
synthetic crude oil and processed product within the tank farm, processing area, and product
loading area is part of the complex bulk product distribution, refining, and storage system on the
refinery. The complexity of the refining process and amount of stored oil, product, and chemicals
moving through the system provides opportunities for accidents, spills, leaks, and losses from
simple volatilization.
Petroleum products may be released to the environment as managed releases, or as unintended
by-products of industrial, commercial, or private actions or accidents. Spills could also occur
from corrosion of containers, piping, and process equipment; and leaks from seals or gaskets at
pumps and flanges. The overall spill hazards associated with the handling and transport of
processed fuel oils at the MHA Nation Refinery are expected to occur less than at refineries using
older technologies. It is anticipated that if a spill occurred, it would be either a human or a
mechanical error.
Most spills would likely involve either crude or bulk fuels (e.g., distillates), such as fuel oils.
Consistent national statistics regarding type and magnitude of release are lacking for many stages
in the overall oil refining and distribution system. The main exceptions involve larger leaks and
spills, especially those in coastal areas or on larger rivers and streams.
Soil contamination could occur during the construction and operation of the refinery.
Contaminated soils would typically include natural materials such as soils, subsoils, overburden,
or gravel that have been contaminated with synthetic crude oil; refined petroleum products, such
as gasoline and diesel fuels; lubricating oils; and hydraulic oils or sludge contained in storage
tanks or equipment. The immediate potential effect would be direct contamination of the soil,
which could result from the release of fuels and oil at the refinery site and along the pipeline
corridor, or from accidents during delivery of product. The anticipated causes of spills on land
could include traffic accidents, operational errors, corrosion, mechanical failures, and vandalism.
In general, oil or petroleum product dumped or spilled onto soils can saturate the soil matrix. This
type of concentrated contamination can be problematic to remediate. If oil or petroleum product
is introduced at any depth within the soil matrix, natural weather and biodegradation processes
can be rendered less effective and the chances may increase that some of the oil or petroleum
product may contaminate ground water, if present. Because many oil or petroleum product
components have densities lower than or close to that of water, the lighter non-aqueous phase
liquids (LNAPLs) generally pose less potential for ground water pollution than most chlorinated
solvents (e.g., PCBs or TCE), which are denser than water (denser non-aqueous phase liquids
[DNAPLs]) and are found at numerous industrial sites.
Ground water resources in proximity to the refinery could be affected by leaks and spills,
particularly if a spill occurred directly above or close to shallow underlying ground water.
Adverse impacts to drinking water quality of individual well users and public supply systems are
August 2009 4-135 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
not anticipated under this alternative and are discussed further in the Ground Water section of this
chapter.
The Town of Plaza uses a well completed in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer located
approximately four miles from the refinery site. Impacts to the Fox Hills-Hell Creek aquifer in
terms of water quality would be insignificant due to its great depth and hydraulic isolation from
the shallow aquifers. Residents of Plaza use two additional ground water wells to meet the
demand during high usage periods. These wells are completed at depths of 88 and 91 feet in
Coleharbor Formation and are located approximately five miles northwest of the refinery.
Impacts to water quality are expected to be negligible due to the low hydraulic conductivity of
overlying soils and distance from the refinery property.
Residents of Makoti obtain water from two ground water wells completed in the Vang aquifer
(buried valley aquifer) at depths of 22 and 41 feet. These wells are located approximately five
miles northeast of the project site. Impacts to water quality are expected to be negligible due to
the distance of these wells from the refinery site, the limited local extent of these aquifers, the low
hydraulic conductivity of the overlying soils, and the existing degraded water quality in this
formation.
The majority of the domestic wells used by individuals in the vicinity of the refinery are
completed in surficial deposits, primarily the till. Six residences are located within one mile of the
project area. Wells for two of these residences include the O well just north of Highway 23 and
the S well located south of the proposed refinery property. Wells are completed at depths of
103 and 189 feet and the water has a brownish-red appearance with high TDS values. These
residences haul in water for drinking and use the well water solely for cattle and horses. There are
two water wells located at the east side of the property at the farm house. Neither of these wells is
currently used, nor are they anticipated to be used in the future. Impacts to water well quality in
the shallow till and buried valley aquifers from project discharges are not anticipated, primarily
because all the discharged water would be of better quality (i.e., meeting the NPDES
requirements) than the formation water in the shallow aquifers. Additionally, low volume of
discharges and low hydraulic conductivity of the overlying till material would minimize the
infiltration rates and volumes. As described earlier, potential impacts to shallow ground water
might occur as a result of inadvertent spills or leaks, although protective measures, as provided in
the SPCC plan, the SWPPP, and application of BMPs, would minimize introduction of undesired
substances into soils and consequently into shallow ground water.
Treated Wastewater and Stormwater Discharges
The stream of wastewater containing hazardous constituents would consist of process wastewater
that is collected from process units directly and potentially contaminated (oily) Stormwater
collected from the process area, product loading area, and tank farm. All process wastewater
would be routed to the WWTU for treatment. There would be no direct discharge of untreated
process wastewater to surface waters. Because all contaminated wastewater and Stormwater
would be treated prior to discharge under the NPDES Permit, the effects on surface water quality
would be minimal. As a result, the impacts on human health of discharged treated wastewater and
Stormwater from the proposed refinery are expected to be negligible.
Air Emissions
Impacts to ambient air quality were evaluated using existing monitoring data available for the
Reservation and surrounding areas, projections of criteria and HAP emissions from the refinery,
and air quality modeling. Existing air quality data are summarized in the Air Quality Section of
this chapter. The air quality modeling overlaid projected emissions on existing conditions and
quantitatively estimated the potential near-field and far-field effects. Near-field effects are those
August 2009 4-136 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
that occur within a 10-km radius of the project, and far-field effects are those that occur at the
Class I areas described in Chapter 3. The modeling was built on recent modeling done by EPA for
PSD purposes in North Dakota. It included analyses that compared concentrations of criteria air
pollutants with the NAAQS, the Class I or Class II increments, and AQRV. The modeling also
included an analysis that compared concentrations of HAPs with risk based concentrations for the
inhalation pathway.
Refinery Air Emissions
The primary sources of air pollutants (criteria and hazardous) would be the various heaters and
boilers that serve the refinery's processes and general facility heating requirements. A
soybean/oilseed oil extrusion process and a bio-diesel production process would also be included.
The air quality technical report (December 2007) provides a detailed discussion of the sources of
air pollutants evaluated in the air quality analysis and the processing and modeling of the
emissions data.
The cumulative effects analysis contained in the air quality technical report (December 2007)
evaluated the potential effects of the refinery on regional air quality. Criteria pollutant
background concentration data were also used to assess these impacts. The cumulative effects
modeling analyses demonstrated that the refinery would have negligible impacts on the quality of
air. The air quality technical report (December 2007) provides a detailed discussion of the
cumulative effects analysis, including the inputs for the modeling and resulting outputs.
Under the proposed alternatives, the MHA Nation would construct and operate the clean fuels
refinery. Table 4-15 provides a summary of the estimated annual criteria pollutant emissions for
the refinery. These criteria pollutants include NOx, CO, VOCs, SO2, PMi0 and PM2 5.
EPA has established NAAQS for ozone, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, PM25, and airborne lead. These
standards were developed to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
The NAAQS and State of North Dakota's ambient air quality standards are presented in Chapter
3 in Table 3-15. These are the regulatory limits that concentrations of pollutants must not exceed
during the specific averaging period for an area to be considered in attainment for air quality. The
modeled results showed the potential emissions of criteria pollutants from the refinery are below
all NAAQS.
EPA has also established increment standards for both Class I and Class II areas. These increment
standards were developed to restrict deterioration of air quality for SO2, NO2, and PMi0 and are
presented in Chapter 3 in Table 3-16. The maximum modeled emissions did not exceed the
increment standards for either the Class I (Table 4-20 and Table 4-21) or Class II areas (Table
4-17).
Based on air emission modeling for the proposed refinery, Table 4-22, presented earlier in this
chapter, summarizes the estimated maximum HAP ambient concentrations in micrograms per
cubic meter (jig/m3) of air. The results of HAP ambient impact modeling and current health-based
inhalation risk estimates are shown in the Clean Fuels Refinery Site-Specific Air Emissions
Modeling section of this chapter.
The treated wastewater discharges associated with Alternative A would have no effect on air
quality. The discharge of effluent to surface water or ground water does not involve any of the
components of the refinery that would affect air quality emissions.
August 2009 4-137 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Regional Air Emissions
The power plants located near Beulah, North Dakota, roads, and agriculture are the main sources
of air quality impacts in the airshed surrounding the proposed petroleum refinery. As
demonstrated in the modeling analysis and the Class 1 and II area air quality analysis, the refinery
would have negligible impacts on cumulative air quality within the surrounding airshed. No
significant changes are anticipated in the area regarding the air emissions from roads and
agricultural practices. Emissions from the power plants around Beulah are anticipated to be
reduced over time as one power plant has announced plans to modernize pollution equipment.
However, there are several new sources of air pollution in the airshed surrounding the proposed
petroleum refinery that are in the planning stages including a new power plant and an ethanol
plant.
Livestock Grazing and Forage Production
The area surrounding the site is used extensively for agriculture purposes, and approximately 279
acres of the site would be used to produce buffalo forage. Air modeling results indicate that the
area of maximum emissions deposition would be at or near the proposed project fence line and
within the refinery process area in particular. These results suggest that small amounts of the
emissions may be deposited on the forage crops and fields in the immediate vicinity of the
refinery. In addition, the crops on the trust land may be irrigated with wastewater from the
proposed refinery under Effluent Alternative B. As a result of direct contact or plant uptake,
forage crops may be an indirect mechanism for exposing human receptors to chemical and
hazardous constituents emitted from the refinery.
Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation of Human Health Risks Posed By
Air Emissions
Petroleum refineries produce a variety of air emissions, with the types and amounts varying due
to the process operations, controls and feedstock. Common air emissions from a petroleum
refinery include hazardous emissions, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, VOCs; and
criteria emissions such as NOx, SO2, CO, and PM. There can be adverse health effects associated
with excessive exposure to hazardous and criteria pollutants, such as cancer, respiratory irritation,
and damage to the nervous system. These potential hazards associated with refineries have
resulted in increased concerns for residents of communities located in close proximity of
refineries. The following sections further discuss potential adverse health effects associated with
petroleum refineries. Additional information is contained in the Qualitative and Quantitative
Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Report on the CD-ROM enclosed with this FEIS.
4.16.1.4 History of Health Risks Posed By Refineries
History of Risks Posed By Refinery Air Emissions
The last major refinery built in the U.S. was in 1976. All existing refineries have had to modify
existing facilities to meet new environmental regulations specific for refining commencing in the
early 1980s. Process equipment to be used by the proposed refinery has been designed in order to
meet specific regulatory requirements, and control equipment has been improved to substantially
remove more emissions than was previously possible with older technology. The proposed MHA
Nation Refinery would have the advantage of being able to utilize these modern processing and
controls in meeting regulatory requirements and minimizing effects to nearby communities and
the environment. The facility would also be refining synthetic crude that has already been
partially refined in Canada.
Petroleum refineries in the U. S. have reduced criteria emissions by 77 percent between 1970 and
1997 (American Petroleum Institute 2005). Since 1970, CO and SO2 emissions from petroleum
August 2009 4-138 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
refineries and related facilities have declined by 85 percent and more than 63 percent,
respectively, since 1970. During this same period, NOx and VOCs declined by more than 50
percent. Hazardous emissions from petroleum refineries have declined by similar amounts.
Releases dropped by 34 percent between 1988 and 1997, with benzene levels dropping by 51
percent (American Petroleum Institute 2005). According to EPA's Toxic Releases Inventory
Program, petroleum refineries account for approximately 3 percent of all of the nation's toxics
releases (American Petroleum Institute 2005). These reductions are associated with the use of
innovative technologies and a continual movement toward further reductions. The use of state-of-
the-art control technologies by new refineries would allow these facilities to operate with
significantly reduced emissions as compared to older refineries.
The ATSDR has performed several public health assessment studies addressing impacts to human
health and the environment related to oil refineries. Most of these studies involved closed
facilities with limited historical air emissions data available, although the ATSDR has completed
some focused studies on operating refineries for specific types of releases. Most of the studies on
closed facilities indicated inconclusive results regarding historical health impacts, and various
interest groups have highlighted the lack of information regarding the combined human health
effects of the mixtures of chemicals released from refineries.
In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress mandated that the EPA carry out a human health risk
and adverse environmental effects-based "needs test." This is referred to as the residual risk
standard setting, a phase in which the EPA would consider the need for additional standards
following regulation under section 112(d) of the CAA to protect public health and the
environment. The EPA assesses the risks from stationary sources that emit air toxics after
technology-based (maximum available control technology [MACT]) standards are in place. For
the refinery industry, EPA has initiated a study of human health risk; however, the residual risk
review has not been completed.
The EPA studied 155 U.S. refineries to assess potential cancer risks from air releases based on
available information (Shaver 2003). The majority of the 155 refineries fell between the one in
one-million (1x10-6) and one in ten-thousand (1x10-4) excess lifetime cancer risk range. As
discussed in the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (55 Federal Register 8666, March 8, 1990),
EPA's human health risk reduction goal and target risk range is to:
"reduce the threat from carcinogenic contaminants such, that for any medium, the
excess risk of cancer to an individual exposed over a lifetime generally falls
within a range 10-6, in other words, an exposed individual would have an
estimated upper bound excess probability of developing cancer from one in one-
million, to 10-4, or an exposed individual would have an estimated upper bound
excess probability of developing cancer from one in ten-thousand."
Approximately 10 of the 155 refineries exceeded 1x10-4, meaning there is one chance in ten-
thousand of an additional cancer event occurring. Between 6 and 12 refineries of the 155
refineries were below 1x10-6, meaning there is one chance in one-million of an excess cancer
event occurring (Walker 2002).
Based on EPA's target risk range information, most refineries appear to fall into a risk level
between one in one-million (1x10-6) and one in one-hundred-thousand (1x10-5) for cancer risk.
The majority of the cancer risks are attributable to very few compounds, with benzene being the
main risk "driver," the inhalation pathway being the main means of exposure, and fugitive
emissions (as opposed to stack emissions) being the dominant source of exposure (Walker 2002).
There appears to be little correlation between process unit and risk. The main risk factor was
found to be the proximity of a person to the emission source(s) (Walker 2002). It should be noted
August 2009 4-139 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
that the results shown above are preliminary, and additional data are needed for better
assessments. A determination as to the need for any additional public health-based amendments
for petroleum refining would be made once the EPA completes the residual risk review for
petroleum refineries. The proposed MHA Nation refinery would be designed to comply with
applicable MACT and associated health-based amendments.
Ponca City, Oklahoma Air Toxics Assessment
The Air Quality Division of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ)
conducted an assessment of the air toxic risk in Ponca City, Kay County, Oklahoma, in 2002
(Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 2004). The purpose of the study was to
examine the accuracy of the National Air Toxics Assessment, which had indicated unusually high
risk in Kay County. Ponca City has an existing oil refinery (about 10 times larger than the
proposed refinery). A 20-kilometer square area was selected for analysis, which included all the
major sources of air pollution in the immediate area.
The risk assessment was based on the following:
> 20 km squared study area
> Focus on VOCs and not semi-volatiles, particulates or metals
> Model inhalation risk only
> Exclusion of mobile and area sources
Most of the total volatile organic emissions were attributed to three industrial facilities in the
assessment area:
> Petroleum refinery (187,000 bbl per day, 54 sources representing 1,535 tons/year)
> Petroleum tank farm (159 sources, 492 tons/year)
> Carbon black plant (15 sources, 200 tons/year)
Modeling was conducted as per the Regional Air Impact Modeling Initiative. The conclusion of
the risk modeling was that there was no significant increased lifetime cancer risk from the volatile
organic air toxics in the Ponca City area. The model predicted increased lifetime cancer risks in
the range of one in one-hundred-thousand (1x10-5) to one in one-million (1x10-6) immediately
next to the refinery.
Estimated volatile organic emissions from the MHA Nation Refinery would be about 40 tons per
year, which is significantly less than the total volatile organic emissions from the three industrial
sources in the Ponca City study (2,042 tons/year). In a general comparison, similar modeling of
the MHA Nation Refinery would be expected to demonstrate similar results no significant
increased lifetime cancer risk from volatile air emissions. The terrain in the area of the Ponca City
Refinery is similar (gently rolling prairie) to that of the MHA Nation Refinery, but with a higher
number of adjacent and area human inhabitants.
ATSDR Review of the Literature on Adverse Health Effects Observed in
Communities Living Near an Oil Refinery
ATSDR conducted a literature review in response to a request by EPA to assist in the evaluation
of potential health effects to the local community from the presence of the proposed MHA Clean
Fuels Refinery. The literature review targeted information pertaining to health of residents living
near an existing oil refinery. The goal of the review was to identify references and information
August 2009 4-140 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
not already cited in the DEIS; detailed review and analysis of each reference was not provided.
The search for additional literature was assisted by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) Library Resources. Searches were performed of the National Library of Medicine's
PubMed database, and experts in air quality were contacted as additional sources.
The review of newly acquired scientific articles on health studies of communities near oil
refineries revealed that the oil refineries under study were operating with old technology that was
not comparable to the newer technology of clean refineries. None of the existing oil refineries for
which health studies had been performed were using the new clean technology. Because the
newer clean refinery technology is designed to greatly reduce emissions of chemicals to the local
environment compared to the existing old technology, exposures related to the old technologies
do not adequately represent the potential exposures the might result from the newer clean
technologies. For this reason, ATSDR concluded that the outcomes of the existing health studies
were not applicable to technological processes at the proposed MHA Clean Fuels Refinery.
Because of the lack of applicability, detailed review and analysis of the results of the existing
health studies were not presented.
Researchers and experts in air quality and adverse health effects associated with refineries were
also contacted to solicit information on chemicals the might be emitted by oil refineries. These
contacts shared industry-specific reports for projects in western Canada during the years 2001-
2006 and identified chemicals and compounds present in the oil industry that might be related to
cancer risk. The chemicals selected were detected at multiple Canadian oil refineries that had
recently evaluated the environmental and human health impacts of expansion and technical
upgrades. The list of chemicals is included in the "ATSDR Literature Review and Summary of
Potential Adverse Health Effects Associated with Living near and/or Working at an Oil
Refinery", which is appended to this EIS in Appendix D. Chemicals are identified by class,
including criteria air contaminants, such as CO, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide; VOCs, such
as the compounds found in gasoline; and poly cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Reviews of each of
the major chemicals within these groups are included, covering their toxicity and potential
adverse health effects to humans.
ATSDR Baseline Health Assessment of Asthma and Cancer for the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation
ATSDR compiled statistics on the present incidence of select cancers at the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation that will serve as baseline statistics for the population. Any future data collected after
oil refinery operations can be compared with this baseline data. The North Dakota Health
Department was contacted to acquire statistics on the current incidence of cancer for McLean,
Mountrail, and Ward counties. Because the scientific literature on occupational studies of workers
who have been exposed to high levels of oil or gasoline has indicated an increased incidence of
cancers of the kidney and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, these cancers served as the focus of the
review. The reported age-adjusted average annual cancer incidence (per 100,000 population) for
kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in McLean, Mountrail, and Ward counties, North
Dakota, between the years 1997-2004 were compiled. The reported incidence of these cancers
among persons living in these three counties was found to be similar to the rates for all persons
living in North Dakota. ATSDR concluded that because of the small population size in each of
these three counties, the ability to statistically detect changes in cancer rates over time would be
difficult.
The local IHS that provides healthcare to American Indians living on the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation was contacted for information on asthma prevalence. Only American Indians were
included in the statistics; non-American Indians in outlying communities who could be exposed
to chemicals released into the air but who would report to a different health care facility were not
August 2009 4-141 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
included in these statistics. Baseline incidence data on asthma for the population served by the
IHS was compiled.
The North Dakota Health Department was also contacted to acquire baseline data on the
prevalence of asthma among adults and children in North Dakota; data were not available on a
county-wide basis. Data on the prevalence of asthma was based on self-reporting. Between 2001
and 2005, the prevalence rate of lifetime asthma among North Dakota adults was found to range
between 9.1 percent and 11.1 percent. In 2005, the lifetime asthma prevalence rate among
children in North Dakota ranged between 7.8 percent and 11.6 percent. The prevalence rates for
adults in North Dakota were similar to the US and American Indian prevalence rates during the
same period. ATSDR concluded that assessing asthma prevalence rates on a state-wide basis
would hinder the statistical detection of changes in asthma incidence at the county-level. This
conclusion suggests that subtle changes in asthma incidence in the study counties over time might
not be detectable. The complete results of the Baseline Health Assessment are in the ATSDR
Technical Report on the enclosed CD-ROM.
Refinery Employees Health Risk
Employees of the refinery would be exposed to more air emissions and hazardous chemicals than
the general public, because of their proximity to chemicals and potential exposures during
refinery operations. Six toxicological studies are discussed below regarding refinery worker
health. There are limitations of these studies for use as a direct comparison because of numerous
factors including: age of technology employed at studied facilities and use of clean fuels refinery
tending to emit fewer contaminants.
A study of mortality among oil refinery and petrochemical employees was conducted for a group
of 3,803 persons employed at the Norco Manufacturing Complex, a refinery/petrochemical
manufacturing complex near New Orleans, Louisiana, for at least six months between January 1,
1973 and January 1, 1994, and retirees who were actively employed at the facility on January 1,
1973. Mortality from all causes including all cancers, heart disease, nonmalignant respiratory
diseases, and liver cirrhosis was significantly decreased in the group regardless of the reference
population used. The authors concluded that the decreased mortality rates found in the group
probably reflects the healthy worker effect, relatively low workplace related risks, and the many
benefits associated with continuing employment including greater access to health care (Tsai et
al. 1997).
A long-term study investigated the possibility of increased death (mortality) among a group of
12,526 white male oil refinery workers over a 41-year period. The mean ages at time of death for
this group were 53, 57, and 74 years of age, respectively, for active, terminated, and retired
workers. This seems to indicate active workers are dying at an earlier age. However, the number
of deaths within each group was not statistically increased. The Standardized Mortality Ratio
(SMR) is a value that is used as an indicator that the number of deaths within a population of
workers is normal or unusually high (due to work-related accidents, health problems, etc.).
Simply put, the SMR compares the number of deaths that have occurred in a worker population
(study group) to the number of expected deaths based on the general population (control group).
Because each age group in a large population has a different rate of death, SMRs are usually
reported as age adjusted. An SMR of 1.0 indicates there is no increase in mortality (number of
deaths in the worker population is exactly the expected number). Likewise, an SMR greater than
1.0 indicates the number of deaths was higher than expected and an SMR lower than 1.0 indicates
that the number of deaths was fewer than expected. In the group of oil refinery workers, the
SMRs for all causes of death were 0.68, 1.04, and 0.89 for the three age groups noted above. The
SMRs due to deaths from all types of cancer for this same group of workers was 0.85, 0.98, and
1.05. These SMRs indicate the death rate was not increased for either all causes of death or for
August 2009 4-142 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
deaths specifically due to cancer for any of the three age groups. It was noted that the SMR was
actually decreased for active and terminated workers. However, this may simply reflect that the
control group does not accurately represent or match the worker group (since the number of
observed deaths should not be significantly lower than the number of expected deaths).
Nevertheless, deaths from specific medical causes such as cerebrovascular, arteriosclerotic, and
nonmalignant respiratory causes were lower in the worker group. Early retirees also showed
excess deaths from nervous and sense organ diseases. Terminated workers showed varying
degrees of higher SMRs than the active workers did for all categories except stomach cancer and
cerebrovascular and arteriosclerotic heart disease (Wen et al. 1984).
The third study was an epidemiological study, which was conducted on workers in three major
U.S. oil refineries and chemical facilities. The group consisted of 21,698 workers. No geographic
site group showed consistently different rates for all major causes of death. Kidney cancer was
the only cause of death whose rate was higher among workers than for the U.S. population.
Mortality rates for potentially exposed workers were slightly higher than those for unexposed
workers (Hanis et al. 1985).
In the fourth study, the brain cancer mortality rate in refinery and petrochemical workers was
investigated. The study population consisted of 8,666 persons employed at a facility located in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, for at least one month between January 1, 1970 and December 31, 1977,
and retirees who were alive on January 1, 1970. The authors noted that because of the small
number of cases and the multiplicity of exposures experienced at the facility, a relationship
between worksite exposures and brain cancer could not be established. The only conclusion that
can be drawn from the study was that an excess mortality from brain cancer has not occurred
when compared with the general U.S. population (Hanis et al. 1982).
To determine the risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in petroleum workers, groups of petroleum
workers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Italy, and Finland were
identified. The combined multinational group consisted of more than 308,000 workers, and the
observation period covered an interval of 60 years from 1937 to 1996. Results from individual
studies, as well as from the pooled analysis, indicated that petroleum workers were not at an
increased risk because of their exposure to benzene or benzene-containing petroleum products in
their work environment (Wong and Raabe 2000).
The sixth report evaluated worker health data for exposure to gasoline in a variety of occupations.
A discussion was presented of animal and human studies implicating gasoline as a carcinogen.
Gasoline contained 30 to 40 percent aromatic carcinogens, primarily benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, and xylene. Human exposures occurred in gasoline production, transport and
dispensing. Skin contact, accidental ingestion and vapor inhalation were primary exposure routes.
Vapor intoxication produced neurological effects and liver and kidney damage. Mortality studies
of members of the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union in Texas and of its
members in Texas refineries showed increased rates of cancers of the digestive organs and
peritoneum, respiratory systems, skin, stomach, pancreas, prostate, brain, and hematopoietic and
lymphatic systems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified gasoline as a
possible human carcinogen, and the EPA classified it as a probable human carcinogen. The author
suggests that gasoline be considered a Class 1A carcinogen, that benzene limits in gasoline be
reduced from current levels (2.5 to 5 percent) to 1A percent and that stage-II controls for gasoline
vapor recovery in public gasoline pumps be implemented in all states (Mehlman 1990).
The numerous studies performed on workers in the petrochemical industry because of the
potential for adverse impacts results, when taken as a whole, do not suggest clearly identifiable
impacts to workers.
August 2009 4-143 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.16.1.5 Clean Fuels Refinery Site- Specific Air Emissions Modeling
A hazardous and criteria ambient air impact analysis was performed for the proposed refinery.
Modeling methodology and results are described in detail in the air quality technical report
(December 2007) and briefly summarized below.
Criteria Pollutants Emission Modeling
Criteria emission prediction modeling was conducted for NO2, CO, SO2, ozone, PM25, and PMi0.
Modeled maximum ambient air impacts were compared with EPA established NAAQS for these
parameters. Background concentration data were also used to assess these impacts. Table 4-15
summarizes the modeling results. In general, modeled impacts together with background
concentrations represented about 5 to 39 percent of NAAQS. No direct correlation to human
health impacts was assessed.
Hazardous Pollutants Emission Modeling
Hazardous emission modeling was conducted to determine human health impacts resulting from
inhalation and was conducted for the following parameters:
> Benzene
> Cyclohexane
> Ethylbenzene
> Formaldehyde
> Hexane (-n)
> Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
> Toluene
> Xylene
These are common parameters that are typically found in air emissions from petroleum refineries.
Table 4-27 presents the results of the HAP ambient impact modeling and current health-based
inhalation risk estimates. Modeling was conducted to assess non-carcinogenic health effects of
substances (chronic reference concentration [RfC]) and cancer unit risk. The first three columns
of this table show the estimated impacts from dispersion modeling. The fourth and sixth columns
present the federal risk estimates that are used to determine the significance of the impacts. The
fifth column presents the Unit Risk value. This value shows the estimated probability of cancer
risk, from inhalation, for an ambient concentration of 1.0 microgram per cubic meter (ug/m3) of
the corresponding HAP. The value in the sixth column is a conversion of the Unit Risk value that
represents the ambient concentration that would result in an estimated probability of cancer
incidence, from inhalation, of one in one-million (1x10-6).
Because the hazardous emissions are correlated to chronic health effects (i.e., long-term
exposure), only the estimated annual concentrations need to be assessed. Both the RfC and Unit
Risk are related to lifetime exposure to a hazardous emission; therefore, assessing a one-year
average concentration against these criteria is a conservative estimate of exposure over a lifetime.
As Table 4-27 shows, the estimated ambient impacts are below the federal risk based
concentrations.
Chronic Reference Concentration
In general, the RfC is an estimate of a continuous inhalation exposure for a chronic duration (up
to a lifetime) to the human population (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be
August 2009 4-144 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects. The inhalation RfC considers toxic effects
for both the respiratory system and peripheral to the respiratory system. The RfC values are
chemical-specific, with a lower RfC value implying a greater toxicity of the substance. As an
example, benzene with a RfC concentration of 30 (ig/m3 would have a higher toxicity than
cyclohexane with a RfC value of 6,000 (ig/m3.
Table 4-27 Hazardous Air Pollutant Ambient Impact Analysis Results
Unit Risk2
RfC1 (excess cancer l:lE+6Risk
Estimated Ambient (non-cancer risk per 1.0 Cone.3
Concentrations (ug/m3) risk) ug/m3) (cancer risk) Risk Estimate
HAP
Benzene
Cyclohexane
Ethylbenzene
Formaldehyde
Hexane (-n)
PAH4
Toluene
Xylene
1-Hour
4.04E-01
3.05E-01
2.38E-03
4.36E-01
3.50E-02
6.22E-02
1.52E-01
1.06E-01
24-Hour
8.77E-02
6.63E-02
5.20E-04
1.34E-02
7.60E-03
4.80E-04
3.37E-03
1.59E-03
Annual
1.32E-02
9.91E-03
8.00E-05
1.81E-03
1.14E-03
5.00E-05
6.00E-04
2.70E-04
(ug/m3)
30
6,000
1.000
-
700
5,000
100
(ug/m3)-1
2.20E-06
-
-
1.30E-05
1.10E-03
-
-
(Ug/m3)
4.55E-01
-
-
7.69E-02
9.09E-04
-
-
Source5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
Notes:
1. Chronic Reference Concentration (RfC): An estimate of a continuous inhalation exposure for a chronic duration (up to a lifetime) to the
human population (including susceptible subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse health effects over a
lifetime.
2. Unit Risk: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an agent at a concentration of 1
3. Unit risk value converted to a concentration that may cause 1 incident per 1,000,000 people exposed.
4. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
5. Risk Estimate Sources:
1. USEPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/ ; and
2. California OEHHA/ARB Approved Risk Assessment Health Values
_ (http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm)
The RfC concentration values for specific chemical parameters established by EPA and the
California EPA's Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA)/Air Resources
Board (ARE) (Table 4-22) are compared directly to the estimated annual concentrations resulting
from the proposed refinery's hazardous emission modeling. The predicted annual ambient
concentrations in (ig/m3 are significantly (3 to 8 orders of magnitude) lower than the RfC values
for the listed parameters.
Unit Risk
Unit risk is defined as the lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to a
cancer-causing agent at a concentration of 1 (ig/m3. The Unit risk is converted to a comparable
concentration that may result in 1 incident of cancer for every 1,000,000 people exposed. The
calculation is as follows:
(I/Unit Risk ((ig/m3)-l)/l,000,000 = 1:1,000,000 Risk Concentration ((ig/m3)
Comparing the estimated annual concentrations to the 1:1,000,000 risk concentrations shows that
the estimated annual concentrations are below the 1:1,000,000 risk concentrations for cancer
(Table 4-22). A 1:1,000,000 risk concentration means that there is one chance in 1,000,000 of an
additional person developing cancer due to exposure to the parameter(s) being assessed.
August 2009
4-145
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Human Health Air Impact Analysis Conclusions
Rationale for the position that the proposed refinery would not have significant adverse effects on
the human health of the local and area communities include the following:
> The production volume (13,000 BPSD) of the proposed refinery is considered small in
comparison to most other refineries in the U. S. The amount of emissions generated and
discharged would be correspondingly less than what is typically produced from larger
refineries.
> The refinery's primary feedstock would be synthetic crude, which has been upgraded
(i.e., hydrotreated) prior to delivery to the refinery. This advanced treatment would
remove contaminants from the crude that would reduce the potential for emissions
further downstream in the refinery process. Contaminants that would be removed
include sulfur, nitrogen, most metals, and various hazardous organic compounds.
> The refinery process would not include a fluidized catalytic cracking unit, which is the
largest air-emitting unit in most refineries.
> The refinery process would not use an alkylation unit that utilizes either hydrofluoric
acid or sulfuric acid. Such units are potential sources of hazardous chemical releases.
> Elevated flares would only be used for disposal of gases released during emergencies.
> Natural gas and fuel gases would be used for the refinery's boilers and heaters, with no
use of fuel oils. Combustion of natural gases and fuel gases would result in lower
emissions than that of fuel oil combustion.
> The refinery would use a highly efficient sulfur removal unit to remove sulfur from fuel
gas burned in the refinery's process heaters.
> Ultra-low NOx burners would be used for control of NOx emissions from the refinery's
boilers and heaters.
> Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) would also be used for control of NOx emissions in
the refinery.
> Ammonia emissions from the SCR-equipped process heaters would be minimized.
> Floating roofs would be used on selected hydrocarbon liquid storage tanks (e.g.,
gasoline) for the control of VOCs.
> The refinery would utilize a stringent program for preventing VOC emissions by
monitoring, detecting and repairing leaks in equipment such as valves and pumps.
> A vapor recovery system would be used to minimize the loss of VOCs from the tank
farm, rail and truck loading docks, and the WWTP. This system would consist of
floating roof(s), spherical and bullet storage tanks in the tank farm, and a separate pipe
loop that would collect vapors at each tank, loading spot and the WWTP. Vapors
collected by the system would be compressed, air cooled and returned to the process for
recovery. This vapor recovery system would minimize fugitive emissions of VOCs
from the refinery.
> Standard operating procedures would be developed and utilized in order to ensure
consistent and effective operation of refining process equipment and control equipment.
This would help to ensure emissions are controlled to the maximum degree possible, as
dictated by the equipment design.
> The Ponca City assessment of air emissions risk conducted by ODEQ concluded that
there was no significant increased lifetime cancer risk from volatile organic emissions.
August 2009 4-146 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Estimated volatile organic emissions from the proposed MHA Nation Refinery would
be significantly lower than the emissions from the industrial sources in the Ponca City
study. In a general comparison, the proposed MHA Nation Refinery would be expected
to demonstrate similar results - no significant increased lifetime cancer risk from
volatile air emissions.
> The qualitative analysis of acute and chronic human health risk at three Canadian
refineries indicated negligible to low risk from direct and indirect exposures to refinery
emissions. Because these refineries were determined to have negligible to low risk and
they are significantly larger than the proposed MHA Nation Refinery, it is reasonable to
conclude that human health risks from the proposed MHA Nation Refinery will, at
most, be negligible to low.
> The site-specific quantitative risk analyses of criteria and HAPs performed for the
proposed MHA Nation Refinery indicate that the magnitude of modeled air emissions
and subsequent exposures were low enough that, when compared to risk based
concentrations and previous health effects research for refineries, no correlation to
adverse human health effects could be established.
Ecological Receptors
Chemicals taken up by ecological receptors may find their way into human receptors where they
contribute to the impacts previously discussed, or they may affect the ecological receptor itself.
The potential impacts of refinery chemicals on aquatic life are discussed above in the sections on
water quality, wetlands, and aquatic life. In general, these impacts could result in decreased
community diversity and biological resilience, as well as an increase in the populations of species
that are highly tolerant of contaminants. During this process, individual organisms may
experience toxic effects, such as deformities from abnormal development or tumors, decreased
reproduction, or increased mortality. Eventually, impacts to ecological receptors may move from
effects on individuals, to effects on populations, to changes in community composition and
diversity, to reductions in ecosystem functions.
In terrestrial environments, contaminants may also bioaccumulate and increasingly impact
species that are higher in the food chain. In this environment, although exposure to contaminants
is primarily via ingestion of food and water, the impacts are similar to those in an aquatic setting
in that individual animals may be affected, followed by impacts to the population, and then
impacts to community structure and function, and ultimately to the ecosystem itself.
Because plants are at the bottom of food chains, they generally are not subject to impacts from
high doses of chemicals that result from bioaccumulation. Rather, in both aquatic and terrestrial
environments, particular plant species would tend to grow, grow poorly, or not grow at all as a
result of exposure to chemicals in the soil, water, or air that surrounds them. Ultimately, this
affects the composition and diversity of a plant community and the wildlife habitat it provides.
Ecological Receptors Air Impact Analysis Conclusions
The rationale for the position that the proposed refinery would not have significant adverse
effects on the ecological receptors of the immediate and surrounding area includes those factors
given for impacts to Human Health, particularly the refinery process-related factors, plus the
following:
> Impacts to ecological receptors were evaluated by combining the results of site-specific
quantitative emissions modeling of criteria and HAPs for the proposed refinery with a
food chain model that examined potential exposures at four locations in the immediate
vicinity of the process area. To assess the potential for refinery emissions to adversely
August 2009 4-147 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
affect ecological receptors, maximum concentrations of chemicals in soils at each of
these areas were compared to applicable ecological screening values (Table 4-12).
Estimated maximum soil concentrations were all well below (i.e., at least four orders of
magnitude) applicable ecological screening values.
> While some uncertainty arises from the fact that available screening values are
primarily based on exposures to mammals only, effects to other terrestrial receptors
such as birds, plants, and invertebrates are unlikely given the relatively low estimated
maximum soil concentrations. These contaminant concentrations would not be
detectable using standard analytical methods.
> Based on the relatively low estimated maximum soil concentrations, the refinery
emissions would result in no significant loss or degradation of habitats in the immediate
vicinity nor would they result in displacement, habitat fragmentation, or reduced
availability of prey, which might affect larger terrestrial receptors.
> The impacts to aquatic receptors are primarily associated with potential exposures
through wastewater discharges rather than air emissions.
4.16.2 Construction Alternatives
4.16.2.1 Alternative 2Transfer to Trust, No Refinery
In the absence of refinery construction and operation, only chemicals and safety hazards
associated with agriculture would be present at the site. Impacts from these would be the same as
current impacts and not a result of this project. Thus, there would be no refinery chemicals,
emissions, and effluents; no chemicals subject to uptake by receptors; no impacts on human
health and the environment.
4.16.2.2 Alternative 3No Transfer to Trust, Refinery Constructed
Alternative 3 differs from Alternatives 1 and A only in the trust status of the property. The
difference in trust status would not alter any of the following: refinery chemicals, emissions and
effluents or their fate and transport; receptors of chemicals directly or in emissions and effluents;
impacts to human health and the environment. Therefore, the impacts from Alternative 3 would
be the same as the impacts from Alternatives 1 and A with regard to health and safety.
4.16.2.3 Alternative 4Modified Proposed Action
Alternative 4 differs from Alternatives 1 and A only in that the refinery facilities would be
reconfigured on the site to minimize impacts on a wetland and swale and the wastewater holding
ponds would be replaced with a tank. The difference in facility configuration would not alter any
of the following: refinery chemicals, emissions and effluents, or their fate and transport; receptors
of chemicals directly or in emissions and effluents; impacts to human health and the environment;
or the mitigation measures needed. Therefore, the impacts from Alternative 4 would be the same
as the impacts from Alternatives 1 and A with regard to health and safety.
4.16.2.4 Alternative 5No Action
Similar to Alternative 2, only chemicals and safety hazards associated with agriculture would be
present at the site in the absence of refinery construction and operation. Impacts from these would
be the same as current impacts and not a result of this project. Thus, there would be no refinery
chemicals, emissions, and effluents; no chemicals subject to uptake by receptors; no impacts on
human health and the environment; and no need for mitigation as a result of this project.
August 2009 4-148 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.16.3 Effluent Alternatives
4.16.3.1 Alternative B Partial Discharge Through NPDES Permit
and Some Storage/Irrigation
Under this alternative, surplus treated wastewater would be disposed of through land application
to irrigate trees and crops on the project site, as practicable; otherwise, there would be discharge
through NPDES permitted outfalls. Impacts to human health from discharging treated wastewater
would be essentially the same as those discussed above under alternative A, although there would
be less water discharged to surface water under alternative B.
Unlike the Alternatives 1 and, this alternative would involve irrigating crops potentially
consumed directly by humans or crops used as forage for livestock that would be consumed by
humans. As a result, there is a potential for exposure to contaminants in wastewater via food
chain exposure pathways. Potential plant uptake of certain contaminants present in irrigated
wastewater may result in accumulation of contaminants in soils or plant tissues at concentrations
greater than those present in wastewater. In particular, uptake and storage of metals, such as
mercury, chromium, and lead, in plant tissue could pose a risk to humans who consumed crops
irrigated with wastewater from the refinery or who consumed livestock fed forage irrigated with
wastewater from the refinery.
While it is unclear if these scenarios will occur, they represent an uncertainty that has not been
quantitatively evaluated and must be considered when evaluating each alternative. Until such
time as a quantitative analysis of the potential risks posed by discharge of refinery wastewater via
irrigation of crops has been performed using actual site-specific data, it cannot be determined that
alternative B will be protective of human health and the environment. Therefore, refinery
wastewater effluent should not be used to irrigate food chain crops until a quantitative risk
assessment is conducted.
The refinery wastewater is considered to be (by definition) a solid waste under RCRA. As such,
all wastewater proposed to be used for irrigation should be treated to meet appropriate standards
to protect human health and the environment. In addition, unless the wastewater is treated
sufficiently, it will continue to be considered a solid waste containing hazardous waste
constituents, and RCRA Corrective Action requirements would apply for the irrigated land parcel.
This is because the irrigated land parcel would be considered a SWMU. Therefore, a RCRA TSD
permit may establish additional treatment levels for irrigation water.
4.16.3.2 Alternative CEffluent Discharge to an UIC Well
The injection of treated effluent into an UIC well would not change the quantities or types of
pollutants emitted/discharged from the refinery site. However, injection could alter the fate and
transport of chemicals in air, water, and soil pathways, thereby changing exposures to human and
ecological receptors. Since the wastewater would first be treated in the WWTU and then injected
into the well, it would be unavailable as a pathway for residual chemicals to reach receptors that
are contemporary with the refinery. The injected wastewater would have to meet applicable
RCRA UIC permit requirements.
4.16.3.3 Alternative DNo Action
Under this alternative, the proposed Refinery would not be constructed. Thus, there would be no
refinery chemicals, emissions, and effluents; no chemicals subject to uptake by receptors; no
impacts on human health and the environment; and no need for mitigation as a result of this
project.
August 2009 4-149 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
4.16.4 Cumulative Impacts
No cumulative impacts were identified for health and safety. No reasonably foreseeable actions
were identified that would have effects in the affected area that would overlap in time or space
with the direct and indirect effects discussed above.
4.17 Mitigation Measures, Controls and Selected Plans
The following section lists the mitigation measures developed to avoid or reduce the impacts of
the proposed project and alternatives. The mitigation measures are listed by the types of impacts
being mitigated and the phase of the project. Mitigation measures will need to be implemented
throughout the construction, operation and closure of the proposed facility. There are three main
types of mitigation measures: (1) mitigation/control measures that are incorporated into the
design of the refinery, (2) practices or procedures implemented during construction and/or
operation to control/limit impacts and (3) monitoring and inspection programs to ensure that the
controls and mitigation measures are performing and assure a rapid response if problems develop.
The discharge and/or emission limitations from environmental permits are not considered
mitigation measures and, therefore, are not included in this section. For more information on
these environmental permits please see the water and air resource sections in this Chapter.
Some of the mitigation and control measures are required by a federal environmental statute or
permit, while others are recommended. For mitigation measures and plans that are
recommendations, the refinery operator may or may not implement those measures.
Table 4-28 summarizes the permits, plans and mitigation measures for the proposed alternatives,
and describes whether or not the measures are required. Table 4-29 summarizes the monitoring,
inspecting, and reporting activities for the refinery construction alternatives, including
information on whether or not the activity is required, reporting requirements, if any, and
potential follow-up actions.
4.17.1 Design and Operating Measures to Prevent and Contain
Spills and Leaks
The following measures will prevent, limit or control contamination of surface water, soil and
ground water from leaks and spills from the refinery.
> Design and operate the refinery to prevent or reduce the likelihood of spills, leaks, and
other releases. [Included as part of the proponent's proposal (Alternative 1 and A and all
other construction alternatives. Would be a condition for the acceptance of the land into
Trust for the purpose of constructing the clean fuels refinery]
> Design and construct curbing, secondary containment, and paving of vulnerable areas.
[Included as part of the proponent's proposal (Alternative 1 and A) and all other
construction alternatives. ]
> Separate oily and non-oily stormwater management systems. Storm water from areas
with potentially oily stormwater, such as the process and loading areas, would be
contained through curbing and gutters and conveyed to the wastewater treatment
system. [Included as part of the proponent's proposal (Alternative 1 and A) and all other
construction alternatives. ]
> Double wall tanks or double-lined ponds would be installed for any units that contain
contaminated (oily) or potentially contaminated (oily) wastewater. [Mix of required and
recommended actions. Requirements under RCRA TSD permit for ponds and some
tanks, for all construction alternatives except 4 and A. Recommended for Alternative 4
August 2009 4-150 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
and A, and in general for all tanks storing oily or hazardous materials. Double-bottomed
tanks are recommended, but not required for any construction alternatives. ]
> Develop and implement, SPCC and FRPs and other emergency response plans to
prevent, contain, and remediate spills. Workers would also be well trained for
implementation of these plans. [Required]
> Leak detectors to prevent infiltration from the evaporation and holding ponds.
[Required by RCRA TSD permit for Alternatives: 1 and A, 1 and B, 1 &C, 3 and A, 3
and B and 3 and C. Recommended for Alternatives 4 and A, B, and C as tanks are used
instead of surface impoundments. ]
> Conduct routine inspections of facilities to evaluate whether there are spills or leaks and
take corrective actions, as appropriate. [Required for tanks, pipes and containment
regulated by the SPCC and FRPs and under the stormwater permit. Additional
equipment and facilities inspections would also be required for all construction
alternatives except 4 and A under the RCRA TSD permit.]
> All FiWMUs are required by RCRA to be adequately protected from 100-year flood
events.
4.17.2 Measures During Construction to Protect Surface Water
and Reduce Soil Erosion
> Develop a SWPPP in accordance with the NPDES construction stormwater permit. The
SWPPP would identify areas that have potential for pollutants entering into the
stormwater systems at the facility and BMPs to minimize pollutant introductions from
those identified sources. [Required by the NPDES stormwater construction permit]
4.17.2.1 General Erosion and Sediment Control During Construction
The following are standard mitigation measures to reduce impacts to surface water and
reduce prevent soil erosion during construction. These measures are mix of required and
recommended actions, depending on the specific permit condition in the NPDES stormwater
construction permit and SWPPP.
> A sedimentation and erosion control plan would be used throughout construction to
minimize land disturbing activities. Any runoff from the construction areas would flow
through sedimentation and erosion control devices before entering any surface water
body.
> Keep the area of disturbance to a minimum at any given time through avoidance of
disturbance and concurrent reclamation.
> Divert surface runoff from undisturbed area around the disturbed area.
> Retain sediment within the disturbed area.
> Route runoff through the disturbed area using protected engineered channels and
culverts so as not to increase sediment load.
> Use adequate sediment ponds, with or without chemical treatment.
> Use riprap, straw dikes, check dams, mulches, temporary vegetation, or other measures
to reduce overland flow velocities, reduce runoff volume, and retain sediment.
> Retain stabilizing vegetation on unstable soils to the extent possible.
August 2009 4-151 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
> Avoid continuous disturbance that provides continuous conduit for routing sediment to
streams.
> Inspect all erosion control structures at least every 14 days and after any precipitation or
snowmelt event that has the potential to cause surface erosion.
> Repair erosion, clogged culverts and other hydrological controls in a timely manner.
> If BMPs do not result in compliance with applicable standards modify or improve such
BMPs to meet the controlling standard of surface water quality.
4.17.2.2 Roads, Sediment Control during both construction and
operation
The following are standard mitigation measures to reduce impacts to surface water and reduce
prevent soil erosion from roads. All of measures in a section are part of the proponent's proposal.
The last five measures are also typical BMPs that could be required under the SWPPP required by
both the storm water construction permit and the NPDES permit during operations.
> Restricting the length and grade of roadbeds;
> Surfacing roads with durable material;
> Creating cut and fill slopes that are stable.
> Revegetating the entire road prism including cut and fill slopes.
> Providing adequate road cross drainage to reduce erosion.
> Installing properly designed ditches, water-bars, cross drains, culverts, and sediment
traps to pass peak flows from pre-defined precipitation storm events.
> Creating and maintaining vegetative buffer strips, and constructing sediment barriers
(e.g. straw bales, wire-backed silt fences, check dams) during the useful life of roads.
> Periodically maintaining erosion control structures to prevent blockage or impedance of
drainage or significant alteration of the intended purpose of the structure.
4.17.3 Protect and/or Reduce Impacts to Waters of the US,
Wetlands and Riparian Habitat
4.17.3.1 Streams, Ponds, Riparian Habitat
These measures are mix of required and recommended actions, depending on the specific permit
conditions in the NPDES stormwater construction permit, NPDES refinery permit, and the CWA
404 permit(s) (nationwide or individual permit).
> To the extent possible maintain vegetation within 50 feet adjacent to streams, creeks
and ponds.
> Install stream crossings to maintain bankfull dimensions of width, depth, and slope.
> Where pipelines cross streams, creeks and ponds, install and maintain automatic shutoff
valves.
> All reasonable precautions shall be taken to ensure that turbidity is kept to a minimum,
and violations of surface water standards are prevented.
> Re-established riparian vegetation as soon as practical following operation or building
activities.
August 2009 4-152 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
> Conduct ambient stream monitoring during operation for erosion and channel down
cutting.
4.17.3.2 Wetland Construction Mitigation
Wetland construction methods would be in accordance with applicable permit conditions. To
avoid or minimize impacts on wetlands, the construction contractor would implement measures
during the construction and operation of the proposed petroleum refinery and pipeline facilities.
The measures may include, but are not limited to, the following requirements. There may be
additional requirements in the stormwater construction permit and the CWA 404 permit(s)
(nationwide or individual permit).
> Construction equipment operating within the ROW should be limited to that equipment
necessary for clearing, excavation, pipe installation, backfilling, and restoration
activities. All equipment should use upland access roads to the maximum extent
practicable.
> Equipment operating within saturated wetlands would be low-ground-weight
equipment.
> Temporary erosion and sedimentation control measures would be installed immediately
after the initial disturbance of wetland soils and would be inspected and maintained
regularly until final stabilization.
> Sedimentation controls would be installed across the construction ROW, as needed,
within wetlands to contain trench spoil.
> Grading of riparian vegetation and pulling of tree stumps would be limited to the area
directly over the trench line unless additional grading or stump removal is required for
worker safety.
> In unsaturated wetlands, the uppermost 12 inches of topsoil along the pipeline trench
should be segregated from the underlying subsoil.
> A site-specific wetlands mitigation plan would need to be developed and approved by
the USAGE for any wetlands that are impacted through a CWA Section 404 permit.
The mitigation plan would include the specific location, acres of wetlands and uplands
that would mitigate wetland impacts. The plan would also identify the wetland plant
communities that would be created or restored, site hydrology, and maintenance of the
mitigation site.
4.17.4 Measures to Protect Surface and Ground Water During
Refinery Operations
> Conduct routine water quality monitoring of the effluent at all outfalls. [Required for all
discharges under NPDES and UIC permits (Alternatives A and C). For Alternative B,
the portion of effluent discharged through the NPDES permit would be required to be
monitored. Monitoring of the wastewater land applied would be a mix of recommended
actions and requirements under RCRA TSD permit. The TSD permit could include
some monitoring and reporting requirements. ]
> Design, install and implement a ground water quality monitoring program for the
Project Area to provide an early warning of potential contamination. A Ground Water
Protection Program as discussed with the MHA Nation could include monitoring and
reporting. [Required by the RCRA TSD permit for all construction alternatives except 4
and A, recommended for Alternative 4 and A. ]
August 2009 4-153 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
> If erosion occurs at the outfall locations, an energy dissipater would be installed at the
end of the outfall pipe to reduce potential erosion impacts from high volume discharge
periods. [Recommended]
4.17.4.1 Design and Operating Measures for Alternative B - Land
Application
The following mitigation measures are in addition to the other mitigation measures and controls.
These measures are only applicable to refinery construction alternatives combined with effluent
discharge Alternatives B (partial discharge under the NPDES permit and land application).
> Development and implementation of an effective irrigation farm management plan for
irrigation alternatives. The plan would include procedures for determining agronomic
and loading rates for the crops being grown. The plan should also be protective of
human health and the environment. [Mix of recommended and required measures for
these alternatives. Some requirements under the solid waste disposal regulations.]
> Upon operation of the refinery, test effluent quality to determine the concentrations of
any hazardous constituents, if any, in the treated wastewater. No hazardous waste
would be permitted to be land applied.
> Upon operation of the refinery, test effluent quality for sodium, calcium, and
magnesium concentrations to determine appropriate salinity limitations for irrigation.
[Recommended as good agronomic practice and to minimize impacts to soil from
irrigation.]
> Implement a ground water monitoring program to assess potential and actual impacts to
soils and ground water from land application operations. The results of the monitoring
would be used to modify the irrigation farming operations and treatment if necessary.
[Mix of required and recommended monitoring. Some monitoring would be required by
the land disposal regulations for RCRA solid waste.]
> Conduct annual soil testing to determine salinity and key nutrient levels in the soil. If
testing shows high levels of salinity or deficient key nutrients, implement one or more
of the standard soil treatment methods to counter sodium buildup from the use of saline
irrigation water. [Recommended as good agronomic practice and to protect long-term
soil productivity.]
4.17.5 Facility Design Considerations to Protect Birds
> Electrical transmission lines would be constructed to minimize collision and
electrocution risks to birds, according to APLIC, Edison Electric Institute's Suggested
Practices for Raptor Protection on Power Lines: The State of the Art in 2006 and
Edison Electric Institute's "Mitigating Bird Collisions with "Power Lines: The State of
the Art in 1994."
> Cobbles would be placed on the side slopes of all wastewater/storage ponds to
discourage plovers from nesting. [This is a recommendation that the Tribe has
committed to in writing, although there would be no regulatory requirement to
implement this measure. However, if a species on the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Species or a species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act were to
become oiled there could be enforcement actions under the ESA, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act by the FWS, or other applicable laws.]
> Any ponds/tanks with potentially contaminated (oily) water would be netted. [This is a
recommendation that the Tribe has committed to in writing, although there would be no
August 2009 4-154 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
regulatory requirement to implement this measure. However, if a species on the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Species or a species protected under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act or other applicable laws were to become oiled there could be
enforcement actions by the FWS.]
4.17.6 Cleanup of Contamination, Closure of the Refinery
> Obtain financial assurance or bonding for cleanup and closure of the facility. [Financial
assurance would be required for all FiWMUs and for releases from SWMUs if the
facility is regulated as a TSD facility for all construction alternatives except 4 and A
where the facility would be a generator only. RCRA financial assurance requirements
do not extend to closure and dismantling of process or product units. Financial
assurance or bonding is recommended for all alternatives. The money would pay for
corrective action and other cleanup activities. ]
> Work with tribal authorities on establishing requirements for solid waste land
application units (Alternative B only, concerning irrigation of wastewater). [The
requirements for solid waste land application units on tribal lands are self-
implementing. However, in order to ensure full implementation, the MHA Nation
would need to establish an effective program that is protective of human health and the
environment.]
4.17.7 Human Health Risks and Safety Mitigations
Mitigation of Emission/Effluent Fate and Transport
Adhering to OSHA standards during construction and following typical BMPs would minimize
exposure to chemicals on the site and the distribution of chemicals and particulates via air, water,
or soil. Examples of typical BMPs include use of silt fences and straw bales to minimize erosion,
watering or chemical compounds to minimize dust, and storage of fuels in lined and bermed
areas. The measures mentioned above as mitigation to protect water resources and soil are
applicable and would serve to minimize the human exposure of chemicals that are on site and the
potential for these chemicals to move off site during construction.
During refinery operation, the diverse chemicals that are used on the site would be contained in
tanks or other storage vessels and handled according to OSHA standards. As noted above in the
discussion of mitigation measures to prevent contamination of water resources and soil, double
liners and berms would be used to contain any inadvertent spills, and shut-off valves would be
installed at strategic locations in pipelines to minimize the volume of any spill. Careful
monitoring of pipeline flows would enable early detection of spills. During fluid transfers,
particular care would be taken to avoid spills by ensuring use of proper techniques through
training and careful oversight. During turnarounds when tanks are cleaned and catalysts are
replaced, proper protective equipment for workers and cautious procedures would minimize
exposure to chemicals and the release of these chemicals into the air, water, or soil. Use of netting
on the two effluent holding ponds, as well as on the evaporation pond if it has poor water quality,
would prevent contaminants in these waters from entering the food chain via water birds that
might be attracted to these ponds. In addition to mitigating the exposure of people to chemicals
and the transport of chemicals to the environment via air, water, or soil, care must also be taken to
mitigate impacts from accidents associated with equipment operation and the use of steam to
clean the tanks. The establishment of proper procedures that are compliant with OSHA standards,
training workers to follow these procedures, and provision of strict oversight to ensure
compliance with procedures would largely prevent adverse impacts. Mitigation of impacts from
refinery decommissioning and reclamation would be similar to measures taken during
turnarounds for equipment, and during construction for removal of equipment and reclaiming the
site.
August 2009 4-155 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Mitigation of Impacts to Receptors
Even though exposure to chemicals at the refinery and in the air and water that leave the refinery
would be minimized, people working to construct or operate the refinery and plants and animals
in habitats on or near the refinery would still be exposed to chemicals and physical safety hazards
that might harm them. Although some adverse effects are expected to occur, no significant
adverse impacts are projected. In addition, data on a number of older refineries have indicated
that their workers suffered no significant adverse health effects, and adverse health effects at this
new refinery, the first major refinery to be constructed since 1976, should be even less likely.
Nonetheless, until the MHA Nation Refinery is operating and sufficient data on people's
individual health and plant/animal populations have been collected, the impacts to human health
and the environment discussed above would continue to be only projections and would contain
significant uncertainty.
The following are recommended actions for minimizing human exposure near the refinery.
> The existing farm house should no longer be used as a residence.
> The farm house well should not be used for drinking water purposes after refinery
operations commence. The well needs to be properly capped for the land to be accepted
into trust status. Since the DEIS was published, this well has been decommissioned.
> Implement OSHA requirements to ensure occupational safety and health.
4.17.8 Acceptance of Land into Trust Status
Under Alternatives 1 and 4, BIA would accept 468.39 acres of fee land into trust for the purposes
of constructing and operating a clean fuels petroleum refinery and producing buffalo forage on
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Under Alternative 2, BIA would accept 468.39 acres of fee
land into trust for the same agricultural purposes used to date but not to construct and operate a
clean fuels petroleum refinery on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. Under Alternative 3, BIA
would not accept 468.39 acres of fee land into trust; however, the Tribe could still construct and
operate a clean fuels petroleum refinery. Under Alternative 5, no action would be taken to accept
the land into trust and the Tribes would not construct and operate a clean fuels refinery.
The following would be conditions of the BIA accepting the 468.39 acres of fee land into trust for
the purposes of constructing and operating a clean fuels petroleum refinery and producing buffalo
forage (Alternatives 1 and 4).
> The well on the property near the residence is properly removed/sealed by a contractor
certified by the North Dakota State Water Well Association. This will be verified with
by the Regional Environmental Engineer.
> Any title objections raised by the Field Solicitor in an Interim Title Opinion that would
interfere with contemplated use of the land will need to be cleared by the Tribes. This
may include items such as unpaid taxes.
> Financial assurance arrangements are in place and are sufficient to adequately remediate
any contamination due to operation or closure of the refinery.
> There is appropriate monitoring of soils, ground water, surface water, and air for
contaminant releases.
> It is possible that the Department may also request an indemnification agreement with
the MHA Nation holding the United States harmless from refinery operations and
potential contamination from operation of the refinery.
August 2009 4-156 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
The following would be conditions of the BIA accepting the 468.39 acres of fee land into trust for
continued agricultural use (Alternative 2).
> The well on the property near the residence is properly removed/sealed by a contractor
certified by the North Dakota State Water Well Association. This will be verified with
by the Regional Environmental Engineer.
> Any title objections raised by the Field Solicitor in an Interim Title Opinion that would
interfere with contemplated use of the land will need to be cleared by the Tribes. This
may include items such as unpaid taxes.
4.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of
Resources
An irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources would occur when resources would be
consumed, committed, or lost as a result of the project. The commitment of resources would be
irreversible if the project started a process (chemical, biological, or physical) that could not be
stopped. As a result, the resource or its productivity or its utility would be consumed, committed,
or lost forever. Commitment of a resource would be considered irretrievable when the project
would direct eliminate the resource, its productivity, or its utility for the life of the project and
possibly beyond.
4.18.1 Irreversible Commitment of Resources
> Removal of ground water for all construction alternatives.
4.18.2 Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
> Loss of vegetative cover until the refinery is decommissioned and reclaimed.
> Loss of wildlife habitats for the life of the refinery.
> Loss of crop or forage productivity until the refinery is decommissioned and reclaimed.
> The addition of an industrial facility to the rural landscape.
4.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects
Several of the effects described in the resource sections above would be unavoidable. In
particular, there will be unavoidable adverse effects from spills and leaks to soil and ground water
underneath the refinery. There will also be impacts to wetlands either directly as a result of the
construction or through changes in hydrology and water quality. Proposed mitigation measures
and permits would reduce these adverse impacts.
August 2009 4-157 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-28 Selected Environmental Permits, Plans and Mitigation Measures
Requirement or Recommendation by Alternative
Environmental
Permit, Plan or Mitigation Measure
NPDES Permits
NPDES permit, refinery operation
Discharge effluent limits
Monitoring of effluent quality, may also include
downstream water quality monitoring
BMPs, separation of contaminated and
uncontaminated storm water
Develop a SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan)
NPDES general storm water construction permit
Develop a SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan) Typical measures include: silt fences, erosion
protection
Closure
General refinery closure & reclamation plan
Plan to decommission the refinery
RCRA closure plan
Specific hazardous waste management units
(HWMU) closure requirements including monitoring
and financial assurance
Bonding/ Financial Assurance
Financial assurance for cleanup and closure
Take corrective actions
Quickly clean up spills and leaks
Alts 1&A, 3
Initial Design
Permit requirement
Permit requirement
Permit requirement
Permit requirement
Permit requirement
Recommended
TSD Permit
requirement
TSD Permit
Partially required
under RCRA TSD
permit
Alt 4&A
Modified Design
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended, some
requirements as RCRA
generator
AltB
1/2 Land application,
1/2 Effluent
discharge
Required for
discharges,
recommended for land
Required for
discharges,
recommended for land
application
Required for
discharges,
recommended for land
application
Required for
discharges,
recommended for land
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
AltC
UIC injection well
None for process water
None for process water
Potentially required,
depends on design of
storm water system
Potentially required,
depends on design of
storm water system
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Alts 2, 5
&D
No
refinery
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
August 2009
4-158
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Environmental
Permit, Plan or Mitigation Measure
Air Quality Protection Requirements
Minor source preconstruction permit required if
construction begins after the deadline in the proposed
rule for minor sources in Indian country
Existing new source performance standards (NSPS)
for petroleum refineries. EPA may develop an air
FIP.
When finalized, revisions to petroleum refinery
NSPS will apply and may also require an operating
permit (Part 71) for the facility.
Unit emissions monitoring to be required through
mix of NSPS, future minor source permit or FIP.
Tribal air quality monitoring near proposed site
Mitigation Plans
Wetlands mitigation plan
Plan to replace or mitigate any wetlands filled by
project (fill and other impacts)
Wildlife mitigation measures
Cobbles to discourage plovers, netting of ponds with
oily water, bird friendly power line construction
specifications, as necessary
Ground water
Project ground water quality monitoring program
Tribal ground water protection program
Irrigation
Irrigation farm management plan Agronomic
irrigation rates for the crops being grown, hydraulic
loading considerations to ensure no runoff and crop
Alts 1&A, 3
Initial Design
Potential future permit,
depending on final
regulations
NSPS Apply; FIP may
be developed
Potential new NSPS
and operating permit,
if NSPS finalized
Specifics to be
developed after new
regulations final
Recommended
Required by COE 404
individual permit and
recommended by
Executive Order
Recommended by
FWS
TSD Permit
Recommended
N/A
Requirement or
Alt 4&A
Modified Design
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Recommended by
Executive Order
Same as l&A
Recommended
SA-1
N/A
Recommendation by Alternative
AltB
1/2 Land application, Alt C
1/2 Effluent UIC injection well
discharge
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
Same as l&A Same as l&A
SA-1 SA-1
SA-1 SA-1
Recommended N/A
Alts 2, 5
&D
No
refinery
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
SA-1
N/A
August 2009
4-159
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Requirement or Recommendation by Alternative
Environmental
Permit, Plan or Mitigation Measure
Irrigation water and soils monitoring plan
Monitoring wastewater and soils for environmental
and agronomic purposes, monitoring for runoff.
Refinery operations plans
Refining of synthetic crude only
Recycling of wastewater, operation of wastewater
treatment plants for all alternatives
Inspections for spills or leaks from process units &
tanks
Refinery design and construction plans
Double-liners and leak detectors, evaporation and
holding ponds.
Double-walled tanks
Separate oil and non oily stormwater handling
systems
Controls to prevent mixing of uncontaminated
stormwater with potentially contaminated stormwater
Emergency and spill response plans
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure, Plans
(SPCC) - Oil Pollution Act
Facility Response Plan (FRP) - Oil Pollution Act
CAA Risk Management Plan Hazardous Materials
Superfund Emergency Plan
Alts 1&A, 3
Initial Design
N/A
Included as part of
Refinery proposal
Included as part of
Refinery proposal
Partially required
under RCRA TSD
Permit and by RCRA
container regulations
TSD Permit
requirement
TSD Permit
requirement
Partially required by
NPDES permit
Partially required by
NPDES permit
Required
Required
Required - CAA
Required - CERCLA
Alt 4&A
Modified Design
N/A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Partially required by
RCRA container
regulations
No ponds
Required, Generator
regs.
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Alt R
r^l I D
1/2 Land application,
1/2 Effluent
discharge
Partially Required by
solid waste regulations
& TSD permit
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
TSD Permit
Required, TSD
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
AltC
UIC injection well
N/A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
TSD Permit
Required, TSD
Recommended
Partially required by
NPDES stormwater
permit
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Alt*; 2 >
AAllO &, «J
&D
No
refinery
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
August 2009
4-160
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Requirement or Recommendation by Alternative
Environmental
Permit, Plan or Mitigation Measure
Hazardous Waste Contingency Plan (HWCP)
Transportation Act (HMTA) Response Plan
RCRA TSD Permit
Waste Management Plan
Waste Analysis Plan
Inspection Plan
Training Plan
Health and Safety Plans
Surface Impoundment Design, Construction, and
Operation Plans
RCRA Post-Closure Plan
Air Monitoring Plan
Quality Assurance / Quality Control Plans
RCRA Tank Design, Construction, Operation and Closure
Plans
Containers Management Plan
Waste Minimization / Pollution Prevention Plan
RCRA Corrective Action Plan
Alts 1&A, 3
Initial Design
TSD Permit
requirement
Required - HMTA
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Required TSD Permit
Alt 4&A
Modified Design
RCRA generator
requirement
Same as l&A
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
OSHA portion
required
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Recommended
Partially required as
RCRA Generator
Partially required as
RCRA Generator
Recommended
Recommended
AltB
1/2 Land application,
1/2 Effluent
discharge
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
AltC
UIC injection well
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Same as l&A
Alts 2, 5
&D
No
refinery
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
August 2009
4-161
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Table 4-29 Monitoring, Inspecting, Reporting and Follow-up
Description
NPDES permits
NPDES permit during refinery operations
Monitoring of effluent quality, may also
include downstream water quality monitoring
Facility inspections - Implementation of
BMPs, and SWPPP (Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan
NPDES general storm water construction
permit
Inspect/monitor implementation of SWPPP
(Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan)
Typical measures include: silt fences, erosion
protection
Closure
General refinery closure & reclamation
plan
Monitoring of soil and ground water
Inspection of the site during closure
RCRA closure plan Specific hazardous
waste management units (HWMU) closure
requirements including monitoring and
financial assurance
Alternatives
Alts 1, 3, 4 with A
Alts 1,3, 4 with B
Alts 1,3, 4 with C
Alts 1, 3, 4 with A
Alts 1,3, 4 with B
Alts 1,3, 4 with C
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
Alts 1,3, with A
Alt 4 with A
Alts 1,3, 4 with B
Alts 1,3, 4 with C
Monitoring, Inspecting, Reporting and Follow-up
,, . , Who Monitoring
Required? ,, .. T,
Monitors? Frequency
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
YesD
Yes
Recommended
Yes
Recommended
Yes
Yes
Generally monthly,
Refinery varies by parameter,
as specified in permit
Refinery As specified in plans
Refinery As specified in plan
Refinery As specified in plan
As specified in plan
Recommended
Refinery
As specified in plan
As specified in plan
Reason for Monitoring
Protect water quality. Determine if
effluent water quality is in
compliance with permit
Prevent/reduce contamination of
water. Evaluate implementation of
BMPs and SWPPP
Determine if SWPPP is being
properly implemented and if the
plan is sufficient to protect water
quality.
To determine if the site is
sufficiently cleaned up and
reclaimed to return to agricultural
use.
Determine if hazardous waste units
have been successfully closed and
if cleanup has been sufficient (as
needed)
Report
Monitoring to
EPA and TAT
Environmental
Division
Maintain records
on site
Maintain records
on site
N/A
EPA
Recommended
EPA
EPA
Enforced
by?
EPA
EPA
EPA
N/A
EPA
N/A
EPA
EPA
9 Alternatives 1 and 3 = Initial refinery site layout, Alt 4 = Modified Design layout. Alts 2, 5 = No refinery constructed
Alternative A = NPDES permit for wastewater discharge, Alt B = wastewater discharge 1A Land application + 1A Effluent discharge, Alt C = UIC injection well
2 Required by regulation for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4 with discharge Alt C (injection of wastewater)
August 2009 4-162
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Description
RCRA - Hazardous Waste
RCRA Large Quantity Generator
Inspection of hazardous wastes accumulation
areas
RCRA Large Quantity Generator
Inspection of hazardous waste tanks under
RCRA
RCRA Large Quantity Generator Closure
monitoring of hazardous waste storage areas
Air Quality
Air Title V CAA permit, NSPS subpart Ja
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Tribal air quality monitoring near proposed
site
Misc. Monitoring
Ground water quality monitoring program
for refinery
Q
Alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
All refinery
construction
alternatives
Monitoring, Inspecting, Reporting and Follow-up
_ . , Who Monitoring
Required? , ., _ &
n Monitors? Frequency
Yes Refinery Weekly
Yes Refinery Daily
Yes Refinery Required during
closure of facility
Likely, when Refinery As specified in
regulations final permit
Yes Refinery As specified in
standards
Recommended TAT As described in TAT
Environmental air 105 grant work
Division plan
Recommended Refinery Quarterly
recommended
Reason for Monitoring , . ^ .
& Monitonng to
Maintain records
Determine if wastes properly stored on site
and contained
_ .,,, , Maintain records
Determine it hazardous wastes are
properly contained; e.g., no spills
or leaks, covers and valves properly
operating.
EPA
Determine if the area(s) used to
temporarily store hazardous wastes
have become contaminated
Unit emissions monitoring EPA
Unit emissions monitoring to be EPA
required through mix of NSPS,
future minor source permit and/or
FIP
Determine air quality in the vicinity EPA
of the refinery
Determine if ground water has Recommended to
become contaminated and the TAT Environ.
extent of contamination and help Division & EPA
evaluate remedial options
Enforced
by?
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
N/A
N/A
August 2009
4-163
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences
Monitoring, Inspecting, Reporting and Follow-up
Description
UIC Underground Injection Control
Permit monitoring of pressure, flow rate,
volume, fluid chemistry
Irrigation water and soils monitoring plan
Monitoring of wastewater, soils and ground
water for environmental and agronomic
purposes, monitoring for runoff.
Misc. Inspections
Inspections for spills or leaks from process
units & tanks
Q
Alternatives
Alts 1, 3, 4 with A
Alts 1,3, 4 with B
Alts 1,3, 4 with C
Alts 1,3, 4 with A
Alts 1,3, 4 with B
Alts 1,3, 4 with C
All refinery
construction
alternatives
. , Who
Required? , .,
n Monitors?
N/A Refinery
N/A
Yes
N/A
Partially required Refinery
by TSD Permit
N/A
Generally Refinery
required11
Monitoring
Frequency
Quarterly
As specified in plan
As specified in plans
and permits
Reason for Monitoring
Determine compliance with UIC
permit and assess performance of
measures to protect ground water
Determined if soil and ground
water will be contaminated by
irrigation -
Determine presence of spills and
leaks. Check the integrity of tanks
and containment.
Report
Monitoring to
EPA
Maintain records
on site
EPA and
maintain records
on site
Enforced
by?
EPA
N/A
N/A
N/A
EPA
Inspection requirements for spills and leaks required by the NPDES permit, the SPCC plan and facility response plans. Inspections are also required under RCRA for tanks associated with hazardous waste
generation
August 2009
4-164
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 5 Consultation with Others
Chapter 5 Consultation with Others
A
gencies, companies, and organizations consulted by BIA, EPA, and USAGE include the
following:
> Bearpaw, Inc.
> City of Makoti
> City of Plaza
> Enbridge Pipelines (North Dakota) LLC
> GeoTrans, Inc.
> Indian Health Services
> North Dakota Department of Health
> North Dakota Department of Transportation
> North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department,
> North Dakota Heritage Inventory
> State Historical Society of North Dakota
> Triad Project Corporation
> United States Fish and Wildlife Service
> Water Supply, Inc.
> Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
For additional information regarding BIA, EPA, cooperating agencies and the MHA Nation,
please see Section 1.2, NEPA Process and Decision Making, of this document. Information on
public participation can be found in Section 2.1, Public Participation, and in Chapter 7 regarding
distribution of the DEIS.
August 2009
5-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 5 Consultation with Others
August 2009 5-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors
Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors
BIA and EPA are Co-Lead agencies with decision-making authority over the EIS documents,
including the EIS. This document was prepared by BIA, EPA and Greystone Environmental
Consultants, Inc., (DEIS contractor), and Booz Allen Hamilton (contractor). Representatives
from the cooperating agencies contributed sections of the EIS and participated in the NEPA
process. Table 6-1 through 6-6 present the names of individuals and their area or areas of
responsibility from BIA, EPA, USAGE, the MHA Nation and Greystone and Booz Allen
Hamilton.
Table 6-1 U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Name
Project Responsibility
Great Plains Regional Office
Diane Mann-Klager
Roy Pulfrey
Darin Larson
Paul Hofmann
Carla Clark
Fort Berthold Agency
Howard Beamer
Mary Fredericks
Project Team Leader: NEPA and Fish and Wildlife
Irrigation Engineer, NEPA
Hydrologist, engineer
Hydrologist
Realty Specialist
Superintendent
Natural Resources
Table 6-2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
Name
Project Responsibility
Monica Morales
Steve Wharton
Dana Allen
Bob Brobst
Bruce Kent
Mike Wireman
Tom Aalto
Felix Flechas
Jean Belille
Dave Ruiter
D.J.Law
Kevin Golden
Project Team Leader DEIS and Air Quality
Project Team Leader FEIS and Toxicology
NEPA - EIS
NPDES
NPDES
Ground water
RCRA
RCRA
Environmental Justice
Wetlands
Air
Air Modeling
August 2009
6-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors
Table 6-3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Name
Project Responsibility
Daniel Cimarosti
Toni Erhardt
Project Manager
CWA Section 404
Table 6-4
MHA Nation
Name
Project Responsibility
Horace Pipe
Project Manager
Patty Jo Thomas
Burton Bell
Jared Wurtz
Harlan Dean
Elton Spotted Horse
Environmental Division
Todd Hall
Fred Poitra
Fish and Game Division
Elgin Crows Breast
Calvin Grinnell
Cultural Division
Damon Williams
Jenny Fyton
Legal Department
Table 6-5 Greystone Third-party Contractors
Name
Project Responsibility
Education
Jerry Koblitz
David Cameron
Jack Cearley
Gordon Frisbie
Ryan Henning
Mike Holle
Selina Koler
Carl Spath
Principal-in-charge, Water
Resources
Project Manager
Hazardous and Non-
hazardous Wastes
Air Quality
Vegetation, Wildlife,
Special-status species,
Soils, Water Resources
Geographic Information
Systems (CIS)
Soils
Cultural Resources
B.S. Wildlife Management
32 years of experience
B.A. Biology
M.S. Terrestrial Ecology
26 years of experience
Ph.D. Environmental Health, Aquatic
Ecology/Toxicity
M.S. Environmental Health
B.S. Biology and Geology
34 years of experience
M.S. Environmental Engineering
B.S. Wildlife and Fisheries Biology
17 years of experience
B.S. Biology
11 years of experience
B.S. Natural Resource Science
Minor in Spatial Database Management
Systems
9 years of experience
M.S. Restoration Ecology
B.S. Natural Resource Management
4 years of experience
Ph.D. Anthropology
M.A. Anthropology
B.A. Anthropology
32 years of experience
August 2009
6-2
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 6 Preparers and Contributors
Name
Project Responsibility
Education
Lisa Welch
Socioeconomics, B.S. Earth Science
Aesthetics, Land Use, 12 years of experience
Recreation, Transportation
Table 6-6
Booze Allen Hamilton FEIS Contractors
Name
Project Responsibility
Education
Mary LeMier
Jennifer Nystrom
Lisa McDonald
John Belin
Gary Pascoe
Kathy Rogovin
Jean Tate
Eric Hurley
Holly Bender
Project Manager
Deputy Project Manager,
Ecological Risk Assessor
Environmental Justice,
Socio-economic
Specialist
Human Health Risk
Assessor
Human Health Risk
Assessor
Human Health Risk
Assessor
NEPA Specialist
Environmental Justice,
Socio-economic
Specialist
Environmental Justice,
Socio-economic
Specialist
B.A. Environmental Studies
8 years experience
M.S. Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
B.A. Evolutionary and Environmental
Biology
10 years experience
Ph.D. Mineral Economics
14 years experience
M.S. Environmental Health Science
B.S. Biology
10 years experience
Ph.D., Toxicology
B.A., Biology
25 years experience
M.S. Toxicology, B.S. Zoology
13 years experience
Ph.D. Ecology, M.S. Zoology
B.S. Biology
30 years experience
M.S and B.A. Economics
4 years experience
M.S. and PhD in Mineral Economics
B.A. Economics and Political Science
13 years experience
Table 6-6 GeoTrans Ground Water Contractors
Name
Project Responsibility
Kevin Lincicum, PG -
Senior Project Hydrologist
Mike Noel PG-
Principal Hydrologist
August 2009
6-3
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 7 Distribution of the Draft EIS
Chapter 7 Distribution of the Draft EIS
The following list identifies the officials, agencies, and organizations to whom the Draft EIS
was sent. Approximately 50 copies of the DEIS were mailed out to individuals. The DEIS
was published in both hard copy and on CD-ROM. The DEIS and technical reports were also
published on EPA Region's website and linked to the Three Affiliated Tribes website.
Copies of the DEIS were available for public review at each of the Three Affiliated Tribes
Segment Offices, in Makoti, at BIA's Offices in New Town, ND and Aberdeen, SD and at EPA's
library in Denver, CO.
Publicly Available DEIS
Twin Butte Segment Office Halliday, ND
White Shield Segment Office Roseglen, ND
Parshall Segment Office Parshall, ND
Mandaree Segment Office Mandaree, ND
Four Bears Segment Office New Town, ND
North Segment Office New Town, ND
Three Affiliated Tribes, Legal
Department and New Town, ND
Office of the Secretary
Rensch Garage Makoti, ND
BIA, Fort Berthold Agency New Town, ND
BIA Regional Office Aberdeen, SD
EPA Region 8 Library Denver, CO
Federal, Tribal, and State Officials
Tex Hall, Three Affiliated Tribes Chairman at time of DEIS distribution
John Hoeven, North Dakota Governor
Federal Agencies
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Central Office, Great Plains Regional Office, and Fort Berthold Agency
Indian Health Service - Aberdeen Area and Fort Berthold
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 and Headquarters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Dakota Regulatory Office
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota Ecological Services
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Farm Service Agency
Indian Health Service
Economic Development Administration
August 2009 7-1 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 7 Distribution of the Draft EIS
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Tribal Agencies
Three Affiliated Tribes, Business Council:
Three Affiliated Tribes, Natural Resources Department
Three Affiliated Tribes, Environmental Department
Three Affiliated Tribes, Game and Fish Department
Three Affiliated Tribes, Legal Department
State Agencies
North Dakota, State Water Commission
North Dakota Department of Health
North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality
North Dakota, Department of Transportation
Local Agencies
Ward County, Executive Director and Roger Kluck
Makoti Development Board
Ward County, Farm Service Agency
Mountrail County, Farm Service Agency
Organizations/Companies
Indigenous Environmental Network
Honor the Earth
The Environmental Awareness Committee
Triad
Natural Resources Defense Council
North West Venture Communities
Verendrye Electric Cooperative
High Plains Consortium, Inc.
August 2009 7-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 8 Glossary
Chapter 8 Glossary
Alkylation - A process using sulfuric or hydrofluoric acid as a catalyst to combine olefins
(usually butylene) and isobutane to produce a high-octane product known as alkylate.
Aromatics - The group of hydrocarbon products that has a sweet smell, including benzene and
toluene. They provide feedstock for many of the main petrochemical processes and improve the
octane rating of gasoline.
Benzene - An unsaturated, six-carbon ring, basic aromatic compound. It is a colorless liquid
hydrocarbon.
Barrel of oil - Measurements that equal a barrel of oil include 42 U.S. gallons, 35 Imperial
gallons, and 159 liters.
Bottoms - Tower bottoms are residue remaining in a distillation unit after the highest boiling-
point material to be distilled has been removed. Tank bottoms are the heavy materials that
accumulate in the bottom of storage tanks, usually comprised of oil, water, and foreign matter.
Catalyst - A material that aids or promotes a chemical reaction between other substances but
does not react itself. Catalysts increase the speeds of reactions and can provide control by
increasing desirable reactions and decreasing undesirable reactions.
Catalytic hydrocracking - A high-pressure petroleum refining process in which molecules too
large and complex for use in gasoline have hydrogen added to them before being cracked into
smaller, more suitable molecules.
Cetane number - A measure of a fuel's ignition delay. This is the time between the start of
injection and start of combustion (ignition) of the fuel. In a particular diesel engine, higher cetane
fuels will have shorter ignition delay periods than lower cetane fuels. Diesel fuels with a cetane
number lower than minimum requirements for an engine can cause the engine to operate roughly
make it more difficult to start, especially in cold weather or at high altitudes.
Cracking - The breaking of large (higher boiling point) hydrocarbon molecules into smaller
(lower boiling point) ones.
Debutanizer - A fractionating column used to remove butane and lighter components from
liquid streams.
Dehydrogenation - A reaction in which hydrogen atoms are eliminated from a molecule.
Dehydrogenation is used to convert ethane, propane, and butane into olefins (ethylene, propylene,
and butenes).
Distillate fuel oil - Products of refinery distillation sometimes referred to as middle distillates
includes kerosene, diesel fuel, and home heating oil.
Distillation - The separation of different petroleum components by selectively heating,
vaporizing, and condensing compounds based on their different vapor pressures.
Dry gas - Gas containing no water vapor.
August 2009 8-1 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 8 Glossary
Feedstock - Stock from which material is taken to be fed (charged) into a processing unit.
Flaring - The controlled and safe burning of gas that cannot be used for commercial or technical
reasons.
Fractionation - The process whereby saturated hydrocarbons from are separated into distinct
parts or "factions", such as propane, butane, and ethane.
Fuel gas - Refinery gas used for heating.
Gasoline - A blend of naphthas and other refinery products with sufficiently high octane and
other desirable characteristics to be suitable for use as fuel in internal combustion engines.
Grass roots refinery - A refinery built at a new location all at once from the ground up. This
does not include additions or refurbishments made at an existing refinery.
Grub - To clear by digging up roots and stumps
Heat exchanger - Equipment to transfer heat between two flowing streams of different
temperatures. Heat is transferred between liquids or liquids and gases through a tubular wall.
Hydrocarbons - Organic compounds consist of only hydrogen and carbon atoms. In general, the
densities, boiling points, and freezing points of these compounds increase as their molecular
weights increase. The smallest molecules of hydrocarbons are gaseous. The largest are solids.
Hydrodesulfurization - A catalytic process in which the principal purpose is to remove sulfur
from petroleum fractions in the presence of hydrogen.
Hydrogenation - The chemical addition of hydrogen to a material in the presence of a catalyst.
Isomerization - A reaction that catalytically converts straight-chain hydrocarbon molecules into
branched-chain molecules of substantially higher octane number. The reaction rearranges the
carbon skeleton of a molecule without adding or removing anything from the original material.
Iso-octane - A hydrocarbon molecule (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) with excellent antiknock
characteristics on which the octane number of 100 is based.
Mercaptans - Strong-smelling compounds of carbon, hydrogen, and sulfur found in gas and oil.
They are sometimes added to natural gas for safety reasons.
Naphtha - A general term used for low boiling hydrocarbon fractions that are a major
component of gasoline. Aliphatic naphtha refers to those naphthas containing less than 0.1
percent benzene and with carbon numbers from C3 through C16. Aromatic naphthas have carbon
numbers from C6 through C16 and contain significant quantities of aromatic hydrocarbons such
as benzene (>0.1 percent), toluene, and xylene.
Octane rating - A classification of gasoline according to its anti-knock properties. "Knocking"
or "pinking" is a tendency for gasoline to detonate under compression in an engine instead of
burning evenly. The higher the octane number, the less prone the fuel is to knocking.
Olefins - The group of hydrocarbons known as alkenes. In a refinery, olefin units produce
ethylene and propylene to make polyethylene and polypropylene used by the petrochemical
industry to make plastics, synthetic fibers, and adhesives.
August 2009 8-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 8 Glossary
Paraffins - Alkane hydrocarbons, such as methane, ethane, propane, butane, and pentane.
Polymerisation - The bonding of two or more simple molecules under heat and pressure to form
larger molecules. In petrochemical production, polymer hydrocarbons are used to make plastics.
Reformate - An upgraded naphtha resulting from catalytic or thermal reforming.
Reforming - The thermal or catalytic conversion of petroleum naphtha into more volatile
products of higher octane number. It represents the total effect of numerous simultaneous
reactions, such as cracking, polymerization, dehydrogenation, and isomerization.
Saturated hydrocarbon - A hydrocarbon that has used all of its bonding electrons to make
single bonds to other atoms. It can not make additional bonds without cutting off part of the
existing molecule.
Sour crude - Crude oil with a comparatively high sulfur content, 0.5 percent by weight and
higher.
Sour gas - Natural gas that contains corrosive, sulfur-bearing compounds, such as hydrogen
sulfide and mercaptans.
Sweet crude - Crude oil with a comparatively low sulfur content, less than 0.5 percent.
Unsaturated hydrocarbon - A hydrocarbon that contains double or triple bonds between certain
atoms. These bonds may be broken and new atoms attached without disrupting the existing
skeleton of the hydrocarbon.
Wet gas - Natural gas containing condensable hydrocarbons.
August 2009 8-3 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 8 Glossary
August 2009 8-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Chapter 9 References Cited
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 1999. Toxicological Profile for
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Atlanta, Georgia.
231 pages.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. 2002. Public Health Assessment: Imperial
Refining Company, Ardmore, Carter County, Oklahoma EPA Facility Id: OK0002024099
[Web Page]. Located at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov:8080/NEWS/imperialpha_032002.html.
Accessed: November 21, 2005.
American Petroleum Institute. 1996. Petroleum Facts at a Glance. January-December, 1995 [Web
Page]. Located at: http://www.api.org/news/faqs. Accessed: 1999.
American Petroleum Institute. 2005. Safely, Reliably Providing the Products People Depend on
Every Day [Web Page]. Located at: http://api-
ec.api.org/filelibrary/ACF10F .pdf#search='API%20safely%2C%20reliably%20providing%2
Othe%20products%20people%20depend%20on%20every%20day'. Accessed: October 27,
2005.
Antle et al. 2004. Close Coupling of Ecosystem and Economic Models: Adaptation of Central
U.S. Agriculture to Climate Change. Report to EPA. September 2003. Summary available at
www.climate .montana.edu.
Armstrong, C. A. 1971. Ground-Water Resources of Burke and Mountrail Counties. Bulletin 55 -
Part III and County Ground Water Studies 14 - Part III. United States Geological Survey,
North Dakota Geological Survey, and North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck,
North Dakota. 86 pages + 4 plates.
Austin, J. E., and A. L. Richert. 2001. A Comprehensive Review of Observational and Site
Evaluation Data of Migrant Whooping Cranes in the United States, 1943-1999 [Web Page].
Located at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/birds/wcdata/wcdata.htm. Accessed:
February 11,2005.
Avian Power Line Interaction Committee (APLIC). 1996. Suggested Practices for Raptor
Protection on Power Lines: the State of the Art in 1996. Edison Electric Institute and Raptor
Research Foundation, Washington, D.C. 155 pages + appendices.
Bain, M. B., and J. T. Finn. 1988. Stream flow regulation and fish community structure. Ecology
69:382-392.
Bartlett and West Engineers, Inc. 2002. Fort Berthold Indian Reservation Fort Berthold Rural
Water System Water Development Engineering Report. Volume: 1. Bartlett and West
Engineers, Inc., Bismarck, North Dakota. 266 pages.
Beyer, W.N. 1990. Evaluating Soil Contamination. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological
Report 90(2).
August 2009
9-1
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Brown, D. F., W. E. Dunn, and A. J. Policastro. 2000. A National Risk Assessment for Selected
Hazardous Materials in Transportation. Argonne National Laboratory, Decision and
Information Sciences Division ANL/DIS-01-1. 268 pages.
Bryce, S. A., J. M. Omernik, D. E. Pater, M. Ulmer, J. Schaar, J. Freeouf, R. Johnson, P. Kuck,
and S. H. Azevedo. 1998. Ecoregions of North Dakota and South Dakota [Web Page].
Located at: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/ndsdeco/ndsdeco.htm. Accessed:
January 22, 2004.
Bureau of Indian Affairs and Three Affiliated Tribes. 2003. Request for proposals. Fort Berthold
clean fuels refinery EIS. New Town, North Dakota. 13 pages.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2003. Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for
the proposed Mandan, Hidatsa, Arikara Nation clean fuels refinery, Ward County, ND.
Federal Register 68(216):63128-63129.
Bureau of Indian Affairs. 2005. American Indian Population and Labor Force Report 2005
Bureau of Land Management. 2002. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Renewal of the
Federal Grant for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System Right-of-Way. Bureau of Land
Management, Anchorage, Alaska
Butler, L. D., J. B. Cropper, R. H. Johnson, A. J. Norman, and P. L. Shaver. 1997. National
Range and Pasture Handbook. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Grazing Lands
Technology Institute, Fort Worth, Texas. 472 pages.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. California Petroleum Refinery Hazardous
Waste Source Reduction 1998 Assessment Report. California Environmental Protection
Agency, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Technology Development., Sacramento, California. 109 pages.
California Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Consolidated Table of OEHHA/ARB
Approved Risk Assessment Health Values [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/healthval/healthval.htm. Accessed: October 21, 2005.
Gates, S. W., and K. M. Macek-Rowland. 1998. Water Resources of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, West-Central North Dakota. Water-Resources Investigations Report 98-4098.
United States Geological Survey, Bismarck, North Dakota. 75 pages.
Cimarosti, Daniel E. 2005. Personal communication [November 29, 2005 letter to Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Wetlands jurisdiction].
North Dakota Regulatory Office, Army Corps of Engineers. 1 page
Clark, I. D., and P. Fritz. 1997. Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology. Lewis Publishers, Inc.,
Boca Raton, Florida. 328 pages.
Clayton, L. 1972. Geology of Mountrail County, North Dakota. Bulletin 55 - Part IV and County
Ground Water Studies 14 - Part IV. North Dakota Geological Survey and North Dakota
State Water Commission, Bismarck, North Dakota. 70 pages + 2 plates.
Cochrane, J. F., and P. Delphey. 2002. Status Assessment and Conservation Guidelines Dakota
Skipper Hesperia Dacota: Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Manitoba, and
Saskatchewan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 84 pages.
August 2009 9-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Collins, R. 2004. Personal communication [July 6 telephone conversation with R. Henning,
Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Raptor and
Bald Eagle Use of Project Area]. Regional Fish and Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bismarck, North Dakota. 1 page.
Confluence Consulting, Inc. 2001. Biological, Physical, and Chemical Integrity of Select Streams
on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. Confluence Consulting, Inc., Bozeman,
Montana. 98 pages.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Forty most asked questions concerning CEQ's National
Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508). Federal Register 46(55): 18026-
18038.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, D.C. 35 pages + appendices.
Croft, M. G. 1985. Ground-Water Resources of McKenzie County, North Dakota. Bulletin 80 -
Part III and County Ground Water Studies 37 - Part III. North Dakota Geological Survey
and North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck, North Dakota. 57 pages.
Crows Breast, Elgin. 2005. Letter to Mr. Horace Pipe/Project Engineer, dated April 4, 2005.
Cvancara, A. M. 1983. Aquatic Mollusks of North Dakota North Dakota Geological Survey,
Report of Investigation No. 78 [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/distr/invert/mollusks/mollusks.htm (Version 15 AUG97)
. Accessed: January 22, 2004.
Davis, G. J., and M. M. Brinson. 1980. Responses of Submersed Vascular Plant Communities to
Environmental Change [Web Page]. Located at: www.aquabotanic.com/paper2.html.
Accessed: January 22, 2004.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: A Field Guide to the
Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York. 785
pages.
Erickson, W. P., G. D. Johnson, M. D. Strickland, D. P. Young, Jr., K. J. Sernka, and R. E. Good.
2001. Avian Collisions With Wind Turbines: a Summary of Existing Studies and
Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. Western
EcoSystems Technology, Inc., Cheyenne, Wyoming
Euliss, N. H., Jr., D. A. Wrubleski, and D. M. Mushet. 1999. Chapter 21 Wetlands of the
prairie pothole region: invertebrate species composition, ecology, and management. Pages
471-514 in D. P. Batzer, R. B. Rader, and S. A. Wissinger, editors. Invertebrates in
Freshwater Wetlands of North America. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
Faanes, C. A., and R. E. Stewart. 1982. Revised checklist of North Dakota birds. The Prairie
Naturalist 14(3):81-92.
Fausch, K. D., and R. G. Bramblett. 1991. Disturbance and fish communities in intermittent
tributaries of a Western Great Plains River. Copeia 3:659-674.
August 2009 9-3 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Federal Aviation Administration. 2000a. Federal Regulation Title 14 Part 77; Airspace
Obstruction Analysis [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.faa.gov/arp/ace/part77.crm.
Accessed: April 26, 2005a.
Federal Aviation Administration. 2000b. Obstruction Marking and Lighting. Federal Aviation
Administration Advisory Circular AC70/7460-1. 34 pages + appendices.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2003. Region VIII; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort
Berthold Reservation of North Dakota [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.fema.gov/regions/viii/tribal/3tribesbg.shtm. Accessed: January 28, 2004.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2004. Multi Hazard Maps [Web Page]. Located at:
http://hazards.fema.gov/mapviewer/layercontroller.jsp. Accessed: November 16, 2005.
Federal Land Managers Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) 2000. RE: Visibility.
Fort Berthold Library. 1994. Excerpts From History and Culture of the Three Affiliated Tribes:
Mandan, Hidatsa, and ArikaraNation: Resource Guide [Web Page]. Located at:
http://lib.fbcc.bia.edu/FortBerthold/Tatcntpy.asp. Accessed: January 28, 2004.
GeoTrans, Inc. 2005. Draft Preliminary Site Characterization Proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels
Refinery, Makoti, ND. GeoTrans, Inc., Brookfield, Wisconsin. 10 pages + tables, figures,
graphs, and appendices.
GeoTrans, Inc. 2006. Final Preliminary Site Characterization Proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels
Refinery, Makoti, ND. GeoTrans, Inc., Brookfield, Wisconsin. 10 pages + tables, figures,
graphs, and appendices.
Gore, J. A. 1987. Development and application of macroinvertebrate instream flow models for
regulated flow management. Pages 99-115 J. F. Craig and J. B. Kemper, editors. Regulated
Streams: Advances in Ecology. Plenum Press, New York, New York.
Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2004 b. Water Resources Technical Report for the
National Environmental Policy Act Analysis of the Three Affiliated Tribes' Proposed Fee-
to-Trust Transfer and Clean Fuels Refinery Project. Greystone Environmental Consultants,
Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. 65 pages + appendices.
Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2005. Wetlands Technical Report for the National
Environmental Policy Act Analysis of the Three Affiliated Tribes' Proposed Fee-to-Trust
Transfer and Clean Fuels Refinery Project. Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc.,
Greenwood Village, Colorado. 34 pages + appendices.
Ham's, N. M., L. G. Shallenberger, D. L. Donaleski, and E. A. Sales. 1985. A Retrospective
Mortality Study Of Workers In Three Major U.S. Refineries and Chemical Plants. Part II.
Internal Comparisons By Geographic Site, Occupation, And Smoking History. Journal of
Occupational Medicine 27(5):361-369.
Ham's, N. M., T. M. Holmes, V. A. Newill, F. R Smith, and L. G. Smith. 1982. Brain Cancer:
Issues and Dilemmas. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 381:83-90.
Harkness, R. E., and J. D. Wald. 2003. Water Resources Data North Dakota, Water Year 2002,
Volume 2 Ground Water. Water-Data Report ND-02-2. U.S. Geological Survey, Bismarck,
North Dakota. 184 pages.
August 2009 9-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Harkness, R. E., R. F. Lundgren, S. W. Norbeck, S. M. Robinson, and B. A. Sether. 2003. Water
Resources Data North Dakota, Water Year 2002, Volume 1 Surface Water. Water-Data
Report ND-02-1. U.S. Geological Survey, Bismarck, North Dakota. 440 pages.
Hershfield, D. M. 1961. Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. Technical Paper No. 40.
U.S. Weather Bureau, Washington, D.C. 115 pages.
High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2004a. Historic Data Summaries: Period of Record
Monthly Climate Summary, Parshall, North Dakota (326867) [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/cgi-bin/cli_perl_lib/cliMAIN.pl?nd6867. Accessed: August 4,
2004a.
High Plains Regional Climate Center. 2004b. Historic Data Summaries: Period of Record
Monthly Climate Summary, Ryder, North Dakota (327749) [Web Page]. Located at:
http://hprcc.unl.edu/cgi-bin/cli_perl_lib/cliMAIN.pl?nd7749. Accessed: August 4, 2004b.
Hoberg, T. and Gause C. 1992. Reptiles and amphibians of North Dakota. N. D. Outdoors 55:7-
19.
Howey, R. L., C. Farris, F. Glatt, F. Hauff, S. Lahlum, S. Larson, L. Neubauer, and F. Wahl.
1974. Soil Survey of Ward County, North Dakota. United States Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 92 pages + maps.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007. Summary for Policymakers. Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability; Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the IPCC.
Jensen, R. E. 1998. Climate of North Dakota [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/climate/climate.htm. Accessed: April 6, 2004.
Kantrud, H. A. 1990. Effects of vegetation manipulation on breeding waterfowl in prairie
wetlands a literature review. Pages 93-110 in K. E. Severson, technical coordinator. Can
Livestock Be Used As a Tool to Enhance Wildlife Habitat? 43rd Annual Meeting of the
Society for Range Management. Reno, NV, February 13, 1990. USDA Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-194.
Kantrud, H. A., G. L. Krapu, and G. A. Swanson. 1989. Prairie Basin Wetlands of the Dakotas: a
Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Center Biological Report 85(7.28). 111 pages.
Kent, D. M., and J. E. Christopher. 1996. The Geological Atlas of the Western Canada
Sedimentary Basin: [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications
/ATLAS_WWW/A_CH27/CH_27. shtml.
Klausing, R. L. 1979. Ground-Water Resources of Dunn County, North Dakota. Bulletin 68 -
Part III and County Ground Water Studies 25 - Part III. North Dakota Geological Survey
and North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck, North Dakota. 48 pages.
Macek-Rowland, K. M., and R. M. Lent. 1996. Variations in Land Use and Nonpoint-Source
Contamination on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, West-Central North Dakota, 1990-
93. Water-Resources Investigations Report 96-4007. U.S. Geological Survey, Bismarck,
North Dakota. 33 pages.
August 2009 9-5 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Mehlman, M. A. 1990. Dangerous Properties of Petroleum-Refining Products: Carcinogenicity of
Motor Fuels (Gasoline). Teratogenesis, Carcinogenesis, and Mutagenesis 10(5):399-408.
Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning, and Environment (MHSPE). 1994. Intervention Values
and Target Values - Soil Quality Standards. Directorate-General for Environmental
Protection, Department of Soil Protection, The Hague, The Netherlands.
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture AC97-A-34. North
Dakota State and County Data. Volume: 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, National
Agricultural Statistics Service Series Part 34. 502 pages.
National Park Service, and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Guidance on Nitrogen and
Sulfur Deposition Analysis Thresholds [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/Perrnits/flag/index.cfm. Accessed: October 21, 2005.
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. 1997. 1997 Census of Agriculture Ward County,
North Dakota [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/profiles/nd/ndp051.pdf Accessed: January 14,
2003.
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2001. Montrail County Estimates, North Dakota,
2001 [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/North_Dakota/index.asp. Accessed: January
14,2003.
North Dakota Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Barley County Estimates, North Dakota, 2001
[Web Page]. Located at: http://www.nass.usda.gov/nd/cebarley01.pdf Accessed: January
14,2003.
North Dakota Agricultural Weather Network. 2004. National Weather Service Monthly Normals
(Average Air Temperature and Precipitation): Plaza, North Dakota [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.ndawn.ndsu.nodak.edu/get-table.html
?ttype=nwsmonthly&station=67&variables=mnwsnavt&variables=mnwsnr. Accessed:
August 4, 2004.
North Dakota Department of Commerce. 2002. Minot and the Surrounding Area Labor
Availability Study [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.growingnd.com
/allmedia.doc?mediaID=384&sz=232448. Accessed: January 14, 2004.
North Dakota Department of Health. 2000. City of Makoti, Ward County, North Dakota
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation, North Dakota Wellhead Protection Program. North
Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water Quality, Bismarck, North Dakota. 9 pages
+ figures and appendices.
North Dakota Department of Health. 2002. Wellhead Protection Program, City of Plaza,
Mountrail County, North Dakota, North Dakota Wellhead Protection Program. North
Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water Quality, Bismarck, North Dakota. 5 pages
+ appendices.
North Dakota Department of Health. 2003. North Dakota 2002 Section 303(d) List of Waters
Needing Total Maximum Daily Loads. North Dakota Department of Health, Division of
Water Quality, Bismarck, North Dakota. 84 pages.
August 2009 9-6 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
North Dakota Department of Transportation. 2003. 2003 Traffic Volume Map. Scale: 1:84,480.
North Dakota Department of Transportation, Planning and Programming Division,
Bismarck, North Dakota.
North Dakota Geographic Information Systems. 2004. North Dakota Hub Explorer [Web Page].
Located at: http://web.apps.state.nd.us/hubexplorer/generalinfo/viewer.html. Accessed: July
16, 2004.
North Dakota Indian Affairs Commission. 1999. Facts and Profiles: Indians in North Dakota
[Web Page]. Located at: http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndiac/publications.htm. Accessed:
March 4, 2004.
North Dakota Industrial Commission. 2005. Monthly Production for Local Counties [Web Page].
Located at: http://www.oilgas.nd.gov/stats/Mountrail.pdf Accessed: March 18, 2005.
North Dakota State Data Center. 2002. The Changing Profile of the Great Plains [Web Page].
Located at:
http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/sdc/publications/greatplains/ChangingPopulationPaper.pdf
Accessed: January 28, 2004.
North Dakota State Data Center. 2003. North Dakota County Migration Flows: 1998-99 to 2000-
01 [Web Page]. Located at:
http: //www .ndsu .nodak. edu/sdc/publications/reports/NDCnty MigFlows9 8_01 FinalPDF .pdf.
Accessed: December 18, 2003.
North Dakota State Water Commission. 2004. Date Resources, Ground/Surface Water Data Site
Inventory Retrieval System [Web Page]. Located at:
www.swc.state.nd.us/4DLink2/4dcgi/WellSearchForm. Accessed: September 20, 2004.
Ojima, D.S. and Lackett, J.M.. 2002. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Central Great Plains. Report for the U.S.
Global Change Research Program. Fort Collins: Colorado State University.
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality. 2004. Ponca City Oklahoma Air Toxics
Assessment. Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 8
pages.
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). 2001. Guidance for Ecological Risk
Assessment, Level II Screening Level Values. Portland, Oregon.
Ostlie, W. R, R E. Schneider, J. M. Aldrich, T. M. Faust, R. L. B. McKim, and S. J. Chaplin.
1997. The Status of Biodiversity in the Great Plains. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington,
Virginia. 326 pages + appendices.
Pettyjohn, W. A. 1968. Geology and Ground Water Resources of Renville and Ward Counties.
Bulletin 50 and County Ground Water Studies 11 - Part 2 Ground Water Basic Data.
North Dakota Geological Survey and North Dakota State Water Commission, Bismarck,
North Dakota. 302 pages + 1 plate and 1 errata sheet.
Pettyjohn, W. A., and R. D. Hutchinson. 1971. Ground-Water Resources of Renville and Ward
Counties. Bulletin 50 - Part III and County Ground-Water Studies 11 - Part III. United
States Geological Survey, North Dakota Geological Survey, and North Dakota State Water
Commission, Bismarck, North Dakota. 100 pages + 2 plates.
August 2009 9-7 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Pipe, H. 2006. Personal communication [February 23 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Questions about the
buffalo for the proposed action]. Refinery Project Manager, Three Affiliated Tribes, Makoti,
North Dakota. 1 page.
Polsky, C. and Easterling, W.E.. 2001. Adaptation to climate variability and change in the US
Great Plains: A multi-scale analysis of Ricardian climate sensitivities. Agriculture,
Ecosystems and Environment 85(1-3), 133-144.
Refinery Reform Campaign. 2005. Refinery Reform Campaign [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.refineryreform.org/index.htm. Accessed: November 21, 2005.
Reynolds, R. E., D. R. Cohan, and M. A. Johnson. 1996. Using Landscape Information
Approaches to Increase Duck Recruitment in the Prairie Pothole Region [Web Page].
Accessed: April 16, 2004.
Rogers, M. 2004. Personal communication [August 4 telephone conversation with R. Henning,
Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Plaza public
water supply]. Public Water System Administrator, City of Plaza, Plaza, North Dakota. 1
page.
Samson, F. B., F. L. Knopf, and W. R. Ostlie. 1998. Grasslands. Page 437-472 in M. J. Mac, P.
A. Opler, C. E. Pucket Haecker, and P. D. Downs, editors. Status and Trends of the Nation's
Biological Resources. Regional Trends of Biological Resources. Volume 2. Northern Prairie
Wildlife Research Center, Jamestown, North Dakota. Available at:
http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/2000/grlands/grlands.htm. (Version 21JAN2000).
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallen. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results
and Analysis 1966-2001 [Web Page]. Located at: http://www.mbr-
pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2001.html (Version 2002.1). Accessed: August 8, 2004.
Schmid, R. W. 1962. Ground Water Conditions in the Vicinity of Parshall, Mountrail County,
North Dakota. SWCC Project No. 791. North Dakota Ground Water Studies No. 21. North
Dakota State Water Conservation Commission, Bismarck, North Dakota. 31 pages.
Schmid, R. W. 2004. Personal communication [September 15 telephone conversation with R.
Henning, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE:
Wells and water quality data for the Fox Hills and Hell Creek aquifers within the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation]. Principal, Water Supply, Inc., Mandan, North Dakota. 1 page.
Shaver, S. 2003. Update on the Air Toxics Program [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.4cleanair.org/SallyShaver-Toxics.pdf#search='shaver%20residual%20risk'.
Accessed: November 22, 2005.
Souris Basin Planning Council. 2002. 2002 Agricultural Statistics, Mountrail County [Web Page].
Located at: www.sourisbasin.org/documents/1058371914.pdf Accessed: July 16, 2004.
Steenhof, K. 1978. The Ecology of Wintering Bald Eagles in Southeastern South Dakota. M.S.
Thesis. University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri. 148 pages.
Stehn, T. 2004a. Whooping Crane Recovery Activities: March 2004-September 2004. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service. 15 pages.
August 2009 9-8 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Stehn, T. 2004b. Whooping Crane Recovery Activities: October 2003-March 2004. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 11 pages.
Stewart, R. E. 1975. Breeding Birds of North Dakota. Tri-College University Center for
Environmental Studies, Fargo, North Dakota. 295 pages.
Surface Transportation Board. 1997. Surface Transportation Board Decision Document; Docket
Number FD_32835_0 [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.stb.dot.gOv/decisions/ReadingRoom.nsf/0/4b7f66dddf9fcfd485256541006fb988
?OpenDocument. Accessed: April 25, 2005.
Swensen, Fern. 2005. Personal communication [March 20 letter to Letter Elgin Crows Breast,
RE: SHPO #98-0343; MHA Nation's Clean Fuel Refinery Project]. Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer, State Historic Preservation Office, Bismark, North Dakota, 1 page.
Swisher, J. F. 1964. A roosting of the bald eagle in northern Utah. Wilson Bulletin 76(2): 186-
187.
Towner, J. K. 2003. Personal communication [November 19 letter to R. Henning, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Wetlands and
threatened or endangered species to be considered for the clean fuels refinery project]. Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota Field Office, Bismarck, North
Dakota. 4 pages + enclosures.
Triad Project Corporation. 2003a. Three Affiliated Tribes Clean Fuels Refinery Preliminary Site
Locations. Triad Project Corporation, Lindon, Utah. 33 pages.
Triad Project Corporation. 2003b. MHA Nations Clean Fuels Petroleum Refinery Project
Refinery Feed Study. Triad Project Corporation, Lindon, Utah. 28 pages + 32 drawings.
Tsai, S. P., E. L. Gilstrap, T. A. Colangelo, A. K. Menard, and C. E. Ross. 1997. A Mortality
Study of Oil Refinery and Petrochemical Employees. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 39(5):448-454.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. 1990 and 2000 Census Data on Population and Housing. Economic
and Demographic Information System. Racial and Ethnic Composition, and Average
Household Size [Web Page]. Located at: http://factfmder.census.gov
/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en. Accessed: January 15, 2004.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2006. Emissions of
Greenhouse Gases in the United States. DOE/EIA-0573, November 2007. Available at
http://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057306.pdf
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)/Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2007. International
Energy Outlook. DOE/EIA-0484(2007), May 2007. Available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/0484(2007).pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1999. Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment
Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities. Peer Review Draft. August 1999. US
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530-D-99-001A.
http://www.epa.gov/earthlr6/6pd/rcra_c/protocol/slerap.htm
August 2009 9-9 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. 2001 TRI Chemical Release and Transfer
Reporting by Petroleum Refineries (by Production Capacity) [Web Page]. Located at:
http://www.epa.gov/sfip/archive/download/petroleum_refineries_2001 .xls. Accessed:
November 22, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 200Ib. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Region
4 Bulletins, Ecological Risk Assessment. Originally published November 1995, website
version last updated November 30, 2001. http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/ecolbul.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003a. Dispersion Modeling Analysis of Class I
Increment Consumption in North Dakota and Eastern Montana. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003b. Ecological Screening Levels for RCRA
AppendixIXHazardous Constituents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5.
August 22, 2003 update, http://www.epa.gov/reg5rcra/ca/edql.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Air Quality Resource Report for the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's Proposed
Clean Fuels Refinery Project. Portions of this document were prepared by Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc. in consultation with Triad Project Corporation and
modified by EPA. The information is intended to supplement information provided in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Report for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara
Nation's Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project. Portions of this document were prepared
by Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc. in consultation with Triad Project
Corporation and modified by EPA. The information in this document is preliminary, subject
to revision and is intended to supplement information provided in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Ecological Soil Screening Levels. Available
at http://www.epa.gov/ecotox/ecossl/. Accessed December 9, 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003b. Introduction to Hazardous Waste Identification
(40 CFR Part 261), Training Module, Solid and Emergency Response 5305WO. U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency 530-R-04-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Safe Drinking Water Information System [Web
Page]. Located at: http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/sdw_form create_page?state _abbr=ND.
Accessed: July 21,2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. IRIS Database for Risk Assessment [Web Page].
Located at: http://www.epa.gov/iris/. Accessed: October 21, 2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1978. Final special rule, 17.41(a) determination of certain
bald eagle populations as endangered orthreatened 43(31):6,230-6,233.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1989. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
determination of endangered status pallid sturgeon 55(173):36,641-36,647.
August 2009 9-10 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1995. Final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from
endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states 60(133):36,000-36,010.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1999. Proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower
48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife 64(128):36,454-36,464.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2004. North Dakota Field Office, Endangered,
Threatened, and Candidate Species Accounts [Web Page]. Located at:
http://northdakotafieldoffice.fws.gov/-endspecies/endangered_species.htm. Accessed:
August 6, 2004.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines.
Located at:
http://www.fws.gOv/midwest/Eagle/guidelines/NationalBaldEagleManagementGuidelines.p
df
U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Peak Acceleration (%g) With 10% Probability of Exceedance in
50 Years [Web Page]. Located at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov
/hazmaps/products_data/2002/2002April03/WUS/WUSpga500v4.pdf. Accessed: November
16,2005.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Earthquake Hazards Program Earthquake Information for North
Dakota [Web Page]. Located at: http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/north_dakota/. Accessed:
November 16, 2005.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004a. Ground Water Levels for North Dakota, Hiddenwood Lake
Aquifer, USGS 475729101483401; ND 152-087-28DAA [Web Page]. Located at:
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/gwlevels/?site_no=475729101483401. Accessed:
January 9, 2004aP.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004b. Ground Water Levels for North Dakota, Ryder Ridge Aquifer,
USGS 475540101431201; ND151-086-05CBB [Web Page]. Located at:
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gwlevels/?site_no=475540101431201. Accessed:
January 9, 2004b.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004c. Ground Water Levels for North Dakota, Vang Aquifer, USGS
475934101483101 152-087-16AAA [Web Page]. Located at:
http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/gwlevels/?site_no=475934101483101. Accessed:
January 9, 2004c.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004d. U.S. Geological Survey 06332523 East Fork Shell Creek Near
Parshall, North Dakota [Web Page]. Located at: http://waterdata.
usgs.gov/nd/nwis/uv/?site_no=06332523&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004e. Water Resources, Ground Water, Site Inventory for North
Dakota [Web Page]. Located at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nd/nwis/inventory. Accessed:
September 20, 2004e.
U.S. Geological Survey. 2004f Earthquake Hazards Program Quaternary Faults and Folds by
State and Region [Web Page]. Located at: http://earthquakes.usgs.gov/qfaults/usmap.html.
Accessed: November 16, 2005f.
August 2009 9-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
VanderBusch, D. 1991. Soil Survey of Mountrail County, North Dakota. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. 187 pages + maps.
Vannote, R. L., and B. W. Sweeney. 1980. Geographic analysis of thermal equilibria: a
conceptual model for evaluating the effects of natural and modified thermal regimes on
aquatic insect communities. American Naturalist 115:667-695.
Wald, J. D., and S. W. Gates. 1995. Water Resources Data for the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, West-Central North Dakota. Open File Report 95-304. U.S. Geological
Survey, Bismarck, North Dakota. 272 pages.
Walker, B. 2002. Air Toxics Moving to Risk, An Update on Residual Risk. A Paper Given at the
EPA/API/NPRA Meeting, April 17, 2002 [Web Page]. Located at: http://api-
ep.api.org/filelibrary/walker-res.risk.ppt. Accessed: November 22, 2005.
Wanek, A. 2004. Personal communication [September 14 telephone conversation with R.
Henning, Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE:
Water supply systems for the towns of Plaza and Makoti]. North Dakota Department of
Health, Bismarck, North Dakota. 1 page.
Wavra, G. 2004. Personal communication [July 21 telephone conversation with R. Henning,
Greystone Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Water
supply systems for the towns of Plaza and Makoti, North Dakota]. Environmental Scientist,
North Dakota Department of Health, Drinking Water Program, Bismarck, North Dakota. 1
page.
Wen, C. P., S. P. Tsai, R. L. Gibson, and W. A. McClellan. 1984. Long Term Mortality Of Oil
Refinery Workers. II. Comparison Of The Experience Of Active Terminated And Retired
Workers. Journal of Occupational Medicine 26(2):118-127.
Wireman, M. 2005. Technical memorandum: Ground-water issues related to proposed MHA
Nation Clean Fuels Refinery, Makoti, ND, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver,
Colorado.
Wireman, M. 2006. Memorandum: Hydrologic Assessment of Wetlands Potentially Impacted by
Proposed Refinery, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado.
Wireman, M. 2007. Technical memorandum: Ground-water monitoring for the Fort Berthold
Indian Reservation and the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery, Makoti, ND, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado.
Wong, O., and G. K. Raabe. 2000. Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and exposure to benzene in a
multinational cohort of more then 308,000 petroleum workers, 1937 to 1996. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 42(5):554-568.
Woolley, R. G. 2004a. Personal communication [January 27 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado, H. Pipe, Three Affiliated
Tribes, Makoti, North Dakota, and M. Astrope, Triad Project Corporation, Lindon, Utah.
RE: Refinery Flow Diagrams]. President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada. 1 page.
August 2009 9-12 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Chapter 9 References Cited
Woolley, R. G. 2004b. Personal communication [April 1 e-mail to D. Allen, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colorado. RE: MHA Clean Fuels Flow
Diagram]. President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1 page.
Woolley, R. G. 2004c. Personal communication [May 14 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: NPDES Wastewater
Treatment]. President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1
page + attachment.
Woolley, R. G. 2004d. Personal communication [May 14 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: NPDES WWTS].
President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1 page +
attachment.
Woolley, R. G. 2004e. Personal communication [May 16 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: NPDES surface areas].
President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1 page.
Woolley, R. G. 2004f. Personal communication [May 23 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: NPDES Data].
President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1 page +
attachments.
Woolley, R. G. 2004g. Personal communication [June 17 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: MHA clean fuels
vapor recovery system]. President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada. 1 page.
Woolley, R. G. 2004h. Personal communication [July 18 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Response to questions
Diane Mann-Klager raised during her review of an initial draft of chapter 2]. President and
CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 4 pages.
Woolley, R. G. 2004i. Personal communication [July 19 e-mail to D. M. Cameron, Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc., Greenwood Village, Colorado. RE: Refinery staffing].
President and CEO, Triad Project Corporation, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 1 page +
attachment.
Woolley, R. G. 2006. Personal communication [email to Dana Allen, U.S. EPA. RE: Refinery
Project Area. 1 page
Yoshioka, G., and M. Carpenter. 2002. Characteristics of Reported Inland and Coastal Oil Spills.
IFC Consulting, Fairfax, Virginia. 11 pages
August 2009 9-13 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Refining petroleum is the process of separating crude oil into useful hydro-
carbon-based substances. These substances include fuels (gasoline, jet fuel,
diesel, kerosene, and fuel oils), petrochemical feedstock (naphtha, ethylene, ben-
zene, and xylene), and other products (lubricating oils, greases, waxes, bitumen,
white oils, and petroleum coke).
The first refinery opened in 1861 and produced mostly kerosene, tar, and naphtha
(gasoline). The last major refinery built in the U.S. was completed in 1976. The
number of refineries in the U.S. hit a high point in 1981, when 315 were operat-
ing. Many closed during that decade because they were small and inefficient or
because prices for petroleum products were historically low for the latter 1980s
and much of the 1990s. Since then, the number of operating refineries in the U.S.
has continued to shrink. Even in the 1990s, as the industry faced growing re-
quirements for cleaner fuels and improved environmental performance along
with rising demand for gasoline, the number of refineries continued to drop, from
194 in 1990 to 155 at the end of the decade. Currently, the capacity of domestic
refineries is considered inadequate to meet the demand for products.
How Refineries Work
A refinery carries out a number of processes to produce products from the
"crude" or unprocessed oil that comes out of the ground. These processes are
organized into several categories: physical separation, chemical conversion, puri-
fication or treatment, and blending. These processes combine to create a variety
of products that are more than the sum of their parts: the output from a refinery
actually exceeds the input. This appendix discusses the steps that are involved in
refining crude oil, as well as potential impacts to the surrounding community.
Crude Beginnings
Crude oil often is delivered to the refinery by barge and, as a result, refineries are
concentrated in coastal states. It also can be delivered by pipeline, and so refiner-
ies are located near current or historical sources of crude oil and near heavily in-
dustrialized regions. Crude oil would be delivered from Canada to the MHA Na-
tion Clean Fuels Refinery by pipeline.
Crude oils are used to create a wide variety of substances because they contain
"hydrocarbons," a mix of hydrogen and carbon in various chemical structures.
The crude can range in color from clear to black and in texture from like water to
nearly solid. Crude oil is a fossil fuel, meaning that it was created from the natu-
ral decay of plants and animals that lived in ancient seas: anywhere crude oil is
found was once a sea bed.
November 2005
A-l
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
The atoms in hydrocarbon molecules are arranged in a variety of ways, from
straight chains to rings, and contain a varying number of carbon atoms. A hydro-
carbon with one (methane, a gas that is lighter than air) or only a few carbon at-
oms will be a gas; slightly longer "chains" of carbon molecules will create a liq-
uid, and a long chain will be a solid, such as wax or tar. When they are refined,
these chains are combined in a number of ways to produce anything from gaso-
line and jet fuel to plastic and nylon. These chains also control how quickly the
substance will evaporate and so how it will be processed when it is refined.
Throughout the process, intermediate steps continuously remove unwanted com-
ponents, such as sulfur and excess gas, which often can be used in other portions
of the refining process.
Crude oil contains hundreds of different types of hydrocarbons mixed together
that must be separated to be useful. The various types are separated in an oil re-
finery: the various hydrocarbon "chains" boil at different temperatures from
barely above room temperature to more than 1,112 "Fahrenheit and so can all
be separated by distillation.
Basic Processes
The most common method used to separate the crude oil into the various compo-
nents is to heat the oil, allow it to boil and vaporize, and then condense the vari-
ous vapors into a variety of products. Atmospheric distillation was the first refin-
ing process developed (in 1862) and produces mainly kerosene and some diesel
fuel that can be further refined. After the initial atmospheric distillation step at
MHA, the refinery will use hydrotreating, hydrocracking, and alkylation to proc-
ess the crude oil.
The major classes of hydrocarbons in fuel oil include the paraffins and, unlike a
paraffin candle, are usually gas or liquid; the aromatics, which refers to the
chemical "rings" that make them up and not to the smell; naphthenes or cycloal-
kanes, which are usually liquid; and other categories that can be liquid or gas and
that include alkenes, dienes, and alkynes.
Desalting
Before certain varieties of crude oil can be processed at all, they must go through
a process called "desalting." This process removes water, salts, and other solid
materials that otherwise could damage the equipment at a refinery. Desalting es-
sentially means that the crude oil is dehydrated (water is removed) so that the
impurities settle out.
Synthetic crude is crude that was processed at the source. It does not require de-
salting at the refinery. Thus, the waste water and contaminants that are a byprod-
uct of desalting are not an issue for refineries that use synthetic crude oil.
Distillation
The first and most important step in the process is called fractional distillation.
The various components of crude oil boil at different temperatures and so can be
separated in the process. First, the crude oil is heated, usually with steam, to a
November 2005 A-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
temperature of 700° to as high as 1,200° Fahrenheit. All but the heaviest compo-
nents "flash" into gas ("vapor") that cools as it rises. The vapor enters the "frac-
tionating tower, a steel tube about 120 feet high, that contains trays at various
heights. As the vapor rises in the column, it cools, condenses back to a liquid,
and collects on the trays. Each tray contains holes that allow the vapor to flow up
through the tray; some liquids collect and are returned to a lower level where
they evaporate again. This recycling action makes the product more pure. Be-
cause the various components of crude oil boil at different temperatures, they
condense at different temperatures and heights in the column. The column is
coolest at the top and hottest at the bottom, so the components with lower boiling
points condense back to liquid farther up the column. At successively higher
points, the products include lubricating oil, heating oil, kerosene, gasoline, and
gases. The liquids called "fractions" that are collected are either sent to
condensers to cool them more, or move on to other areas of the refinery for more
processing.
Crude
Oil
i
r
Boiler »
20° C
40° C
70° C
200° C
300° C
600° C
Distillation
Column
*
1
Refori
A
>
Alkyl
Unit
Crack
Unit
^
tner
L
ition
ing
Product
Gas
Naphtha
Gasoline
Kerosene
Gas Oil or
Diesel
Lubricating
Oil
Heavy Gas
Oil
Residual
Carbons
4
8
8
12
16
36
44
80
Two types of crude oil distillation are in use
tion operates under pressure that is ambient
sure) or slightly above. Some refineries also
der vacuum. These vacuum towers tend to
umns, but operate under generally the same
products from the thick residual that remains
at refineries. "Atmospheric" distilla-
(in other words, at normal air pres-
follow this step with distillation un-
be wider than the atmospheric col-
principle; they often produce usable
from atmospheric distillation.
November 2005
A-3
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Almost none of the products that come out of the fractional distillation column is
ready for market. Instead, they must be processed further, usually by:
^ Solvent extraction or dewaxing
^ Cracking: breaking large hydrocarbons into smaller ones
^ Unification: combining smaller pieces
^ Alteration: rearranging the various pieces.
Solvent Treating
Solvent treating involves methods to remove the impurities that remain after the
initial distillation step. These methods usually are used both at intermediate
stages in the process and just before the product is sent to storage. Essentially,
these processes remove the impurities by adding solvents (a liquid that can dis-
solve another substance). Depending on the specific processes, the impurities
either clump up and fall to the bottom by chemical reaction (known as precipitat-
ing), are evaporated away along with the solvent, or the product is chilled so that
the impurities precipitate.
Cracking
Cracking may be "thermal," which uses heat to break apart large hydrocarbon
molecules into smaller compounds, or "catalytic," which uses a catalyst to cause
a reaction in and change the hydrocarbons.
Developed in 1913 when it was known as the Burton Process in response
to the increase in demand for gasoline, the thermal cracking technology uses a
combination of pressure and intense heat to physically break large molecules into
smaller ones to produce additional gasoline and other fuels. The initial process,
however, produced unwanted byproducts and eventually evolved into methods
that produce materials that are more desirable. Thermal cracking also may use
high-temperature steam to break hydrocarbons into raw materials that are used to
manufacture chemicals.
Visbreaking
Two other techniques are used to treat the residuals that remain in the distillation
tower. The first is "visbreaking," considered a "mild" form of thermal cracking.
In this process, residuals from the atmospheric distillation tower are heated, and
then the resulting product is cooled with gas oil and rapidly burned or "flashed"
to make heavy oils flow more easily. The process, originally developed in the
1930s, also produces tar.
Coking
In the second technique, "coking," the residual that is left behind in the distilla-
tion tower is heated until is breaks down into oil, gasoline, and naphtha (which is
further processed to make gasoline); the process leaves behind an almost pure
residue of carbon called "coke," which is sold. It is not the same as the coke pro-
duced in steel making.
November 2005 A-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Hydrocracking
In general, catalytic cracking has replaced most uses of thermal cracking. All
forms of catalytic cracking break down complex compounds into simpler struc-
tures to increase the quality and quantity of the desirable products and decrease
the amount of residuals. A similar process that is not as common as "catalytic
cracking," is called "hydrocracking." It is a two-step process that uses a different
catalyst a substance that helps cause a reaction but that does not take part in it
than catalytic cracking, as well as lower temperatures; it also involves high
pressure and introduction of hydrogen ("hydrogenation"). It breaks down heavy
oil into gasoline and jet fuel or kerosene. Hydrocracking was developed in the
1960s to increase production of gasoline and forms the basis for the modern pet-
rochemical industry. It is used for feedstock that is difficult to process by either
catalytic cracking or reforming because they contain substances that are consid-
ered "poisons" for the catalyst.
Hydrotreating
"Hydrotreating," is a process that removes certain constituents nitrogen, sul-
fur, oxygen, and metals that are considered "contaminants" in the liquid petro-
leum. These materials can damage the refinery equipment and impair the quality
of the finished product. It also is used in advance of catalytic cracking to improve
yields and to upgrade the quality of the product. Essentially, the process works
by mixing the feedstock with hydrogen, heating it, and then passing it through a
catalytic reactor. The reactor converts the contaminants to other forms that can be
separated; the result is a gas stream that, after treatment, can be used to fire the
furnaces at the refinery, and a liquid stream that can be blended or used as feed-
stock.
Practically all the naphtha that is fed to catalytic reforming units is hydrotreated
to remove arsenic, sulfur, and nitrogen that would damage the catalyst. The re-
sulting product, called reformate, is fed to the gasoline blending pool. Byproducts
of this process include hydrogen, which is recycled within the refinery and used
in hydrotreating or hydrocracking.
Unification
Unlike cracking, which separates the large hydrocarbons into smaller ones, "uni-
fication" does the reverse. The process creates compounds that are used in mak-
ing chemicals and in blending gasoline, and generates hydrogen, which may be
used in hydrocracking or may be sold.
Reforming
The major process is "catalytic reforming," which converts low-octane products
into components that can be blended into high-octane gasoline. It also produces
hydrogen that can be recycled and used in other processes. Reforming is the re-
sult of a number of reactions that occur simultaneously. The reformer includes a
reactor (which may consist of alternating furnaces and fixed-bed reactors) and a
section for product recovery. Most processes use platinum as the catalyst, al-
though it may be combined with a second substance.
November 2005 A-5 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Alkylation
Finally, the structure of the hydrocarbon may be rearranged, rather than broken
or combined, to produce a product. At MHA, the alteration process is known as
"alkylation." In alkylation, certain gases (known as "low molecular weight") are
mixed with a catalyst. This catalytic process was developed in the 1940s to pro-
duce high-octane aviation gasoline, clean-burning fuels, and materials to produce
explosives and synthetic rubber.
Treating and Sweetening
Some intermediate and finished products may be treated and sweetened, in most
cases to remove unwanted sulfur. Treating is a means to remove certain sub-
stances that are considered "contaminants" in the finished product. These con-
taminants can include sulfur, nitrogen, oxygen, certain metals, and salts. Sweet-
ening is a major refinery treatment for gasoline and improves color, odor, and
stability; it also reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide. These processes can
be accomplished by addition of acid or other compounds, by heating the product,
or through use of catalysts.
Saturate Gas
A saturate gas plant separates components of the refinery gas, including butanes
that will be used in the alkylation process; pentanes that will be used to blend
gasoline; and ethanes that will be used to produce petrochemicals.
Asphalt Production
The residual materials from the refining process can be used to produce asphalt.
Asphalt for roads is processed in vacuum distillation, where it is heated and sent
to a column under vacuum to prevent it from cracking (further separating into
other materials). When the asphalt will be used for shingles or other roofing ma-
terials, it is produced by air blowing. It is heated almost to the point where it will
evaporate and then sent to a tower, where hot air is injected. A third process is
solvent deasphalting. This process uses propane or hexane as a solvent; it pro-
duces lubricating oil, materials that can be recycled in other parts of the refining
operation, and asphalt. The process feeds the material and propane into a tower at
closely controlled mixtures, temperatures, and pressures, and separates the mate-
rial on a rotating disc. The products are evaporated and exposed to steam to re-
cover the propane, which is recycled in the operation.
Blending
Blending is the physical mixing of a number of different hydrocarbons to pro-
duce a product. Products can be blended through manifolds or in tanks and other
vessels. The products can be blended by injecting the correct amounts of each
component; additives to improve performance can be added both during and after
blending to provide specific characteristics that would not otherwise be present.
November 2005 A-6 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Other Products
Lubricants, waxes, and grease also are refined from the residuals that remain af-
ter atmospheric and vacuum distillation. The primary objective of this process is
to remove the asphalts, certain other compounds, and waxes. In creating this
process, the asphalt is first removed from the reduced crude, which is combined
with lubricating oil and treated to produce a compound called a "raffinate." This
raffinate contains wax that is continuously removed by mixing the material with
a solvent; the mixture is cooled, the wax is removed, filtered, and washed to re-
move oil. This wax can be used to make paraffin candles, in cosmetics, and in
petroleum jelly.
The dewaxed raffinate is blended with other materials in extraction processes that
use solvents to create lubricating oil. Additives help the finished product meet the
characteristics that are needed for motor oils, industrial processes, and oils for
metal working.
Finally, grease is produced by blending what are known as "metallic soaps" (they
contain calcium, sodium, aluminum, lithium, or other metals, depending on the
intended use for the grease) and other additives into lubricating oil at a tempera-
ture of 400° to 600° Fahrenheit.
Other Operations
Most processes at a refinery require tremendous amounts of energy to create the
steam, power, water, hydrogen, and heat required for the various processes. Thus,
most include methods for heat integration, recycling of some constituents, heat
regeneration, and energy savings. Some of the major processes are discussed in
this section.
Heating
Process heaters and heat exchangers preheat the product in various processes so
that it reaches reaction temperatures. Heat exchangers use either steam or hot
hydrocarbons that have been transferred from some other section of the process.
The heaters are usually designed for specific operations. They may be fired by
refinery or natural gas, distillate, and residual oils.
Cooling
Heat may be removed from some processes by air and water exchangers, fans,
gas and liquid coolers, and overhead condensers, or by transferring heat to other
systems. Mechanical refrigeration units may use water, mixtures of alcohol and
water, or various glycols (antifreeze) as coolants.
Steam
Heat from flue gas or other sources generate steam at various points in the proc-
ess. These systems include the furnace and an enclosure where heat is transferred
November 2005 A-7 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
and that seals the system to prevent flue gas from escaping. Other parts of the
system supply fuel refinery gas, natural gas, fuel oil, or powdered coal
distribute the heat, and supply water to create the steam. The water is treated to
remove sediment and contaminants that could damage the system.
Pressure Relief
Refineries include a variety of processes that will release pressure when neces-
sary. Pressure relief is automatic and occurs when operating pressure reaches a
preset level. The term "blowdown" is used to describe an intentional, and not
automatic, release of pressure, such as during startup, shutdown, or in emergen-
cies. All systems incorporate safety relief valves, used for air, steam, and gas, to
release any excess pressure in a system.
Flaring
Flaring is the controlled and safe burning of gas that cannot be used for commer-
cial or technical reasons. The tall flame can be highly visible, especially at night,
but emissions from the flare are closely controlled under the terms of federal and
state air quality permits that govern the refinery.
Waste Water Treatment
Waste water treatment is used for process, runoff (usually rain), and sewage wa-
ter before it is discharged or recycled. Wastewater usually contains hydrocar-
bons, dissolved and suspended materials, and other compounds that can be both
alkaline and acidic.
The waste water is first pretreated by separated hydrocarbons and solids from the
water, usually by gravity separation, skimming, and filtration. In some cases, heat
is needed to separate the oil and water. The water is also neutralized so that it is
neither acidic nor alkaline.
After the pretreatment step, suspended solids are removed by sedimentation or air
flotation. (Many refineries use a technique called dissolved air flotation, known
as "DAF.") Like a municipal treatment plant, this step involves screening or fil-
tering water and then using processes that biologically degrade organic matter
and remove oils and chemicals. In addition, advanced techniques such as chlori-
nation, ozonation, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and activated carbon may be
used to remove specific contaminants and meet the limits set under the refinery's
water permit.
Cooling Towers
Cooling towers at a refinery remove heat from process water, either by allowing
air to pass perpendicular to the flow of water, or by allowing the water to cascade
down through a tower. In either case, the water must be treated before it can be
re-used.
November 2005 A-8 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
Electric Power
Refineries may receive power from the local grid or may generate it on the site
with steam turbines or gas engines. Substations that receive power and route it to
distribution stations within the refinery are located away from sources of explo-
sive vapors, as are most transformers, circuit breakers, and switches.
Compressors
Systems that include air and gas compressors, coolers, receivers and dryers, con-
trols, distribution piping, and blowers provide air to operate air-powered tools, to
regenerate catalyst, and to supply heaters and other operations. Air also must be
provided for certain instruments and controls, some motors, and some connec-
tions.
Loading
The refinery must be equipped with facilities for loading the product into tank
cars, trucks and, where possible, ships and barges.
Tanks
Tanks are located throughout the refinery and may be at normal atmospheric
pressure or can be pressurized. They store the crude oil, intermediate compo-
nents, and the finished product, as well as water, additives, and other chemicals.
What are the Major Products of a Refinery?
Refineries produce a number of products. Figure A-l below shows the propor-
tions of the various products; each is explained briefly below.
Gasoline: Currently the most important product of refineries, gasoline may
contain additives to enhance performance and protect against rust.
Kerosene: The first major product of a refinery, kerosene is used in jet fuel
and for cooking and space heating.
Liquefied Petroleum Gas: Known as "LPG," this product is produced for use
as fuel (usually as "bottled gas") and as a material to manufacture other chemi-
cals.
Distillate Fuels: These products consist primarily of diesel, used to power ve-
hicles and generators, and domestic heating oils.
Residual Fuels: These "leftover" fuels are used in ships, power plants, and
commercial and industrial facilities.
November 2005 A-9 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
DGasoline
Fuel Oil
DJet Fuel
DResidual Fuel Oil
Liquefied Gases
DStillGas
Asphalt
DPetrocher
Lubricant:
Other
DKerosene
icals
Figure A-l Distribution of Petroleum-based Products from Refining
Coke and Asphalt: Coke is almost pure carbon and may be used in anything
from electrodes to charcoal for home grilling. Asphalt is used in roads and
roofing.
Solvent: The term encompasses of variety of products used for purposes such
as cleaning and degreasing.
Petrochemicals: These products are primarily intended to produce plastics and
synthetic fibers and rubbers.
Lubricants: These products are the result of special refining processes. They
are used in motors and as industrial greases and cutting oils.
Regulations and Health and Safety
Petroleum refining has been called one of the most heavily regulated industries in
the United States. In addition to the environmental impacts of operations, refiner-
ies must deal with the complex regulations that involve their products. For exam-
ple, gasoline must be formulated different depending not only on season but on
geographic location: the industry now produces more than 20 variations of re-
formulated gasoline to meet the requirements set for specific climatic and geo-
graphic areas.
There are emissions from refineries that's the nature of refining. But from
1992 to 2001, the industry spent about $98 billion on various measures to protect
November 2005
A-10
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
the environment. (These expenditures include capital expenses for pollution con-
trols, research and development, operations, maintenance, and administration,
and a small portion for cleanups and spills.) Overall, more than 99.7 percent by
weight of crude oil that arrives at a refinery is converted to product or fuel for the
refinery.
Almost all components of a refinery are considered "closed" systems, meaning
that all of the product that is being refined is enclosed within some kind of con-
tainer. These closed systems are designed both to limit waste and to prevent
emissions. As a result, the potential for exposure by humans is limited and would
occur mostly on the site, where safe work practices and personal protective
equipment protect the health and safety of workers.
The most visible emissions from a refinery occur when gas is "flared" (burned),
usually to release pressure in one part of the system or to burn waste gases. Al-
though the flame can be seen for a considerable distance, flaring occurs only un-
der a permit issued by a state or federal agency that strictly limits the compounds
that can be released from the refinery. Most of the emissions consist of sulfur
dioxide.
Of the emissions that refineries must report under the Toxic Release Inventory,
about three-quarters are to air and the rest to wastewater. The major sources of
environmental risk include:
^ Air: Refinery emissions contain several precursors to ozone. The impacts
are most significant near and downwind of a facility.
^ Water and soil: Refineries pose a potential for contamination from leaks
and spills. Refineries are, however, required to have in place a Spill Pre-
vention Control and Countermeasures Plan that describes in detail how to
contain a spill; in addition, refineries are designed with containment
structures that would enclose a leak or spill.
^ Health: Air emissions from refineries can contain benzene.
^ Global warming: The products from refineries although not the refin-
eries themselves may contribute to global warming. The overall risk
associated with global warming is still being studied, however.
Bibliography
American Petroleum Institute. 2001. U.S. Refining Industry: A System Stretched
to the Limit [Web page]. Located at http://api-ep.api.org/. Accessed: Sep-
tember 20, 2003.
American Petroleum Institute. 2003. Environmental Commitment: Crude Oil
Provides Tools to Color our World; Gasoline Boutique [Web page]. Lo-
cated at http://api-ep.api.org/. Accessed: September 20, 2003.
November 2005 A-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Appendix A Overview of Petroleum Refining
American Petroleum Institute. 2003. U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Industry's Envi-
ronmental Expenditures, 1992-2001. American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC.
Arizona Clean Fuels Refinery. 2003. The Arizona Clean fuels Refinery [Web
Page]. Located at http://www.arizonacleanfuels.com/refinery/htm. Ac-
cessed: October 7, 2003.
Bull and Bear Financial Report, The. 2002. Oil and Gas Sector Glossary [Web
Page]. Located at http://www.thebullandbear.com/resource/RI-archive/
gloss-oil.html. Accessed: October 7, 2003.
Chevron. 2003. Processing Crude Oil [Web Page]. Located at http://
www.chevon.com/about/pascagoula/refiningprocess/proccrude/shtml.
Accessed: September 22, 2003.
Conoco, Inc. 2003. How does an oil refinery work? [Web Page]. Located at
http://www.midwestnpioneer.org/central/conoco.html. Accessed: October
6, 2003.
Environmental Defense Fund. 1999. Oil Refining: Pollution Prevention Solutions
for the Oil Refinery in Your Community [Web Page]. Located at http://
www.environmentaldefense.org. Accessed: October 6, 2003.
Environmental Roadmapping Initiative. 2003. Petroleum Refining: Impacts,
Risk, and Regulation [Web Page]. Located at http://ecm.ncms.org/ERI/
new/IRRpetref.htm. Accessed: October 6, 2003.
Freudenrich, Craig C. 2003. How Oil Refining Works [Web Page]. Located at
http://www.howstuffworks.com/oil-refining.htm. Accessed: September
30, 2003.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 2003. OSHA Technical Manual,
Section IV, Chapter2: Petroleum Refining Processes. U.S. Department of
Labor [Web Page]. Located at http://www.osha-slc.gov/dts/osta/otm/
otm_iv_2html. Accessed: September 24, 2003.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. EIA Guidelines for New Source
Petroleum Refineries and Coal Gasification Facilities. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D.C.
November 2005 A-12 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery DEIS
-------
Introduction
The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(l) Guidelines (40 CFR 230 Subpart B) state that no
discharge of fill material shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the
proposed discharge. A practicable alternative is an alternative that is available and
capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and
logistics in light of overall project purposes. The practicable alternative that would have
less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem may be rejected if it would have other
significant adverse environmental consequences (40 CFR 230.10(a)). The guidelines
should be applied in reasonable, common sense manner based on the nature of the aquatic
resource and the potential impacts of the activity in determining compliance with the
alternative analysis.
The purpose of the proposed action is to accept 469 acres into trust in support of Mandan,
Hidatsa and Arikara Nation's (MHA Nation) proposal to construct a clean fuels refinery
within the Fort Berthold Reservation. The need is to facilitate tribal self determination
and economic development. This site, identified as Site 8 in a Feasibility Study
conducted by Triad Project Corporation in 2002 (finalized in January 2003), was selected
to be purchased by the Tribe (Resolution 03-085 dated February 5, 2003). Following
purchase the MHA Nation requested the Bureau of Indian Affairs to acquire the lands
into trust for the benefit of the MHA Nation (Resolution 03-020 dated March 17, 2003).
The MHA Nation had already contracted with Triad to design a refinery. Triad did a
preliminary refinery design using for the site using the site to its maximum capabilities by
minimizing the overall facility footprint; exploiting the natural topography to capture
surface water runoff efficiently; and minimizing potential liabilities by providing
adequate spacing between refinery units, moving the drainage, having a setback from
edge of property, minimizing traffic in facility for loading/unloading, maintaining safety
lines of sight for train traffic, and having no road/rail crossings. The engineers
experience in refinery design was used to minimize liabilities that would translate into
insurance cost savings for the MHA Nation.
Prior to submitting the request for acquisition of the land into trust to the United States
(US), the MHA Nation searched for a potentially suitable site for constructing, operating,
and maintaining a clean fuels refinery (Triad 2003). This search began with an
evaluation of sites relative to the physical aspects required. One of the criteria for this
evaluation was potential impact to surface water, as well as the following criteria:
> Ownership of the property (Tribal land versus privately owned land) with tribal
land and land within the reservation being preferred,
> Suitable topography (topography contributes to the safety and economics of the
refinery's operation and was one of the major factors in determining a site's
suitability) with a relatively fiat site preferred,
> Potential for effects to surface water, watershed, and wetlands with no impacts
preferred.
2/27/06 Page 1 of 7
-------
> Potential for effects to communities (an adequate population base must be nearby
to supply the work force, however, the refinery should not be located too close to
communities) with no impacts preferred,
> Proximity to the existing pipeline was considered with points attributed for
distance from the line,
> Proximity to an existing highway was considered with points attributed for
distance from the highway,
> Proximity to an existing railroad was considered with points attributed for
distance from railroad and switch yard;
> Proximity to oil industry facilities was considered with points attributed for
distance from existing facilities,
> Value of the site as farmland or wetlands was considered with points attributed
for soil type and existence of wetlands, and
> Visibility of the refinery from recreational areas, namely Lake Sakakawea, was
considered with points attributed for visibility.
> The final evaluation of the three sites with the highest scores involved a cost and
safety analysis that included the following criteria:
> Seller willing to sell at a reasonable price within the budget,
> Cost of infrastructure in relation to each site (cost for constructing rail service,
roads, surface drainage, utilities and overall facility),
> Safety factors relative to highway and railway traffic and any ongoing liability,
which can be reduced or eliminated by site selection, and
> Ability to have the land acquired into trust status.
There were two sites that were within the reservation boundaries. The Tribe chose to
only consider those areas within the reservation boundary as there is less review for
acquisition of land into trust status by the US for properties within the reservation
boundaries than outside the boundaries. Properties outside established or former
reservation boundaries are more likely to be challenged by local and state governments.
In addition properties that are outside the boundaries of the reservation require review of
the business plan and an analysis of distance outside the reservation boundary (25 CFR
Part 151.11).
Of the two sites within the reservation boundaries, Site 6 and Site 8, there were
differences in the availability of purchase (not available versus available), proximity to
missile site (1800 feet versus 6900 feet), proximity to highway (adjacent versus Vi mile
off the highway), safety aspects for road/railway crossings (none versus at least one) and
2/27/06 Page 2 of 7
-------
cost of construction. Personnel at the Minot Air Force base indicated that structures
could not be constructed within 1500 feet from missile structures. There is also concern
for cabling near these missile sites. Site 6 would be only 1800 feet from a missile site, it
would also require 1A mile of road construction which can cost approximately $250,000
to complete according to BIA roads engineers. The additional cost to construct and
maintain a roadway increased overall cost of construction on Site 6 as well as concerns
for railway safety.
The safety aspect for railway construction pertains to the movement of cars on relatively
fiat grade and ability to maintain a clear line of sight. Site 6 would require a cut of 15 to
20 feet in a relatively short distance. Site 8 would only require fill. A railway on a fill is
safer than one on a cut as it gives the road and rail traffic a clear view of the train traffic
which helps prevent accidents. It is also imperative to have the train movements as
visible as possible to workers on the refinery site to promote a safe work environment.
The positioning of the railway is important to the overall site design because of the need
maintain appropriate clearances, restricted use areas. This analysis was conducted by the
engineers at Triad who have more than 30 years experience in railway and refinery
design.
Of most importance in the selection of a site to meet the Tribes needs is that Site 8 was
available for purchase while Site 6 was not. The Tribes instructed their consultants to
select and purchase a site for the purposes of constructing and operating a clean fuels
refinery.
Both Site 6 and Site 8 had wetlands identified on the National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Maps that are impacted by agricultural practices (Figure 1). There would be
approximately 2.36 acres potentially impacted on Site 6 and 5.04 acres on Site 8
according to the NWI maps. Some of these wetlands may be isolated wetlands not
considered jurisdictional by the Corps of Engineers for application of CWA 404
regulations. A ground determination of wetlands was not conducted on Site 6 as this site
was not pursued by the Tribe for consideration. The wetlands delineated on Site 8 are not
similar to those indicated on the NWI maps as the wetlands indicated on the NWI are
remotely estimated and require ground verification. There are two wetlands within Site 8
that may be impacted by construction of the refinery (PEMF#2 and PEM/ABF#3). The
remaining wetlands on Section 19 and those on Section 20 would continue to be impacted
by agricultural activities.
Basic considerations in Refinery Design
There are a number of safety considerations in the design of this type of facility. These
considerations are for clearance around components of the refinery that have been
developed using insurance company assessments and refinery technology over time
(Figure 2). These include maintaining a safety buffer of 300 feet between the tank farm
and processing area, the main components of the facility being at least 300 feet from the
edge of property, the main components of the facility and railcars being at least 300 feet
from existing railroad, and minimization of vehicle traffic within the facility.
Compromise of these safety considerations translates into greater liabilities which would
2/27/06 Page 3 of 7
-------
translate into higher insurance costs. Compromise of these safety buffers could increase
the potential for accidents that could pose significant environmental consequences (i.e.
unplanned air release or unprotected release to soils).
It is also good engineering practices to construct a refinery on virgin material instead of
fill. Settling of process units could cause disruptions or integrity failures which could
have considerable safety ramifications. The weight and height of the columns in a
refinery require a stable foundation and virgin material is typically more stable than
standard compacted fill. Structure of this type may require additional fortification of fill
such as steel pilings which equate to additional construction costs.
When designing a facility it is always good engineering practice to plan for expansion.
Technological and/or regulatory changes may require additional process units or other
modifications in the future.
Design "J"
Design "J" proposes impacts to the drainage swale into PEMF#2 to maintain the integrity
of surface water capture within the facility and to PEM/ABF#3 for construction of the
railway spur (Figure 3). The surface water is designed to be captured for testing prior to
use by the facility or release in compliance with applicable permits by relying on gravity.
Design "J" would impact the existing drainage swale by the placement of fill of the
existing swale (0.5 acres) and construction of a new drainage. There would be short-term
impacts to the receiving wetland while the new drainage's vegetation is established. This
would reestablish the water flow and, based upon design, may increase water quality to
the receiving wetland, PEMF#2, as revegetation would be able to occur without
continued impact from agricultural activities. There would also be a fill of approximately
0.3 acres of a non-jurisdictional wetland, PEM/ABF#3.
This design was proposed to have cost about $150 million to construct in 2003. The
wastewater management portion of this design would cost about $750,000 for excavation
of less than 200,000 cubic yards. Due to the increases in steel and concrete in the last few
years, the present cost is estimated at more than $200 million; however, the excavation
costs have not changed significantly.
Alternatives to Design "J"
In order to avoid impacts to isolated wetlands that are not regulated under Section 404
and to avoid road and railroad crossings, any reconfiguration of the facility to avoid
filling the drainage swale would need to be confined to the property in Section 19.
A final detailed design has not been developed for the project or these alternatives.
Therefore, only estimates for construction costs are presented with a number of
unknowns such as actual construction needs based upon detailed analysis of soils.
2/27/06 Page 4 of 7
-------
Alternative to completely avoid drainage swale with pumping
This alternative would shift of the facility to the east and slightly south using Alternative
A design (Figure 4). There would be no fill of the drainage swale into PEMF#2 and 0.3
acres of fill for PEM/ABF#3. This alternative would encroach upon the safety zones for
the edge of property, railroad, and existing homestead. It would require additional
excavation to achieve acceptable surface water drainage and capture. To minimize
excavation and disposal costs, the drainage would not be all in one direction so a
pumping system would need to be installed to move captured water to the treatment
facility from at least two areas. At least four pumps would be required for the two
different drainages and two independent surface water collections (areas with potentially
oily water and outside areas).
The rough estimate for the facility construction would increase by approximately
$2,000,000 as there would be additional infrastructure required (about $1,180,000 - four
pumps for two drainage areas), more excavation to achieve an acceptable surface water
drainage (about 200,000 cubic yards for $800,000), and captured surface water pumping
to the water treatment unit. There would also be increased operational costs for the
facility from the pump maintenance.
Alternative to completely avoid drainage swale without pumping
This alternative would shift of the facility to the east and slightly south. There would be
no fill of the drainage swale into PEMF#2 and 0.3 acres of fill for PEM/ABF#3. As with
the previous alterative, it would encroach upon the safety zones for the edge of property,
railroad, and existing homestead. In order to have gravity capture of the surface water
without the need for pumping, there would be a need to excavate more than 30 feet on the
south side of the property to drop the elevation from 2095 to 2065 at a minimum plus
grading throughout the process area. This translates into more than 2,000,000 cubic
yards of material would need to be excavated at a cost of $4 a cubic yard for $8,000,000.
This cost does not include any retaining walls to protect slopes from erosion which would
need to be addressed in the final detailed design. It also does not address the cost for
removing excess fill material. Placing the fill material on other portions of the site would
impact non-jurisdictional wetlands and would not be in keeping with the other purpose to
provide hay for tribal use.
Alternative to minimize impact to drainage swale with ponds on the east
This alternative would reduce the fill of the drainage swale by 100 feet by moving the
water treatment unit and ponds to the east of the drainage swale. There would be 0.4
acres of fill in the drainage swale into PEMF#2 and 0.3 acres of fill for PEM/ABF#3. It
would encroach upon the safety setbacks for the tank farm (240 foot separation) and
property line (200 foot separation) (Figure 5). To minimize excavation and disposal
costs, the drainage would not be all in one direction so a pumping system would need to
be installed to move captured water to the treatment facility. This alteration would cost
approximately $930,000 more to construct than the proposed alternative as two high
2/27/06 Page 5 of 7
-------
capacity trash pumps with pump houses and associated piping would be needed
($588,700), as well as 80,000 cubic yards of additional excavation ($340,000).
Alternative to minimize impact to drainage swale with ponds remaining on the west
(Design "K")
This alternative would involve moving components of the process area out of the
drainage swale. There would be less than 0.1 acres of fill of the drainage swale into
PEMF#2 and 0.3 acres of fill of PEM/ABF#3. The overall drainage pattern would be the
same except the surface water would be captured on the east side of the drainage swale
and piped across to holding tank/pond as appropriate (Figure 6). The cost would be
essentially the same as design "J", $200,000,000, because the increased cost of piping
would be countered with the decreased excavation and fill costs.
Discussion
All of the alternatives moving the ponds to the east of the drainage swale considered for
avoiding or minimizing the fill of the drainage swale will increase costs because of the
need for additional excavation and may require pumping of captured surface water to
treatment units. These costs need to be considered in light of the overall project. This
project is proposed for the economic development of a sovereign nation with an
unemployment rate of almost 71% and more than half of the tribal members living below
the poverty level (BIA 2001), any increase in construction or operating costs would be
impact the tribal goals for economic development by increasing the potential payback
period. The Tribes have not conducted a comparative analysis on the payback period yet
because of the payback period is based on market variables which are highly volatile for
petroleum products and they are reluctant to speculate on this prior to imminent
construction. It is intuitive that adding operational costs such as maintaining pumps will
prolong the payback.
This is an oil refinery with potential for contamination of soils, ground water and surface
water. Refinery designs have evolved over time to address this potential and minimize
impacts. One of the basics is that the refinery design needs to capture all surface water
falling within the foot print and treat it accordingly. The ideal situation is to use gravity
for capture of surface water as this is a simple system with few outside variables for
complications. Reliance on pumps to move surface water presents a number of variables
for complications such as outright failure of pump(s), maintenance irregularities, or
leakage during use at or in piping. This should be considered as increasing the potential
for adverse environmental consequences in order to avoid 0.5 acres of impact to an
agricultural drainage that has developed wetland characteristics which can be moved.
Leaving the drainage swale open within the refinery facility will expose a potential
environmental hazard by having a conduit for hazardous material to flow offsite untreated
if drainage systems fail or should a truck slip off a road removing material from the west
side of the drainage during the winter. These systems could fail due to compromise in
integrity or an unplanned event (i.e. multiple storm events greater than 100 year or
2/27/06 Page 6 of 7
-------
catastrophic explosion). These scenarios and similar ones could present significant
adverse environmental consequences to the tributary of the East Fork of Shell Creek
Another consideration for selecting an alternative now to avoid impact to the drainage
into PEMF#2 would be that if the design has been such that the expansion of the refinery
due to new market initiatives, technological advances, and/or regulatory changes. The
Tribes may in the future request fill of the drainage for expansion of the processing area.
According to the engineers experienced in refinery design expansion of the processing
area is common due to new technologies and regulatory requirement changes. Therefore,
this is a reasonably foreseeable if not distinctly identifiable development.
2/27/06 Page 7 of 7
-------
Permit No: ND-0030988
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. §1251 et
seq; the "Act"),
the MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery
is authorized to discharge from its wastewater treatment facilities located in the NW 1/4 of Section
19, Township 152N, Range 87W, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Ward County, North Dakota
to wetlands tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek,
in accordance with discharge point(s), effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth herein. Authorization for discharge is limited to those outfalls specifically listed
in the permit.
This permit shall become effective to be determined upon issuance
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, to be determined upon
issuance
Signed this day of
Authorized Permitting Official
Stephen S. Tuber, Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Title
INDUSTRIAL (Rev.02/06)
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 2 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Definitions
1.2. Description of Discharge Point(s)
1.3. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1.3.1. Effluent Limitations Outfall 001
1.3.2. Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 001
1.3.3 Effluent Limitations Outfall 002
1.3.4 Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002
1.3.5 Additional Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002
1.3.6 Effluent Limitations Outfall002a
1.3.7 Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002a
1.3.8 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing-Acute
1.3.9 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing-Chronic
1.3.10Toxicity Identification Evaluation/Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
1.4 Stormwater Requirements
1.4.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1.4.2 Section 313 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
1.4.3 Additional Requirements for Salt Storage
2. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.1. Representative Sampling
2.2. Monitoring Procedures
2.3. Penalties for Tampering
2.4. Reporting of Monitoring Results
2.5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
2.6. Records Contents
2.7. Retention of Records
2.8. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
2.9. Other Noncompliance Reporting
2.10. Inspection and Entry
3. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1. Duty to Comply
3.2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
3.3. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
3.4. Duty to Mitigate
3.5. Proper Operation and Maintenance
3.6. Removed Substances
3.7. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
3.8. Upset Conditions
3.9. Toxic Pollutants
3.10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 3 of 36
4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. Planned Changes
4.2. Anticipated Noncompliance
4.3. Permit Actions
4.4. Duty to Reapply
4.5. Duty to Provide Information
4.6. Other Information
4.7. Signatory Requirements
4.8. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
4.9. Availability of Reports
4.10. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
4.11. Property Rights
4.12. Severability
4.13. Transfers
4.14. Permittees in Indian Country
4.15. Reopener Provision
4.16. Toxicity Limitation-Reopener Provision
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 4 of 36
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Definitions.
The 30-day (and monthly) average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the
arithmetic average of all samples collected during a consecutive 30-day period or calendar month, whichever
is applicable. Geometric means shall be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria. The
calendar month shall be used for purposes of reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report
forms.
The 7-day (and weekly) average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the
arithmetic mean of all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or calendar week, whichever is
applicable. Geometric means shall be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria. The 7-
day and weekly averages are applicable only to those effluent characteristics for which there are 7-day average
effluent limitations. The calendar week, which begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday, shall be used for
purposes of reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report forms. Weekly averages shall be
calculated for all calendar weeks with Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months (i.e.,
the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the following month), the weekly average calculated for that
calendar week shall be included in the data for the month that contains the Saturday.
Daily Maximum (Daily Max.) is the maximum measured value for a pollutant discharged during a calendar day
or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with
daily maximum limitations expressed in units of mass (e.g., kilograms, pounds), the daily maximum is
calculated as the total mass of pollutant discharged over the calendar day or representative 24-hour period. For
pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement (e.g milligrams/liter, parts per billion), the
daily maximum is calculated as the average of all measurements of the pollutant over the calendar day or
representative 24-hour period. If only one measurement or sample is taken during a calendar day or
representative 24-hour period, the single measured value for a pollutant will be considered the daily maximum
measurement for that calendar day or representative 24-hour period.
Daily Minimum (Daily Min.) is the minimum value allowable in any single sample or instantaneous
measurement collected during the course of a day.
Mean (7-day mean, 30-day mean) is the arithmetic mean value of all results for samples collected during either
a seven day period or calendar week whichever is applicable, or a thirty day period or a calendar month
whichever is applicable.
Grab sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single "dip and take" sample collected at a
representative point in the discharge stream.
Instantaneous measurement, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single reading, observation, or
measurement.
Composite samples shall be flow proportioned. The composite sample shall, at a minimum, contain at least
four (4) samples collected over the compositing period. Unless otherwise specified, the time between the
collection of the first sample and the last sample shall not be less than six (6) hours, nor more than twenty-four
(24) hours. Acceptable methods for the preparation of composite samples are as follows:
a. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume proportional to flow rate at the time of
sampling;
b. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume proportional to total flow (volume) since last
sample. For the first sample, the flow rate at the time of the first sample was collected may be used;
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 5 of 36
c. Constant sample volume, time interval between samples proportional to flow (i.e., sample taken every
"X" gallons of flow); and,
d. Continuous collection of sample with sample collection rate proportional to flow rate.
Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities
which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can
reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic
loss caused by delays in production.
Director means the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 8 or an authorized representative.
EPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Storm Water or Stormwater means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
CWA means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as either the Federal Water Pollution Act or the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972), Pub. L. 92-500, as amended by Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L.
95-576, Pub. L. 96-483, Pub. L. 97-117, and Pub. L. 100-4. In this permit the CWA may be referred to as "the
Act".
Sewage Sludge is any solid, semi-solid or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in
a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in
primary, secondary or advanced wastewater treatment processes; and a material derived from sludge. Sewage
sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit
and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Whole Effluent Toxicity, Acute toxicity occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is observed for either
species (see Part 1.3.) at any effluent concentration. Mortality in the control must simultaneously be 10
percent or less for the effluent results to be considered valid. Chronic toxicity occurs when during a chronic
toxicity test, the 25% inhibition concentration (IC2s) calculated on the basis of test organism survival and
growth or survival and reproduction, is less than or equal to 100% effluent concentration.
Section 313 Water Priority Chemicals means a chemical or chemical categories which: 1) are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
(also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986); 2) are
present at or above threshold levels at a facility subject of EPCRA Section 313 reporting requirements; and 3)
that meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) are listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR 122 on either Table II
(organic toxic pollutants), Table III (certain metals, cyanides, and phenols) or Table V (certain toxic pollutants
and hazardous substances); (ii)are listed as a hazardous substance pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the
CWA at 40 CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for which EPA has published acute or chronic water quality
criteria.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 6 of 36
1.2. Description of Discharge Point(s). The authorization to discharge provided under this permit is limited
to those outfalls specifically designated below as discharge locations. Discharges at any location not
authorized under an NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean Water Act and could subject the person(s)
responsible for such discharge to penalties under Section 309 of the Act.
Outfall
Serial Number(s) Description of Discharge Point(s)
001 Any discharge of uncontaminated storm water from the Evaporation Ponds to the
wetland swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87
West. Longitude 47°58'25" Latitude 101°52'11"
002 Any discharge from the Final Effluent Holding Ponds or the Final Release Tanks
to the wetland swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North,
Range 87 West. Longitude 47°58'29" Latitude 101°52'9"
002a Any discharge from the Stormwater Final Release Tanks to the wetland swale
located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
Longitude 47°58'29" Latitude 101°52'9"
003 Any discharge from the Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant to the wetland
swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
Longitude 47°58'??" Latitude 101°52'??"
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 7 of 36
1.3. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1.3.1. Effluent Limitations - Outfall 001. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Stormwater Evaporation Ponds by the facility shall, as a
minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Phenol, ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
NA
NA
30
30
300
300
50
5
750
10
7-Day
Average a/
NA
NA
45
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.08
15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u.or greater than 9.0 s.u.at
anytime.
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 001 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 8 of 36
1.3.2 Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 001. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Phenol, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
pH (s.u.)
Oil and grease, visual c/
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Visual c/
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 9 of 36
1.3.3. Effluent Limitations - Outfall 002. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Final Effluent Holding Ponds or Effluent Final Release
Tanks by the facility shall, as a minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), Ibs./day
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Ibs./day
Total Suspended Solids, Ibs./day
Oil and Grease, Ibs./day
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Phenolic Compounds, Ibs./day
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (Total), Ibs./day
Chromium (VI) , ug/L
Chromium (VI), Ibs/day
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
0.025
43
255
35
13.7
2.2
530
1300
300
0.29
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.035
11
0.0018
300
50
0.0012
132
5
230
4.0
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.05
81
500
55
25.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.59
NA
3.2
NA
750
1.22
16
0.0067
N/A
N/A
1.4
1190
20
860
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LC50> 100%
IC25 > 100%
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u. or greater than 9.0 s.u. at
anytime.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 10 of 36
1.3.4
Effluent Characteristic
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1-March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 002 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
Ibs./day
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Ibs./day
Total Suspended Solids, Ibs./day
Oil and Grease, Ibs/day
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Phenolic Compounds, Ibs./day
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Frequency
Daily
2X/Week
Monthly
2X/Week
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 11 of 36
1.3.5
Effluent Characteristic
Chromium (Total), Ibs./day
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Chromium (VI), Ibs./day
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
pH (s.u.)
Temperature, °C
Oil and grease, visual c/
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - total recoverable
Additional Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002.
Additional Monitoring Requirement for Outfall 002:
Approximately 90 days and 270 days after startup of the facility, monitoring shall be required for:
Total Metals - Table III §40CFR 122 Appendix D
Volatile, acid, and base/neutral compounds - Table II §40CFR 122 Appendix D
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 12 of 36
1.3.6 Effluent Limitations - Outfall 002a. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Stormwater Final Release Tanks by the facility shall, as a
minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
0.0065
15
110
2.2
530
1300
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
11
300
50
0.0012
132
5
230
4.0
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.027
15
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
NA
750
16
N/A
N/A
1.4
1190
20
860
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LC50>100%
IC25 > 100%
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u. or greater than 9.0 s.u. at
anytime.
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Octl- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 13 of 36
1.3.7
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 002a shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002a. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
2X/Week
Monthly
2X/Week
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 14 of 36
Effluent Characteristic
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
pH (s.u.)
Temperature, °C
Oil and Grease, visual c/
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Sample Type a/
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - Total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 15 of 36
1.3.8 Effluent Limitations - Outfall 003. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant by the facility shall,
as a minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, MOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine, ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
NA
30
30
1.1
11
300
50
5
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
NA
45
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.08
N/A
N/A
3.2
19
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u.or greater than 9.0 s.u.at
anytime.
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 003 shall be free from floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating
materials attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or agricultural practices in
sufficient amounts to be unsightly or deleterious.
Percentage Removal Requirements (TSS and BOD5 Limitation): In addition to the concentration
limits for total suspended solids and BOD5 indicated above, the arithmetic mean of the concentration
for effluent samples collected in a 30-day consecutive period shall not exceed 15 percent of the
arithmetic mean of the concentration for influent samples collected at approximately the same times
during the same period (85 percent removal).
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 16 of 36
1.3.9 Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 003. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on the
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
mg/L c/
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L c/
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine, ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this
constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.
tr - total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 17 of 36
1.3.10 Whole Effluent Toxicitv Testing - Chronic Toxicitv
Starting in the first full quarter after the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall, at least once
each quarter, conduct chronic short term toxicity tests on the final effluent from Outfalls 002 and
002a. There shall not be chronic toxicity in 100 percent concentration of the final effluent.
The monitoring frequency shall be quarterly. Quarterly samples shall be collected on a two day
progression; i.e., if the first quarterly sample is on a Monday, during the next quarter, the sampling
shall begin on a Wednesday. If chronic toxicity is detected, an additional test shall be conducted
within two weeks of the date of when the permittee learned of the test failure. The need for any
additional samples shall be determined by the permit issuing authority.
The chronic toxicity tests shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the latest
revision of "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms", EPA 821-R-02-013, Rev. Oct. 2002. Test species shall consist of
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. A multi dilution test consisting of five concentrations
and a control is required. If test acceptability criteria is not met for control survival, growth, or
reproduction, the test shall be considered invalid. Chronic toxicity occurs when, during a chronic
toxicity test, the 25% inhibition concentration (IC25) calculated on the basis of test organism survival
and growth or survival and reproduction, is less than or equal to 100% effluent concentration. The
tests shall be done using effluent concentrations of 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, and 0%
(control).
Test results shall be reported along with the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the
end of the calendar period during which the whole effluent test was run (e.g. results for the calendar
quarter ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28, with the remaining reports
submitted with DMRs due each July 28, October 28, and January 28). Monthly test results shall be
reported along with the DMR submitted for that month. The format for the report shall be consistent
with the latest revision of the "Region VIII Guidance for Chronic Whole Effluent Reporting"
(Appendix C of Region VIIINPDES Whole Effluent Toxics Control Program, August 1997), and
shall include all the physical and chemical testing as specified.
If the results for one year (four consecutive quarters) of whole effluent testing indicate no chronic
toxicity, the permittee may request the permit issuing authority to allow the permittee to reduce
testing frequency, and/or reduce testing to one species on an alternating basis, and/or modify testing
to the acute test program. The permit issuing authority may approve, partially approve, or deny the
request based on results and other available information. If approval is given, the modification will
take place without a public notice.
1.3.11 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing - Acute Toxicity
Starting in the first full quarter after the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall conduct
quarterly acute static replacement toxicity tests on an effluent sample of the discharge from Outfalls
002 and 002a. The effluent shall be obtained from the sample required for the chronic toxicity tests
as noted in Part 1.3.10. of this permit.
The replacement static toxicity tests shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in
the latest revision of "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms", EPA 821-R-02-012 (Rev Oct. 2002). The permittee shall conduct an acute 48-
hour static toxicity test using Ceriodaphnia dubia an acute 96-hour static toxicity test using
Pimephales promelas. The tests shall be done using effluent concentrations of 100%, 75%, 50%,
25%, 12.5%, 6.25% and 0% (control).
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 18 of 36
Acute toxicity occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is observed for either species at any
effluent concentration. If more than 10% control mortality occurs, the test shall be repeated until
satisfactory control survival is achieved. If acute toxicity occurs, an additional test shall be
conducted within two weeks of the date of when the permittee learned of the test failure. If only one
species fails, retesting may be limited to this species. Should toxicity occur in the second test,
testing shall occur once a month until further notified by the permit issuing authority.
Quarterly test results shall be reported along with the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
submitted for the end of the reporting calendar quarter (e.g., whole effluent results for the calendar
quarter ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28, with the remaining reports
submitted with DMRs due each July 28, October 28, and January 28). Monthly test results shall be
reported along with the DMR submitted for that month. The format for the report shall be consistent
with the latest revision of the "Region VIII Guidance for Acute Whole Effluent Reporting"
(Appendix C of Region VIIINPDES Whole Effluent Toxics Control Program, August 1997), and
shall include all chemical and physical data as specified.
If the results for four consecutive quarters of testing indicate no acute toxicity, the permittee may
request the permit issuing authority to allow a reduction to quarterly acute toxicity testing on only
one species on an alternating basis. The permit issuing authority may approve or deny the request
based on the results and other available information without an additional public notice. If the
request is approved, the test procedures are to be the same as specified above for the test species. If
approval is given, the modification will take place without a public notice.
1.3.12 Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIEVToxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)
Should acute toxicity and/or chronic toxicity be detected in two (2) consecutive tests of the
permittee's discharge, a TIE-TRE shall be undertaken by the permittee to establish the cause of the
toxicity, locate the source(s) of the toxicity, and develop control of or treatment of the toxicity.
Failure to initiate, or conduct an adequate TIE-TRE, or delays in the conduct of such tests, shall not
be considered a justification for non-compliance with the whole effluent toxicity limitations
contained in Part 1.3.3 and 1.3.6 of this permit. A TRE plan needs to be submitted to the permitting
authority within 45 days after confirmation of the continuance of the effluent toxicity.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 19 of 36
1.4 Stormwater Requirements
1.4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
The permittee shall continue to implement all existing best management practices (BMP) that may
affect the quality of storm water runoff unless those BMPs are modified or replaced by the storm water
pollution prevention plan required below. The permittee shall develop a storm water pollution
prevention plan for the MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery site. The storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with the factors
outlined in 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2) or (3) as appropriate. The plan shall identify potential sources of
pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the facility. In addition, the plan shall describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are to be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the facility and to assure compliance with the terms and conditions
of this permit. The facility must implement the provisions of the storm water pollution prevention plan
required under this Part as a condition of this permit.
1.4.1.1 Deadlines for Plan Preparation and Compliance.
The plan for a storm water discharge:
1.4.1.2 Shall be prepared and submitted to the permit issuing authority for review and approval no later than
six months after the effective date of this permit (and updated at a minimum of every two years or
more frequently if deemed appropriate). The plan shall be submitted to the U.S. EPA Region 8
Stormwater Program at the following address:
Greg Davis
EPA Region 8 Stormwater Program Coordinator
Mailcode: 8P-W-P
999 18th Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202-2466
A copy of the plan shall also be submitted to the Three Affiliated Tribes Environmental Department at
the following address:
Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
1.4.1.3 Shall provide for implementation and compliance with the terms of the plan on or before six months
after the plan is approved by the U.S. EPA Region 8 Stormwater Program.
1.4.1.5 Upon a showing of good cause, the permit issuing authority may establish a later date in writing for
preparation, implementation, and compliance with the plan.
1.4.1.6 Except as provided in Part 1.4.1.3 above, the plan shall be implemented in accordance with the
approval of the permit issuing authority no later than one year after the effective date of this permit
unless the permit issuing authority approves a later date.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 20 of 36
1.4.1.7 The permit issuing authority may notify the permittee at any time that the plan does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of this Part. Such notification shall identify those provisions of
the permit which are not being met by the plan, and identify which provisions of the plan require
modifications in order to meet the minimum requirements of this Part. Within 30 days of such
notification from the permit issuing authority, (or as otherwise provided by the permit issuing
authority), the permittee shall make the required changes to the plan and shall submit to the permit
issuing authority a written certification that the requested changes have been made.
1.4.1.8 Keeping Plans Current - The permittee shall amend the plan whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance, which has a significant effect on the potential for the
discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States or if the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part 1.4.1.9.2 (description of potential pollutant sources) of this permit, or in
otherwise achieving the general objectives of controlling pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. Amendments to the plan shall be submitted for review to the
permit issuing authority in the same manner as Part 1.4.1.2(above).
1.4.1.9 Contents of Plan - The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
1.4.1.9.1 Pollution Prevention Team - The plan shall identify a specific individual or individuals within the
facility organization as members of a storm water Pollution Prevention Team that are responsible
for developing the storm water pollution prevention plan and assisting the facility or plant
manager in its implementation, maintenance, and revision. The plan shall clearly identify the
responsibilities of each team member. The activities and responsibilities of the team shall address
all aspects of the facility's storm water pollution prevention plan.
1.4.1.9.2 Description of Potential Pollutant Sources - The plan shall provide a description of potential
sources which may reasonably be expected to add significant amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges or which may result in the discharge of pollutants during dry weather from separate
storm sewers draining the facility. Each plan shall identify all activities and significant materials
which may potentially be significant pollutant sources. The plan shall include, at a minimum:
1.4.1.9.3 Inventory of Exposed Materials - An inventory of the types of materials handled at the site that
potentially may be exposed to precipitation. Such inventory shall include a narrative description
of significant materials that have been handled, treated, stored or disposed in a manner to allow
exposure to storm water between the time of 3 years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present; method and location of on-site storage or disposal; materials management
practices employed to minimize contact of materials with storm water runoff between the time of
3 years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit and the present; the location and a
description of existing structural and non-structural control measures to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff; and a description of any treatment the storm water receives. Note: The limitation of
three (3) years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit does not apply to radioactive
materials.
1.4.1.9.4 Drainage A site map indicating an outline of the portions of the drainage area of each storm water
outfall that are within the facility boundaries, each existing structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface water bodies, locations where significant materials are
exposed to precipitation, locations where major spills or leaks identified under Part 1.4.1.9.6
(Spills and Leaks) of this permit have occurred, and the locations of the following activities where
such activities are exposed to precipitation: fueling stations, vehicle and equipment maintenance
and/or cleaning areas, loading/unloading areas, locations used for the treatment, storage or
disposal of wastes, liquid storage tanks, processing areas and storage areas.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 21 of 36
1.4.1.9.5 For each area of the facility that generates storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity with a reasonable potential for containing pollutants, a prediction of the direction of flow,
and an identification of the types of pollutants which are likely to be present in storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity. Factors to consider include the toxicity of chemical;
quantity of chemicals used, produced or discharged; the likelihood of contact with storm water;
and history of significant leaks or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants. Flows with a significant
potential for causing erosion shall be identified.
1.4.1.9.6 Spills and Leaks: A list of significant spills and significant leaks of toxic, hazardous or radioactive
pollutants that have occurred at areas that are exposed to precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility after the date of 3 years prior to the effective date of this
permit. Such list shall be updated as appropriate during the term of the permit. Note: The
limitation of three (3) years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit does not apply to
radioactive materials:
1.4.1.9.7 Sampling Data: A summary of existing discharge sampling data describing pollutants in storm
water discharges from the facility, including a summary of sampling data collected during the term
of this permit.
1.4.1.9.8 Risk Identification and Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources: A narrative description of the
potential pollutant sources from the following activities: loading and unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities; outdoor manufacturing or processing activities; significant dust or
particulate generating processes; and on-site waste disposal practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential source of pollutants at the site and for each potential
source, any pollutant or pollutant parameter (e.g., radioactive materials, acids, solvents, etc.) of
concern shall be identified.
1.4.1.9.9 Spills and Leaks: The permittee shall develop a description of storm water management controls
appropriate for the MF£A Nation Clean Fuels Refinery Site, and implement such controls. The
appropriateness and priorities of controls in apian shall reflect identified potential sources of
pollutants at the facility. The description of storm water management controls shall address the
following minimum components, including a schedule for implementing such controls:
1.4.1.9.10 Good Housekeeping: Good housekeeping requires the maintenance of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm waters discharges in a clean, orderly manner.
1.4.1.9.11 Preventive Maintenance: A preventive maintenance program shall involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water management devices (e.g., cleaning oil/water separators, catch basins)
as well as inspecting and testing facility equipment and systems to uncover conditions that could
cause breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface waters, and ensuring
appropriate maintenance of such equipment and systems.
1.4.1.9.12 Spill Prevention and Response Procedures: Areas where potential spills which can contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges can occur, and their accompanying drainage points shall be
identified clearly in the storm water pollution prevention plan. Where appropriate, specifying
material handling procedures, storage requirements, and use of equipment such as diversion valves
in the plan should be considered. Procedures for cleaning up spills shall be identified in the plan
and made available to the appropriate personnel. The necessary equipment to implement a clean
up should be available to personnel.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 22 of 36
1.4.1.9.13 Inspections: In addition to or as part of the comprehensive site evaluation required under Part
1.4.1.9.18 of this permit, qualified facility personnel shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at appropriate intervals of no less than one time each year as
specified in the plan. A set of tracking or follow-up procedures shall be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections. Records of inspections shall be
maintained.
1.4.1.9.14 Employee Training: Employee training programs shall inform personnel responsible for
implementing activities identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for storm water management at all levels of responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution prevention plan. Training should address topics such as spill
response, good housekeeping and material management practices. The pollution prevention plan
shall identify periodic dates for such training.
1.4.1.9.15 Record keeping and Internal Reporting Procedures: A description of incidents (such as spills, or
other discharges), along with other information describing the quality and quantity of storm water
discharges shall be included in the plan required under this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and records of such activities shall be incorporated into the plan.
1.4.1.9.16 Sediment and Erosion Control: The plan shall identify areas which, due to topography, activities,
or other factors, have a high potential for significant soil erosion, and identify structural,
vegetative, and/or stabilization measures to be used to limit erosion.
1.4.1.9.17 Management of Runoff: The plan shall contain a narrative consideration of the appropriateness of
traditional storm water management practices (practices other than those which control the
generation or source(s) of pollutants) used to divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage storm
water runoff in a manner that reduces pollutants in storm water discharges from the site. The plan
shall provide the measures that the permittees determine to be reasonable and appropriate and
these measures shall be implemented and maintained. The potential of various sources at the
MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery Site to contribute pollutants to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (see Part 1.4.1.9.2 shall be considered when determining
reasonable and appropriate measures. Appropriate measures may include: vegetative swales and
practices, reuse of collected storm water (such as for a process or as an irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separators), snow management activities, infiltration devices, and wet
detention/retention devices.
1.4.1.9.18 Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation: Qualified personnel shall conduct site compliance
evaluations at appropriate intervals specified in the plan, but, in no case less than once a year.
Such evaluations shall provide:
1.4.1.9.19 Areas contributing to a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity shall be visually
inspected for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system. Measures
to reduce pollutant loadings shall be evaluated to determine whether they are adequate and
properly implemented in accordance with the terms of the permit or whether additional control
measures are needed. Structural storm water management measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structural pollution prevention measures identified in the plan shall be
observed to ensure that they are operating correctly. A visual inspection of equipment needed to
implement the plan, such as spill response equipment, shall be made.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 23 of 36
1.4.1.9.20 The analytical results from the storm water monitoring required under Parts 1.3.2 and 1.3.7 shall
be evaluated with the objective of determining whether or not the storm water discharges from the
plant site are causing or contributing to water quality problems in the East Fork of Shell Creek. To
the extent that data are available, the evaluation shall include data for the previous 12 months.
Earlier data may be included to give an indication of trends. The data should also be evaluated in
terms of giving an indication of whether or not the plan is effective in minimizing the discharge of
pollutants or whether additional control measures are needed.
1.4.1.9.21 Based on the results of the visual inspection (Part 1.4.1.9.13 above) and the evaluation of the
monitoring data (Part 1.4.1.9.20 above), the plan shall be revised as appropriate. The revision
shall include, as appropriate, the description of potential pollutant sources identified in the plan
and pollution prevention measures and controls identified in the plan. The revision shall be
completed within four (4) weeks of such inspection and shall provide for implementation of any
changes to the plan in a timely manner, but in no case more than 12 weeks after the inspection
unless additional time has been approved by the permit issuing authority.
1.4.1.9.22 A report summarizing the scope of the inspection, personnel making the inspection, the date(s) of
the inspection, major observations relating to the implementation of the storm water pollution
prevention plan, and actions taken in accordance with Part 1.4.1.9.20 (above) of the permit shall
be made and retained as part of the storm water pollution prevention plan for at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates. The report shall identify any incidents of non-compliance.
Where a report does not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in compliance with the storm water pollution prevention plan and
this permit.
1.4.1.9.23 Consistency with other plans: Storm water pollution prevention plans may reflect requirements
for spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans developed for the MHA Nation
Clean Fuels Refinery under section 311 of the CWA; best management practices plans; or other
environmental control plans prepared for the MF£A Nation Clean Fuels Refinery. Provided such
requirement(s) are incorporated into the storm water pollution prevention plan, or referenced by
specific document title, volume, heading, and page number(s). All referenced documents must be
available for review and inspection upon request.
1.4.2 Additional requirements for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from facilities
subject to EPCRA Section 313 requirements. In addition to the requirements of Part 1.4.1.9 through
1.4.1.9.22 of this permit and other applicable conditions of this permit, storm water pollution
prevention plans for facilities subject to reporting requirements under EPCRA Section 313 for
chemicals which are classified as 'Section 313 water priority chemicals' in accordance with the
definition in PART LA of this permit, shall describe and ensure the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for conformance with the following guidelines:
1.4.2.1 In areas where Section 313 water priority chemicals are stored, processed or otherwise handled,
appropriate containment, drainage control and/or diversionary structures shall be provided. At a
minimum, one of the following preventive systems or its equivalent shall be used:
1.4.2.2 Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers or other forms of drainage control to prevent or minimize the
potential for storm water run-off to come into contact with significant sources of pollutants; or,
1.4.2.3 Roofs, covers or other forms of appropriate protection to prevent storage piles from exposure to storm
water, and wind.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 24 of 36
1.4.2.4 In addition to the minimum standards listed under Part 1.4.1.10.1 of this permit, the storm water
pollution prevention plan shall include a complete discussion of measures taken to conform with the
following applicable guidelines, other effective storm water pollution prevention procedures, and
applicable Tribal rules, regulations and guidelines:
1.4.2.5 Liquid storage areas where storm water comes into contact with any equipment, tank, container, or
other vessel used for Section 313 water priority chemicals.
1.4.2.5.1 No tank or container shall be used for the storage of a Section 313 water priority chemical unless
its material and construction are compatible with the material stored and conditions of storage
such as pressure and temperature, etc.
1.4.2.5.2 Liquid storage areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals shall be operated to minimize
discharges of Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate measures to minimize discharges of Section
313 chemicals may include secondary containment provided for at least the entire contents of the
largest single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation, a comprehensive spill
contingency and integrity testing plan, and/or other equivalent measures.
1.4.2.6 Material storage areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals other than liquids. Material storage
areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals other than liquids which are subject to runoff, leaching,
or wind shall incorporate drainage or other control features which will minimize the discharge of
Section 313 water priority chemicals by reducing storm water contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
1 A.2.1 Truck and rail car loading and unloading areas for liquid Section 313 water priority chemicals. Truck
and rail car loading and unloading areas for liquid Section 313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Protection such as
overhangs or door skirts to enclose trailer ends at truck loading/unloading docks shall be provided as
appropriate. Appropriate measures to minimize discharges of Section 313 chemicals may include: the
placement and maintenance of drip pans (including the proper disposal of materials collected in the
drip pans) where spillage may occur (such as hose connections, hose reels and filler nozzles) for use
when making and breaking hose connections; a comprehensive spill contingency and integrity testing
plan; and/or other equivalent measures.
1.4.2.8 Areas where Section 313 water priority chemicals are transferred, processed or otherwise handled.
Processing equipment and materials handling equipment shall be operated so as to minimize
discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Materials used in piping and equipment shall be
compatible with the substances handled. Drainage from process and materials handling areas shall
minimize storm water contact with section 313 water priority chemicals. Additional protection such
as covers or guards to prevent exposure to wind, spraying or releases from pressure relief vents from
causing a discharge of Section 313 water priority chemicals to the drainage system shall be provided
as appropriate. Visual inspections or leak tests shall be provided for overhead piping conveying
Section 313 water priority chemicals without secondary containment.
1.4.2.9 Discharges from areas covered by paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6
1.4.2.9.1 Drainage from areas covered by paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6 of this Part should be
restrained by valves or other positive means to prevent the discharge of a spill or other excessive
leakage of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Where containment units are employed, such
units may be emptied by pumps or ejectors; however, these shall be manually activated.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 25 of 36
1.4.2.9.2 Flapper-type drain valves shall not be used to drain containment areas. Valves used for the
drainage of containment areas should, as far as is practical, be of manual, open-and-closed design.
1.4.2.9.3 If facility drainage is not engineered as above, the final discharge of all in-facility storm sewers
shall be equipped to be equivalent with a diversion system that could, in the event of an
uncontrolled spill of Section 313 water priority chemicals, return the spilled material to the
facility.
1.4.2.9.4 Records shall be kept of the frequency and estimated volume (in gallons) of discharges from
containment areas.
1.4.2.9.5 Facility site runoff other than from areas covered by 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6. Other areas
of the facility (those not addressed in paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6, from which
runoff which may contain Section 313 water priority chemicals or spills of Section 313 water
priority chemicals could cause a discharge shall incorporate the necessary drainage or other
control features to prevent discharge of spilled or improperly disposed material and ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or leachate.
1.4.2.9.6 Preventive maintenance and housekeeping. All areas of the facility shall be inspected at specific
intervals identified in the plan for leaks or conditions that could lead to discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals or direct contact of storm water with raw materials, intermediate
materials, waste materials or products. In particular, facility piping, pumps, storage tanks and
bins, pressure vessels, process and material handling equipment, and material bulk storage areas
shall be examined for any conditions or failures which could cause a discharge. Inspection shall
include examination for leaks, wind blowing, corrosion, support or foundation failure, or other
forms of deterioration or noncontainment. Inspection intervals shall be specified in the plan and
shall be based on design and operational experience. Different areas may require different
inspection intervals. Where a leak or other condition is discovered which may result in significant
releases of Section 313 water priority chemicals to waters of the United States, action to stop the
leak or otherwise prevent the significant release of Section 313 water priority chemicals to waters
of the United States shall be immediately taken or the unit or process shut down until such action
can be taken.
1.4.2.9.7 When aleak or noncontainment of a Section 313 water priority chemical has occurred,
contaminated soil, debris, or other material must be promptly removed and disposed in accordance
with Federal, Tribal, and local requirements and as described in the plan.
1.4.2.9.8 Facility security. Facilities shall have the necessary security systems to prevent accidental or
intentional entry which could cause a discharge. Security systems described in the plan shall
address fencing, lighting, vehicular traffic control, and securing of equipment and buildings.
1.4.2.9.9 Training. Facility employees and contractor personnel that work in areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are use or stored shall be trained in and informed of preventive measures at the
facility. Employee training shall be conducted at intervals specified in the plan, but not less than
once per year, in matters of pollution control laws and regulations, and in the storm water
pollution prevention plan and the particular features of the facility and its operation which are
designed to minimize discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. The plan shall designate
a person who is accountable for spill prevention at the facility and who will set up the necessary
spill emergency procedures and reporting requirements so that spills and emergency releases of
Section 313 water priority chemicals can be isolated and contained before a discharge of a Section
313 water priority chemical can occur. Contractor or temporary personnel shall be informed of
facility operation and design features in order to prevent discharges or spills from occurring.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 26 of 36
1.4.2.9.10 Engineering Certification. - The storm water pollution prevention plan for a facility subject to
EPCRA Section 313 requirements for chemicals which are classified as 'Section 313 water priority
chemicals' shall be reviewed by a Registered Professional Engineer and certified to by such
Professional Engineer. A Registered Professional Engineer shall recertify the plan every 3 years
thereafter or as soon as practicable after significant modification are made to the facility. By
means of these certifications the engineer, having examined the facility and being familiar with the
provisions of this Part, shall attest that the storm water pollution prevention plan has been
prepared in accordance with good engineering practices. Such certifications shall in no way
relieve the owner or operator of a facility covered by the plan of their duty to prepare and fully
implement such plan.
1.4.3 Additional Requirements for Salt Storage.
1.4.3.1 Storage piles of salt used for deicing or other commercial or industrial purposes and which generate
a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity which is discharged to a water of the
United States shall be enclosed or covered to prevent exposure to precipitation, except for exposure
resulting from adding or removing materials from the pile.
1.4.3.2 Dischargers shall demonstrate compliance with this provision as expeditiously as practicable, but in
no event later than two years after the effective date of this permit. Piles do not need to be enclosed
or covered where storm water from the pile is not discharged to waters of the United States.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 27 of 36
2. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.1. Representative Sampling. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements established
under Part 1. shall be collected from the effluent stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters.
Samples and measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
Sludge samples shall be collected at a location representative of the quality of sludge immediately prior
to use-disposal practice.
2.2. Monitoring Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40
CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit. Sludge monitoring
procedures shall be those specified in 40 CFR 503, or as specified in the permit.
2.3. Penalties for Tampering. The Act provides that any person who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than
two years, or by both. Second conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or both.
2.4. Reporting of Monitoring Results. Effluent monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall
be summarized and reported on one Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period. If no discharge
occurs during the reporting period, "no discharge" shall be reported. Until further notice, sludge
monitoring results may be reported in the testing laboratory's normal format (there is no EPA standard
form at this time), but should be on letter size pages. Whole effluent toxicity (biomonitoring) results
must be reported on the most recent version of EPA Region 8's Guidance For Whole Effluent Reporting.
Legible copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be signed and certified in accordance
with the Signatory Requirements (see Part 4.). and submitted to the Planning and Targeting Program,
and the TAT Environmental Department at the following addresses:
original to: U.S. EPA, REGION 8
PLANNING AND TARGETING PROGRAM (8ENF-PT)
ATTENTION: PCS COORDINATOR
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
copy to: Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
2.5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136, 40 CFR 503, or as specified
in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 28 of 36
2.6. Records Contents. Records of monitoring information shall include:
2.6.1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2.6.2. The initials or name(s) of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
2.6.3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
2.6.4. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
2.6.5. The initials or name(s) of individual(s) who performed the analyses;
2.6.6. References and written procedures, when available, for the analytical techniques or methods used;
and,
2.6.7. The results of such analyses, including the bench sheets, instrument readouts, computer disks or
tapes, etc., used to determine these results.
2.7. Retention of Records. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all
calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete
the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. Records of monitoring required by this permit related to sludge use
and disposal activities must be kept at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR 503). This
period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. Data collected on site, data used to
prepare the DMR, copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports, and a copy of this NPDES permit must be
maintained on site.
2.8. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting.
2.8.1. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment as
soon as possible, but no later than twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee first became
aware of the circumstances. The report shall be made to the EPA, Region 8, Preparedness,
Assessment and Response Program at (303) 293-1788, and the TAT Environmental Division at (701)
627-5469.
2.8.2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall be reported by telephone to the EPA, Region 8,
Technical Enforcement Program at (303) 312-6720 (8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) or the
appropriate EPA State Program Manager, NPDES Program, (toll-free 866-457-2690) (8:00 a.m. -
4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) and the TAT Environmental Division at (701) 627-5469 (8:00 a.m. - 4:30
p.m. Central Time) by the first workday following the day the permittee became aware of the
circumstances:
2.8.2.1. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part 3.7.,
Bypass of Treatment Facilities.);
2.8.2.2. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part 3.8., Upset Conditions.);
or,
2.8.2.3. Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed in the permit to
be reported within 24 hours.
2.8.3. A written submission shall also be provided to the USEPA, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and
Environmental Justice, and to the TAT Environmental Division within five days of the time that the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain:
2.8.3.1. A de scription of the noncompliance and its cause;
2.8.3.2. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 29 of 36
2.8.3.3. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and,
2.8.3.4. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
2.8.4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for an occurrence of
noncompliance listed under Part 2.8.2. above, if the incident has been orally reported in accordance
with the requirements of Part 2.8.2.
2.8.5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part 2.4., Reporting of Monitoring Results.
2.9. Other Noncompliance Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported within 24
hours shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part 2 A. are submitted. The reports shall
contain the information listed in Part 2.8.3.
2.10. Inspection and Entry. The permittee shall allow the Regional Administrator, or authorized
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator) upon
presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
2.10.1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
2.10.2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of
this permit;
2.10.3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and,
2.10.4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
3. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1. Duty to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any failure to comply
with the permit may constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act and may be grounds for enforcement
action, including, but not limited to permit termination, revocation and reissuance, modification, or
denial of a permit renewal application. The permittee shall give the director advance notice of any
planned changes at the permitted facility that will change any discharge from the facility, or of any
activity that may result in failure to comply with permit conditions.
3.2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions. The Clean Water Act provides for specified civil and
criminal monetary penalties for violations of its provisions. However, the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
requires EPA to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation on a periodic basis. EPA previously
adjusted its civil monetary penalties on December 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 69359-69365), with technical
corrections and additions published on March 20, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 13514-13517) and June 27, 1997
(62 Fed. Reg. 35037-35041). On February 13, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 7121-7127) EPA once again adjusted
its civil monetary penalties. The civil and criminal penalties, as of March 15, 2004, for violations of the
Act (including permit conditions) are given below:
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 30 of 36
3.2.1. Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402, or any
requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of
the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $32,500 per day for each violation.
3.2.2. Any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for
a negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
3.2.3. Any person who knowingly violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for
a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $100,000 per
day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 6 years, or both.
3.2.4. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or
any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act, and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than
$250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent
conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than
$500,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as defined in
section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger
provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to $2,000,000 for
second or subsequent convictions.
3.2.5. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing
any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Where an administrative
enforcement action is brought for a Class I civil penalty, the assessed penalty may not exceed
$11,000 per violation, with a maximum amount not to exceed $32,500. Where an administrative
enforcement action is brought for a Class II civil penalty, the assessed penalty may not exceed
$11,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, with the maximum amount not to
exceed $157,500.
3.3. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an
enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
3.4. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or
sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment.
3.5. Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used
by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 31 of 36
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions
of the permit. However, the permittee shall operate, as a minimum, one complete set of each main line
unit treatment process whether or not this process is needed to achieve permit effluent compliance.
3.5.1 The permittee shall, as soon as reasonable and practicable, but no later than six (6) months after the
effective date of this permit, do the following as part of the operation and maintenance program for
the waste water treatment facility:
3.5.1.1. Have a current O & M Manual(s) that describes the proper operational procedures and maintenance
requirements of the wastewater treatment facility;
3.5.1.2. Have the O & M Manual(s) readily available to the operator of the wastewater treatment facility and
require that the operator become familiar with the manual(s) and any updates;
3.5.1.2. Have a schedule(s) for routine operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment
facility; and,
3.5.1.3. Require the operator to perform the routine operation and maintenance requirements in accordance
with the schedule(s).
3.5.1.4. Deadlines for O&M Manual(s) Preparation.
The O&M Manual(s)
3.5.1.4.1 Shall be prepared and submitted to the permit issuing authority for review and approval no later than
six months after the effective date of this permit (and updated at a minimum of every two years or
more frequently if deemed appropriate). The plan shall be submitted to the U.S. EPA Region 8
NPDES Permits Unit at the following address:
EPA Region 8 NPDES Permits Unit
Mailcode: 8P-W-P
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
A copy of the plan shall also be submitted to the Three Affiliated Tribes Environmental
Department at the following address:
Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 32 of 36
3.5.2. The permittee shall maintain a daily log in a bound notebook(s) containing a summary record of all
operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment facility. At a minimum, the
notebook shall include the following information:
3.5.2.1. Date and time;
3.5.2.2 Name and title of person(s) making the log entry;
3.5.2.3. Name of the persons(s) performing the activity;
3.5.2.4. A brief description of the activity; and,
3.5.2.5. Other information, as appropriate.
The permittee shall maintain the notebook in accordance with proper record-keeping procedures and
shall make the log available for inspection, upon request, by authorized representatives of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the TAT Environmental Division.
3.6. Removed Substances. Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludge, or other pollutants removed in the
course of treatment shall be buried or disposed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal and
tribal regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 257, 40 CFR 258, 40 CFR 503, 40 CFR 268 and in a manner so as to
prevent any pollutant from entering any waters of the United States or creating a health hazard. In
addition, the use and/or disposal of sewage sludge shall be done under the authorization of an
NPDES permit issued for the use and/or disposal of sewage sludge by the appropriate NPDES
permitting authority for sewage sludge. Sludge/digester supernatant and filter backwash shall not be
directly blended with or enter either the final plant discharge and/or waters of the United States.
3.7. Bypass of Treatment Facilities.
3.7.1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not
cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Parts 3.7.2. and 3.7.3.
3.7.2. Notice:
3.7.2.1. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit
prior notice, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass to the USEPA, Technical
Enforcement Program, and the TAT Environmental Division.
3.7.2.2. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required
under Part 2.8., Twenty-four Hour Noncompliance Reporting, to the USEPA, Technical
Enforcement Program, and the TAT Environmental Division.
3.7.3. Prohibition of bypass.
3.7.3.1. Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement action against a permittee for a
bypass, unless:
3.7.3.1.1. The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property
damage;
3.7.3.1.2. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been
installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and,
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 33 of 36
3.7.3.1.3. The permittee submitted notices as required under Part 3.7.2.
3.7.3.2. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the
Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Part 3.7.3.1.
3.8. Upset Conditions
3.8.1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of Part 3.8.2.
are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review (i.e., Permittees will have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of
upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with technology-based permit
effluent limitations).
3.8.2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the
affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence that:
3.8.2.1. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
3.8.2.2. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
3.8.2.3. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under Part 2.8., Twenty-four Hour Notice
of Noncompliance Reporting; and,
3.8.2.4. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part 3.4., Duty to Mitigate.
3.8.3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence
of an upset has the burden of proof.
3.9. Toxic Pollutants. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
Section 307 (a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish
those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
3.10. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances. Notification shall be provided to the Director as soon as the
permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:
3.10.1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or
frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
3.10.1.1. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L);
3.10.1.2. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred
micrograms per liter 500 ug/L) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
3.10.1.3. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported forthat pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
3.10.1.4. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(f).
3.10.2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 34 of 36
3.10.2.1. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L);
3.10.2.2. One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony:
3.10.2.3. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
3.10.2.4. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(f).
4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned
physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
4.1.1. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutant
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are not subject to effluent limitations in the
permit; or,
4.1.2. There are any planned substantial changes to the existing sewage sludge facilities, the manner of its
operation, or to current sewage sludge management practices of storage and disposal. The permittee
shall give the Director notice of any planned changes at least 30 days prior to their implementation.
4.1.3. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether
a facility is a new source.
4.2. Anticipated Noncompliance. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit
requirements.
4.3. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing
of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
4.4. Duty to Reapply. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the
expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The application
should be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.
4.5. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee
shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
4.6. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a
permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
4.7. Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director shall be
signed and certified.
4.7.1. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 35 of 36
4.7.2. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Director shall be signed by
a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly
authorized representative only if:
4.7.2.1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the Director;
and,
4.7.2.2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position
of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual
or any individual occupying a named position.)
4.7.3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part 4.7.2. is no longer accurate because a
different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of Part 4.7.2. must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
4.7.4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
4.8. Penalties for Falsification of Reports. The Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
4.9. Availability of Reports. Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the
offices of the Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data shall not
be considered confidential.
4.10. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to
which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
4.11. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, tribal or local laws or regulations.
4.12. Severability. The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
4.13. Transfers. This permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee if:
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 36 of 36
4.13.1. The current permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date;
4.13.2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittees containing a
specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and,
4.13.3. The Director does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of his or her
intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in Part 4.13.2.
4.14.1. Permittees in Indian Country. EPA is issuing this permit pursuant to the Agency's authority to
implement the Clean Water Act NPDES program in Indian country, as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151.
4.14.2. Reopener Provision. This permit may be reopened and modified (following proper administrative
procedures) to include the appropriate effluent limitations (and compliance schedule, if necessary),
or other appropriate requirements if one or more of the following events occurs:
4.15.1. Water Quality Standards: The water quality standards of the receiving water(s) to which the
permittee discharges are modified in such a manner as to require different effluent limits than
contained in this permit.
4.15.2. Wasteload Allocation: A wasteload allocation is developed and approved by the TAT Tribes and/or
EPA for incorporation in this permit.
4.15.3. Water Quality Management Plan: A revision to the current water quality management plan is
approved and adopted which calls for different effluent limitations than contained in this permit.
4.16. Toxicity Limitation-Reopener Provision . This permit may be reopened and modified (following
proper administrative procedures) to include whole effluent toxicity limitations if whole effluent
toxicity is detected in the discharge.
-------
FACT SHEET/STATEMENT OF BASIS
MHA NATION CLEAN FUELS REFINERY
MAKOTI, NORTH DAKOTA
Facility Name: MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery
NPDES Permit No: ND-0030988
Responsible Official: Tex G. Hall, Chairman
Fort Berthold Tribal Business Council
Three Affiliated Tribes
Facility Contact: Horace Pipe, Refinery Project Manager
Phone Number: (701)726-5894
Permit Type: New Major Industrial Facility/Indian Country
Background Information
This new permit is proposed for wastewater discharges associated with the planned Mandan,
Hidatsa and Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) Clean Fuels Refinery to be located on the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation near Makoti in Ward County, North Dakota. The MHA Nation
applied to EPA Region VIII for an NPDES permit on November 9, 2004.
The proposed refinery is a new facility yet to be constructed. Construction is scheduled to begin
in 2007. Once operational, the facility will process synthetic crude oil and local butane supplies
into various petroleum products including gasoline, diesel and other distillate blending fuels.
Anticipated capacity of the facility is 10,000 barrels per stream day (BPSD) of synthetic crude
and 3000 BPSD of field butane. Syncrude feedstock for the refinery will originate from northern
Alberta, Canada and will be supplied via an already existing pipeline nearby. Field butane and
natural gas will be supplied locally. A soybean based 300 BPSD Bio-diesel refinery is also
planned for the site but may not be constructed as part of the initial effort.
The proposed refinery will include atmospheric distillation, hydrotreating, and hydrocracking
processing units for the synthetic crude, a hydrogen plant utilizing natural gas, and butane
processing units. Other areas of the proposed refinery affecting wastewater discharges include:
rail and truck loading and unloading facilities, a tank farm, blending facilities, office and
maintenance buildings, and fire suppression system. Contaminated (oily) stormwater will be
managed separately from uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater.
In the DEIS for the proposed facility, there are two different refinery configurations proposed.
One is the Proposed Alternative (DEIS Figure 2-7) and the other under Alternative 4, a
reconfiguration designed to minimize impacts to onsite wetlands and replacing the wastewater
holding ponds with a tank system (DEIS Figure 2-15). Both configurations are being considered
for final design and will be evaluated as part of the draft NPDES permit.
-------
go:
i!
5
0£ Q.
-------
Sfi
S s!
-------
Wastewater Sources and Treatment
There are four sources of wastewater associated with the operation of the proposed MHA Nation
Clean Fuels Refinery:
Process wastewater from refinery operations
Contaminated (oily) stormwater from process areas of the refinery
Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater from areas outside the process operations of
the refinery
Sanitary wastewater (POTENTIAL)
Process Wastewater
Process wastewater discharges associated with petroleum refining operations will be collected
and treated prior to recycle back to refinery operations or discharged. The raw water source for
the refinery operations is well water. The refinery design includes plans to utilize recycled water
from certain operations to the extent feasible. Make-up water for process operations is treated
prior to use in the boilers and steam generators for the refinery operations (hydrogen production,
process units, process heaters). Blowdown from the boilers will be sent to a water recycling plant
and recycled as make-up water. Condensate return flow from the process heaters can also be
recycled as make-up water or be sent to the wastewater treatment processes if the quality
becomes a problem for use as recycle. Other process wastewater includes water that is removed
during crude processing operations in individual refinery units. All process wastewater will be
collected in segregated closed drainage pipes and routed to either a steam stripper to remove
VOCs and benzene or to a sour water stripper (SWS) to remove sulfides and ammonia. The
process wastewater is then sent directly to the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater
treatment unit processes include the following units: API separator ^-dissolved air floatation
^-equalization tank ^-biological treatment ^clarifier.
Under the Proposed Alternative in the DEIS, the wastewater (after treatment) will be directed to
one of two final holding ponds. The treated process wastewater can then either sent as recycle
back to make-up water system for process operations or discharged. DEIS Figure 2-3 shows the
operation with no recycling and DEIS Figure 2-4 shows the operation with full recycling of
treated wastewater.
Under Alternative 4 in the DEIS, the wastewater treatment system will be designed to meet the
definitions of wastewater treatment unit and tank system under RCRA 40 CFR 260. The
biological treatment will meet the aggressive biological treatment definition under hazardous
waste rules at 40 CFR 261.31(b). The wastewater is then routed to final holding tanks prior to
recycle or discharge. See DEIS Figure 2-16.
Potential pollutants contained in the discharge of process wastewater will be evaluated and
limited under Outfall 002 in the proposed NPDES permit for this facility.
-------
-------
Release to Outfall No. 002 1
T3
Cl
C
1
-L
t
j^M
?atment
c
u 1
te Wate
I
20.4 (avg) 1
C
in
CO
ii
o
X
in
rs
X
o
m
N
^^m.
C
D
C
ter Tree
1
r
i
Cl
c
o
I
i
= i
i»2 '5
c S"
o |
0 1
10 o
1
1 1 '
' V.
o
2
.TO
*5
g
-x-
"" CO
(C
<
01 5
01 |
1 ^
D.
V
ise to Outfall No. 00 1
30]a^ * NPDES
O<; /m=ivl
C * £
S |l
° ^ * i^
i 1 11 __
y 1 £i -^
OJ
TO -^
C X
I ?i
D re ^
OJ O S
E
a r^^
3 C
1X1 QJ
o E
I"" S
Jl L
1 r
x w £
N \
d £
TO r1
o
m
\
£
j I* AW
~^ "'.§. r1
o 2'
o^'o1-' JS E Q'
ill! SI "!
1 &
/ <"
S L.
1 i
o i> ^
"
is
0 «
ro m
" N
^^^^H
Boilers
50 klb/h
'
.
m
j^^^^H
-1
2 E
1 ^
Boiler Fee
Treatn
'
S c
is
§ °
M >-
J i
0
ill i
4 S 1
m 3 1 1 C
8 c ^
G; Oj
N
£ o
V. >
s.?
fs
E a.
i2
£
|| ( \
23 I
D. \
I ,
in £
1 > M
Si E2
V^X^i
A A"1 S
W
1
O
CO
3
m
^^^
TO C_
E *-
gj TO
fct
|l
£
1
~>
D
3
n
i
^
>
a
L
a
a
5
j/d Cl 2
?
in
f
\
\
i
i.
j
j
i
i/
j
/
\
c
£
J
.
^
*
i
1
1,
i
iL
S.
;
t
i
S
i
i
a1
S
t-
0
j
S
i
^
j
ft
P
MHA NATION FEE-TO-TRUST 1
AND REFINEREIS |
|
K
' '
To Flare
C "D
u E
S-TO
ble Water
eatment
' '
I
01
in
3
j
s
HC To Proce
- 1
i
nance E
Mainte
i
w
'TO
Q
3
1
WASTE WATER TREATMENT SSTEM 1
WITH NO RECCLIN«3F WATER 1
ANALYSIS AREA: MOUNTRAIL & WARD COUNTIES, ND 1
i i
ToSWS
i
I
C
3
1
-^H
"c
0
1/1
c
3
C
C
UJ
^
"TO
I
q.
1
Q.
E
Z
1
a
5
Q
c
c
ocess
B.
j^H
U
B.
^tj TETRA TECH EM INC. |
d
c
nsultant
So
= 1
3 rvj
LUUOJJAU
ui uo oa
rey stone E
/) a
-------
oi re
2 -
f~
\
o
.
CJ
1
c:
1
o * 1
"s i
i
cj
oi^ $
* * u
l£ e
0 o"
/<^
J! > -1
3 .* 3
i = a
M3
i / I
JJ /
^^M
t
ig
c
3 o
D ^
B I
^ 5
0 2
^B
3
£ c i
E 3 1 9
1 = £
E: a*
^ ,
» CO =
>£
O
j
_GJ
f ₯ s
I§ K
0 o" r^^^
" £
^^ ? 0
rilBlj
1
t
o
c
,«^H^^
/T^^^i >
6
>,
"s
4=
1
8.
3
\ft
IS
» sj
s -
2 x
0 0
a. in
TO IN
> X
LU O
O
0 IS '
_
> JS u
s-i P
0 o >
"
S-l
1
TO
di
\n
c.
1
£
"x"
01 g
> E
TO ^
_^H
_
I
|
Li
A
,.
0 * * > l^-
o m
^ CO ^
o
£ *"
o
s _
c
E c
6 s.
u S'
I &*
T3 ><
« I
0
uid69l D
K
^1
MAW 8 , ,
' J3JBM31SB/X\ K
SSd3OJcJ C
x" *~
T:
2
C
^ h
2
^^^ r 8
». m| >0v5
QJ
I
D.
£
5
IV
^-, \
.
s
2
J
.-
1
'
>- ,T >
?! U 11
^ ss f r
s
<
OI
c
V
5
« 8 r S |
S S § E S
= S = -o "
< a"- >. £
a T, « a .§
s a1
a - 51
§ S ^l
> » g >J
1 II 8i
1 L J .
(U flJ
£ S
0.1
in £
(N S t
^^^^^H
H £
i2 \
a3 £^
"~ -^
5o
in
'
"i * Fii
« 2
^X^V. 2s
7\A s
( \ f-13
V \7
V x
^~-f\
'
*
£ *
^
2
in
f*j
1
O '
5 _
2 S
O r'
CO
^
c
I
1
3/d Cl 2 Lai
!
Cfi
!
ii
fa a
>- fa
2§
5 n
I §
w
z
W
-<
w
E S
2 ~3
=
1 E
§1
ly W ' iji ^
x a - s -o
S s 5 oj cu
o- « -o « a
-is
J'i
= -a
£|
a -
a
1
I
>s-
-------
Contaminated (oily) Stormwater
Contaminated (oily) stormwater will be collected in segregated drains that collect runoff from
precipitation that falls directly on the areas of the refinery that have a high potential for
contact with oil, products and byproducts produced during refining operations. Areas
surrounding each process unit, the loading and unloading areas, and equipment cleaning areas
are considered as having a high potential for contact with those materials. The high potential
contact areas will be paved and curbed to prevent precipitation runon and release of the
wastewater to the area outside the area.
(Under the Proposed Alternative in the DEIS) Contaminated (oily) stormwater will be
collected in segregated drains and sent to a holding pond. The wastewater will be tested and if
further treatment is required, it will be routed to the wastewater treatment facility. If further
treatment is not required, the wastewater will be directed to one of the two final effluent
holding ponds and recycled or discharged through Outfall 002 as described above for the
process wastewater.
(Under Alternative 4 in the DEIS) The contaminated (oily) stormwater will be collected in
segregated drains and sent to a series of surge tanks. The wastewater will then be normally
sent for further treatment in the wastewater treatment unit. In the event the capacity of the
surge tanks and/or wastewater treatment unit hydraulic capacity is exceeded, the segregated
oily stormwater can be sent to a series of release tanks and discharged or held to return back
to the wastewater treatment unit if further treatment is necessary to meet discharge
requirements. The treated wastewater could then be recycled or discharged through Outfall
002 as described above for the process wastewater. An additional discharge outfall (002a)
will be required under this alternative as the holding capacity for treated wastewater has been
substantially reduced and a discharge of segregated stormwater due to precipitation events
may be necessary.
Potential pollutants contained in the discharge of contaminated (oily) stormwater will be
evaluated and limited under Outfall 002 and Outfall 002a (for Alternative 4 in the DEIS) in
the proposed NPDES permit.
Uncontaminated (non-oily) Stormwater
Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater will be collected as segregated runoff from
precipitation that falls on areas of the refinery outside the areas considered as high potential
contact with oil, product and byproducts. These areas within the boundaries of the site
include roads in the process areas, unpaved areas, parking areas, building runoff, etc. The
run-off from the site will be conveyed for collection using surface ditches next to roadways,
etc. There may also be some site runon contribution from upgradient areas surrounding the
refinery property that will contribute to the runoff from the site. The site configuration is
designed to let precipitation flow generally towards the lowest elevation of the site where it
will be collected, piped and sent to a large holding pond. The wastewater can then be used as
make-up water for the firewater system as necessary or discharged.
The management of Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater will be similar under the
Proposed Alternative and Alternative 4 under the DEIS. Potential pollutants contained in the
discharge of Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater are evaluated and limited under Outfall
001 in the proposed NPDES permit.
-------
(POTENTIAL) Sanitary Wastewater
Sanitary wastewater will be collected and treated in a package wastewater treatment plant.
Flow is projected to be approximately 3.5 gpm or 5000 gallons per day. Potential pollutants
contained in the discharge of sanitary wastewater are evaluated and limited under Outfall 003
in the proposed NPDES permit.
New Source Determination
On December 2, 2004, EPA Region 8 issued a New Source Determination for the proposed
facility as required by 40 CFR §122.21(l)(2)(ii). EPA Region 8 determined that the proposed
facility is in fact a new source (defined in 40 CFR §122.2) and is subject to New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category pursuant to 40
CFR §419. The New Source Determination was public noticed between December 23 and 29,
2004 in several newspaper publications in the geographical area of the proposed site location. A
public comment period of 30 days was opened by the public notice and ended on January 29,
2005. One phone call was received by EPA during the public comment period from the
Mountrail County Record requesting additional information on the proposed facility. No
challenges to EPA's New Source Determination were received during the public comment period.
EPA NPDES Major/Minor Determination
EPA completed an NPDES Permit Rating Work Sheet for the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels
Refinery in accordance with EPA policy on major/minor facility classification. (USEPA
Memorandum from James Elder to Regional Water Management Division Directors. June 27,
1990). The proposed facility scored 95 points and received a ranking of "major". A minimum
score of 80 is required for a "major" ranking. The Rating Work Sheet is contained in the
Administrative Record for this permit.
EPA's Environmental Review Requirements
Since the proposed facility was determined by EPA to be New Source, and the issuance of an
NPDES permit will be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment within the meaning of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (NEPA), the
MHA Nation is required to comply with EPA's environmental review procedures for the New
Source NPDES Program requirements of 40 CFR Part 6, Subparts A-D and F.
The United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and EPA in cooperation with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and the MHA Nation are developing an Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) that will fulfill both BIA and EPA environmental review requirements. A draft EIS (DEIS)
will be completed prior to public notice of a proposed NPDES permit for the facility [40 CFR
§124.10(b)] and will be included in the Administrative Record for the draft permit in accordance
with 40 CFR §124.9. A final EIS (FEIS), including a recommendation to issue or deny an
NPDES permit, will be included in the Administrative Record for the final NPDES permit in
accordance with 40 CFR §124.18. If the FEIS recommends denying the NPDES permit, reasons
for the recommendation will be identified and a list of measures, if any, which the MHA nation
could take to cause the recommendation to be changed. If the FEIS recommends issuing the final
-------
permit, the FEIS will recommend the actions, if any, which the MHA Nation should take to
prevent or minimize any adverse environmental impacts.
Endangered Species Act Coordination
Under the February 22, 2001 Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, EPA agreed to implement actions to
demonstrate compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for certain activities under the
NPDES permitting program. In accordance with the MOA, EPA must make a determination of
effects on Threatened and Endangered Species (both listed and candidate species) for this federal
action of issuing an NPDES permit.
For this action, EPA has determined that the issuance of this permit may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect Threatened and Endangered species that are present in the project area. EPA will
include information regarding its determination and related correspondence between EPA and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Administrative Record kept for this permit.
EPA's determination regarding this permit's potential to affect Threatened and Endangered
species is based on the permit requirements which have been included in the draft NPDES permit
after considering existing Tribally-adopted water quality standards for the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, and the State of North Dakota water quality standards without an allowance for
mixing zones, i.e. end-of-pipe.
Since this is a new facility and there is no existing monitoring data for the discharge, the permit
also contains additional monitoring requirements for priority pollutant compounds that may be
present but are not anticipated. Re-opener provisions in the permit allow for inserting additional
water quality based effluent limits protective of aquatic life and public water supply uses when
unanticipated pollutants are detected during this additional monitoring.
National Historic Preservation Act
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies take into
account the effects of a federal undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that
is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. According to Section 301 of the
act, "undertaking" means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the
direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including (a) those carried out by or on behalf
of the agency, (b) those carried out with federal financial assistance, (c) those requiring a federal
permit license, or approval, and (d) those subject to state or local regulation administered
pursuant to a delegation or approval by a federal agency. Section 106 compliance also applies to
non-federal lands when federal funding, licensing, permitting, and approval are required.
This permitted effluent discharge is not expected to affect historic or cultural resources.
Moreover, because the locations of the outfalls were disturbed previously, construction of the
outfalls would not affect historic or cultural resources.
The proposed facility is not expected to substantially affect cultural resources. The till plain and
pothole setting of the project area has soils that are generally good for cultivation, but support a
comparatively low diversity of natural resources. These conditions correspond to a low potential
for prehistoric or historic cultural resources other than readily visible farm complexes.
-------
A records search for the project site was completed through the North Dakota State Historical
Society. The records search indicated that no cultural resource investigations and no known sites
are on file for the project area. The North Dakota SHPO (Swenson 2005) and the Cultural
Preservation Office of the Three Affiliated Tribes (Crows Breast 2005) have reviewed the
available information for the project area. Both offices have concurred that there is a low
potential for significant cultural resources in the project area, and both have recommended a
determination of no historic properties affected.
The farm complex near the refinery site will not be affected by the proposed action and the farm
complexes near the pipeline and power line corridors can be avoided. The primary affect
resulting from implementation of this alternative would be modification of the old Soo Line
Railroad branch line that runs through the property. The line itself would not be moved or
removed, but a new siding would be constructed from the line into the refinery. This addition
would not adversely impact the historic character of the rail line. The farm house and
outbuildings would not be disturbed for construction of the refinery or production of the forage
for buffalo.
Project Location
The proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery will be located on 190 acres of land that is part
of a 469 acre parcel of land purchased by the Three Affiliated Tribes (MHA Nation) on July 22,
2003. The remaining land, 279 acres, is proposed for growing feed for the MHA Nation buffalo
herd. The land is located in the northeast corner of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and in
Ward County, North Dakota. Following the purchase of the land, the MHA Nation requested the
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) accept the land into trust status. The
land transfer is considered a major federal action and subject to environmental review in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). BIA (in cooperation with EPA,
F&WS and the MHA Nation) has primary responsibility to fulfill the NEPA requirements for the
land transfer.
The general land area encompassing the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery site
consists of nearly level glacial till plains and rolling hills. The area is within the glaciated prairie
pothole region and includes numerous seasonal, semi-permanent, and permanent wetlands that
capture seasonal snowmelt and rainwater. Prior to agricultural development of the land, mixed
cool and warm season prairie grasses were predominant with intermix broad-leaved annual and
perennial forbs and numerous legumes. Current land use is generally dry land farming of cereal
crops (wheat and barley) intermixed with cattle ranching in the drier and hillier portions of the
region.
The site itself is largely underdeveloped agricultural property with adjacent land primarily planted
with wheat and barley. The site elevation ranges between 2074 and 2112 feet above mean sea
level and its topography is relatively flat with slopes less than three percent. Drainage in the site
area is generally east to west towards tributaries of the Missouri River (Lake Sakakawea). The
East Fork of Shell Creek runs adjacent to the northern border of the project site and generally
flows west towards Lake Sakakawea. Characteristics of the site include seasonal and semi-
permanent wetlands, mixed grass prairie, wooded draws, intermittent seasonal drainages, and
seasonal crops.
The climate of the site area is characterized by wide seasonal and diurnal temperature and
precipitation variations. Average annual precipitation is 16.06 inches with the highest average
-------
monthly values (3.66 inches) in June and the lowest monthly average (0.33 inches) in February.
Summer thunderstorms occur on about 34 days in the year and account for a majority of the total
annual precipitation amounts. Approximately 80 percent of the annual precipitation total occurs
between April and September. Spring snowmelt drains into wetland depressions and the depth of
ponded water varies dependant on the amount of snow cover. In late spring and summer, these
wetland depressions receive direct precipitation and runoff from the surrounding watershed and
by late summer, the wetlands draw down or dry through evaporation and seepage.
Prairie Pothole Wetlands
Within the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery site boundaries, sixteen prairie pothole
wetland areas totaling 33.6 acres were identified in a field investigation performed by Greystone
Environmental Consultants, Inc. during development of the DEIS. Wetlands delineation was done
in accordance with Level 2 Routine On-site Method as described in the Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The prairie pothole wetlands
within the project area were classified as palustrine wetlands and further characterized as
Palustrine-Emergent-Temporarily-Flooded (PEMA), Palustrine-Emergent-Seasonally-Flooded
(PEMC) and Palustrine-Emergent-Semi-permanently-Flooded (PEMF).
The largest wetland characterized in the field investigation was an 11.7 acre wetland in the
NW1/4 of Section 19. The location is on the lowest elevation contour in Section 19 and was
classified as a PEMF wetland. The wetland collects precipitation and runoff primarily from the
local watershed. This wetland likely contains areas of open water during certain times of the year
and is drained by a culvert on the northern boundary. The culvert is constructed under Highway
23 and after flowing under an additional culvert under the railroad, drains to a tributary of the
East Fork of Shell Creek. The large wetland appears to receive water from a north-south wetland
swale that traverses the site on the west side of the proposed site. This wetland swale appears to
receive surface flow from an off-site wetland across the south property boundary. Flow of the
water is generally from south to north across the site. According to the preliminary site plans, the
wetland swale is the location where treated process wastewater and stormwater discharges will be
located. Soils in this wetland swale were characterized as Parnell (Pa) and consist of a silt loam
with low chromas. The delineation also indicated that the hydrology may be influenced by
groundwater due to the depth of the elevation contour; however, the area was dry during the
October 2003 field investigation.
Both the 11.7 acre wetland and the wetland swale have been determined to be jurisdictional
wetlands by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(2005) and will be considered waters of the U.S.
for establishing effluent limitations and conditions in the proposed NPDES permit.
Receiving Water
As described above, the location receiving discharges from the proposed MHA Nation Clean
Fuels Refinery will be the wetland swale located in the NW1/4 of Section 19, Township 152N,
Range 87W. The wetland swale is tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek through natural
drainageways (wetlands, sloughs, swales) and constructed culverts under Highway 23 and the
railroad, north of the wetland areas. Major site construction activities are not expected to occur in
this area. Some modification of the north-south wetland swale that feeds into the wetland will
take place during construction of the facility and drainage of direct precipitation on the site and
watershed runoff into the wetland area may somewhat change the hydrologic characteristics of
the wetland.
-------
Tributaries of the East Fork of Shell Creek including the natural drainageways and the wetland
swale discharge location best describe the receiving water for discharges from the proposed
facility. No historic flow measurements are available for the tributaries but are assumed to be
zero cubic feet per second (cfs). due to the hydrologic characteristics of the East Fork of Shell
Creek described above. No flow data is available for the wetland swale or wetland system that
will receive discharges from the facility but it will be assumed that there are times of the year that
the low flow in the wetlands is zero cfs.
The East Fork of Shell Creek flows generally in a westerly direction towards Lake Sakakawea
before entering the Van Hook Arm of the Lake at Parshall Bay, near Parshall, ND. The East Fork
of Shell Creek is generally ephemeral and likely has extended periods with very low or no flow
during the year. A USGS gage station is located on the East Fork of Shell Creek near Parshall,
ND approximately fifteen miles from the project site location. There are no other monitoring
stations closer to the site. The gage station (06332523) was established in 1991 and collects
continuous data on stream flow. For the period from 1991 through 2002, annual mean flow
ranges from 2.19 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 1992 to 15.1 cfs in 1999. Peak daily flows for the
same period of record range from 31 cfs on May 12, 2000 to 1,170 cfs on March 27, 1999. Flow
in the East Fork of Shell Creek is highly dependant on summer precipitation events and runoff
that occurs during March and April. Low flows occur during winter months each year and in
2001, monthly low flows of zero cfs were recorded in January, February, August and September.
The East Fork of Shell Creek remains primarily within the external boundaries of the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation as it travels towards Lake Sakakawea, however, approximately one
mile from the proposed project site it traverses the boundary of the Reservation into the State of
North Dakota for a short distance, prior to returning back to the Reservation. As such, water
quality based effluent limits (WQBELs) developed for the proposed facility will take into
consideration both Tribally-adopted water quality standards and State of North Dakota water
quality standards.
Monitoring Data for East Fork of Shell Creek
Limited data is available on water quality for the East Fork of Shell Creek in the vicinity of the
proposed project location. Data was collected periodically on USGS gage station 06332523
located near the mouth below Parshall, ND. In 2001, Confluence Consulting performed
additional monitoring at three locations of the East Fork of Shell Creek. The following data was
presented in the Water Resources Technical Report developed by Greystone Environmental
Consultants Inc. as part of the DEIS.
USGS April 1990 - June 1991
Maximum Minimum Median
pH(s.u.) 9.9 8.4 8.9
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 10.8 7.3
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 420 240
-------
July 1991 - September 1992
Maximum Minimum Median
pH(s.u.) 9.1 8.1 8.7
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 11.6 4.6 6.8
Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) 470 250 350
USGS 1991-2002
Maximum Minimum Median Mean
pH(s.u.) 8.80 7.80 8.37 8.40
Dissolved oxygen (mg/L) 12.50 4.60 8.82 9.05
2001 Stream Survey
2A 2B 2C
Temperature C° 20.2 18 18.9
Water Quality Standards (WOS)
Tribally-adopted Water Quality Standards
The MHA Nation adopted water quality standards for surface waters within the external
boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (Tribally-adopted WQS) through a resolution
adopted by the Tribal Business Council of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation on May 11, 2000. The Tribally-adopted WQS are intended to protect surface water
designated uses through specific numeric and narrative water quality criteria and antidegradation
provisions. The Tribally-adopted WQS have not yet been federally approved by EPA, however,
they will be considered for establishing effluent limitations for discharges from the proposed
MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery in accordance with EPA's Guidance on EPA's NPDES and
Sludge Management Permit Procedures on Federal Indian Reservations (November 16, 1993).
Wetlands: The Tribally-adopted WQS apply to all wetlands on the Reservation that are not
constructed and considered "waters of the Tribes". The wetland located in the NW1/4 of Section
19 falls within these criteria. The Tribally-adopted WQS indicate wetlands shall be subject to
narrative criteria and applicable antidegradation provisions and shall be generally considered
capable of supporting aquatic biota (e.g. fish, macroinvertebrates, amphibians or hydrophytic
vegetation) on a regular or periodic basis. The goal of water quality is described as maintaining
naturally occurring levels within the natural range of variation for the individual wetland. For
substances that are not naturally occurring, water quality requirements shall be based on
protecting uses of the wetland consistent with antidegradation requirements, the Tribes narrative
water quality criteria assigned to hydrologically connected surface waters, or appropriate criteria
guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Tribally-adopted WQS include a Mixing Zone and Dilution Policy that prohibits mixing
zones for point source discharges into wetlands. Paragraph (d) of the policy states "Where
dilution flow is not available at critical conditions, the discharge limits will be based on
achieving water quality criteria at the end-of-pipe. In addition, discharge limits for all point
source discharges to a wetland will be based on achieving water quality criteria at the end-of-
pipe"
-------
East Fork of Shell Creek: The Tribally-adopted WQS also apply to the East Fork of Shell Creek
within the external boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation. The Tribally-adopted
WQS list designated uses for the East Fork of Shell Creek including Public Water Supply,
Primary Contact Recreation, Secondary Contact Recreation, Coldwater Aquatic Life, Warmwater
Aquatic Life, Industrial Water Supply, Agriculture and Navigation. Numeric criteria applicable
to support aquatic life and public water supply (human health) are listed in Tables 1 & 2 of the
Tribally-adopted WQS. The criteria include acute and chronic concentrations for organic
constituents, pesticides, and metals as well as non-conventional pollutants such as hydrogen
sulfide, ammonia nitrogen, temperature, etc., and indicator parameters such as dissolved oxygen.
These criteria were evaluated against information provided by the MHA Nation in their NPDES
permit application, EPA Effluent Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point
Source Category (40 CFR Part 419) and the Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category, Final October
1982, EPA 440/1-82/014, in assessing reasonable potential for discharges to cause or contribute
to exceedances of water quality standards. The list of appropriate criteria for this permit includes
all pollutants that have been reported as expected to be present in the discharge at any
concentration above the applicable analytical detection limit for the pollutant and where a water
quality standard for that pollutant exists. Table 1 below lists the criteria for pollutants expected to
be present in the discharges from the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery.
TABLE 1
Tribally-Adopted WQS (concentrations are dissolved ug/L)
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
CAS No.
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
108-95-2
7783-06-4
7664-41-7
7440-39-3
7429-90-5
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-89-6
7439-96-5
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
7782-50-5
16887-00-6
Aquatic Life
Acute (CMC)
(b)
750
13.5 (a)
4270 (a)
16
49.9 (a)
331 (a)
2.4
3592 (a)
20
26.8 (a)
297 (a)
19
860000
Aquatic Life
Chronic
(CCC)
--
2
(b)
87
2.7 (a)
509 (a)
11
30.2 (a)
1000
12.9 (a)
0.012
399 (a)
5
269 (a)
11
230000
Aquatic Life
Fish Cons.
71
29000
200000
4600000
--
84
3400
0.051
4600
9000
110000
69000
Public Water
Supply
1.2
700
1000
10000
300
--
2000
5.0
100 (T)
100
1000
300
50
15
0.050
100
50
170
5000
10
-------
Fluoride
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
pH (s.u.)
7782-41-4
14797-65-0
14797-55-8
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
7.0-9.0
4000
1000
10000
tr- total recoverable; T- total
(a) Hardness based concentrations for metals calculated using a hardness of 300 mg/L as
CaCO3 and the following formulas:
CMC = exp{ma[ln(hardness)}+ba}
CCC = exp{mc[ln(hardness)]+bc}
cadmium
copper
chromium (HI)
lead
nickel
silver
zinc
ma
1.128
0.9422
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
1.72
0.8473
ba
-3.828
-1.464
3.688
-1.460
3.3612
-6.52
0.8604
me
0. 7852
0.8545
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
-
0.8473
be
-3.490
-1.465
1.561
-4. 705
1.1645
-
0. 7614
(b) Ammonia as N (unionized) is calculated using the following formula:
CMC = 0.52/FT/FPH/2 where:
pj, ^jQ0.03(20-TCAP) .
= 1(f.03(20-1) . 0<
FPH
TCAP
= 1 ; 8
-------
Temperature:
Eighty-five degrees Fahrenheit (29.44 degrees Celsius). The maximum increase shall not
be greater than five degrees Fahrenheit (2.78 degrees Celsius) above background
conditions.
Dissolved Oxygen:
Aquatic Life (IIIA) Use Aquatic Life (IIIB) Use
Early Life Other Life Early Life Other Life
Stages1'2 Stages Stages'2 Stages
30-Day Mean NA 6.5 NA 5.5
7-Day Mean 9.5(6.5) NA 6.0 NA
7-Day Mean NA 5.0 NA 4.0
Minimum3
1-Day Minimum3 8.0(5.0) 4.0 5.0 3.0
1 These are water column concentrations to achieve the required intersravel dissolved
oxygen concentrations shown in parentheses.
Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juvenile forms to 3 0-day s following
hatching.
All minima should be considered as instantaneous concentrations to be achieved at all
times.
Narrative Tribally-adopted Water Quality Standards:
Narrative Tribally-adopted Water Quality Standards describe general characteristics of
surface waters and discharges. The narrative standards include the following:
a) All surface waters on the Reservation shall be free from substances
attributable to wastewater discharges or other pollutant sources that:
(1) settle to form objectionable deposits,
(2) float as debris, scum, oil, foam or other matter forming nuisances,
(3) produce objectionable color, odor, taste or turbidity,
(4) cause injury to, or are toxic to, or produce adverse physiological
responses in humans, animals, or plants; or
(5) produce undesirable or nuisance aquatic life.
12
-------
State of North Dakota Standards
The State of North Dakota has adopted water quality standards (State WQS) for surface waters of
the State including the East Fork of Shell Creek within the State jurisdiction (NDAC 33-16-02.1).
The East Fork of Shell Creek remains primarily within the external boundaries of the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation as it travels towards Lake Sakakawea, however, approximately one
mile from the proposed project site it traverses the boundary of the Reservation into the State of
North Dakota for a short distance, prior to returning back to the Reservation. The State WQS
standards became effective June 1, 2001 and have been approved by EPA. The standards indicate
designated uses for waters of the State, specify narrative and numeric criteria to protect those
uses, and antidegradation provisions. The State has classified the East Fork of Shell Creek as a
Class III stream. According to §33-16-02.1-09, Class III streams are suitable for agriculture and
industrial uses such as stock watering, irrigation, washing and cooling. They are of limited
seasonal value for immersion recreation, fish life, and aquatic biota. The quality of these waters
must be maintained to protect recreation, fish, and aquatic biota. The State WQS were evaluated
against the MHA Nation NPDES permit application, etc. as described above to determine
reasonable potential for exceedance of water quality standards. Appropriate numeric criteria for
Class III streams include values listed in Table 2 and the following additional numeric standards:
Substance or Characteristic Maximum Limit
Barium (total) 1.0 mg/L
Chlorides (total) 250 mg/L
Chlorine Residual (total) acute 0.019 mg/L
Chronic 0.011 mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen not less than 5 mg/L
Fecal Coliform 200 fecal coliforms per 100 mL.
(applies May 1 - Sept 30)
Nitrates (N) (diss.) 1.0 mg/L
pH 7.0-9.0
Phenols (total) 0.3 mg/L (organoleptic criterion)
Phosphorous (P) (total) 0.1 mg/L
Sulfate (total) 750 mg/L
Temperature Eighty-five degrees Fahrenheit
(29.44 degrees Celsius)
The maximum increase shall not be
greater than five degrees Fahrenheit
(2.78 degrees Celsius) above natural
background conditions.
13
-------
TABLE 2
North Dakota State WQS
(concentrations are dissolved, ug/L)
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Fluoride (T)
Nitrite as N
CAS No.
71-43-2
100-41-4
108-88-3
1330-20-7
108-95-2
7440-43-9
7440-47-3
7440-50-8
7439-92-1
7439-97-6
7440-02-0
7782-49-2
7440-22-4
7440-66-6
7782-41-4
14797-65-0
Aquatic Life Value
Classes I, IA, II, III
Acute
--
15.6 (a)
4430 (a)
16
39.4 (a)
331 (a)
1.7
11 90 (a)
20
26.8 (a)
304 (a)
--
Chronic
--
--
5.8 (a)
212 (a)
11
23.8 (a)
12.9 (a)
0.91
132 (a)
5
304 (a)
Human Health Value
Classes I, IA, II
1.2
700
1000
10000
21000
5
--
0.050
100
50
9100
4000
1000
Class III
71
29000
200000
4600000
100 (T)
100 (T)
1000
15
0.051
4600
--
69000
--
tr- total recoverable; T- total
(a) Hardness based concentrations for metals calculated using a hardness of 300 mg/L as
CaCOs and the following formulas:
CMC = exp{ma[ln(hardness)}+ba}
CCC = exp{mc[ln(hardness)]+bc}
cadmium
copper
chromium (III)
lead
nickel
silver
zinc
ma
1.128
0.9422
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
1.72
0.8473
ba
-3.6867
-1.700
3. 7256
-1.460
2.255
-6.52
0.884
me
0. 7852
0.8545
0.8190
1.273
0.8460
-
0.8473
be
-2.715
-1.702
0.6848
-4. 705
0.0584
-
0.884
14
-------
Ammonia:
Ammonia (Total as N)
Acute Standard - The one hour average concentration of total ammonia (expressed as N in mg/L)
does not exceed more often than once every three years on the average the numerical value given
by the following formula:
0.411 + 58.4
I + ^ Q7.204-pH j + jQpH-7.204
Where salmonids are absent; or
0.275 + 39.0
1 _|_ i 07.204-pH i + i QpH-7.204
Where salmonids are present.
Chronic Standard- The 30-day average concentration of total ammonia (expressed as N in mg/L)
does not exceed more often than once every three years on the average the numerical value given
by the following formula; and the highest 4-day average concentration of total ammonia within
the 30-day averaging period does not exceed 2.5 times the numerical value given by the following
formula:
0.0577 + 2.487 * CV
[-7.688
Where: CV= 2.85 when T < 14°C; or
CV = 1.45 * 10°-028*(25-T> when T> 14°C.
Narrative North Dakota State Water Quality Standards
The State of North Dakota water quality standards at 33-16-02.1-08 also include general narrative
provisions that are applied to surface waters.
"The following minimum conditions are applicable to all waters of the State except Class II
ground waters. All waters of the state shall be:
"Free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or
agricultural practices that will cause the formation of putrescent or otherwise
objectionable sludge deposits.
Free from floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating materials attributable to
municipal, industrial, or other discharges or agricultural practices in sufficient amounts to
be unsightly or deleterious.
Free from materials attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or
agricultural practices producing color, odor, or other conditions to such a degree as to
15
-------
create a nuisance or render any undesirable taste to fish flesh or, in any way, make fish
inedible.
Free from substances attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or
agricultural practices in concentrations or combinations which are toxic or harmful to
humans, animals, plants, or resident aquatic biota. For surface water, this standard will
be enforced in part through appropriate whole effluent toxicity requirements in North
Dakota pollutant discharge elimination system permits.
Free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which causes a visible film or sheen
upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining shoreline or causes a
sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the adjoining
shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters."
EPA §304(a) Water Quality Criteria
EPA's Office of Science and Technology publishes water quality criteria (EPA Criteria) as
guidance for use by States and/or Tribes for use in adopting numeric criteria for protection of
designated uses. The EPA Criteria are updated periodically with the latest major revision
published in November 2002, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA-822-R-
02-047. Revisions to the aquatic life criteria for cadmium, mercury and ammonia and human
health criteria for benzene and mercury were included in the 2002 revisions. In addition, the
calculation of hardness dependant metals criteria was updated. EPA also updated its criteria in
December 2003, EPA-822-F-03-012, for 15 human health water quality criteria including
ethylbenzene and toluene. The Tribally-adopted WQS and State WQS did not include some or
part of the 2002 and 2003 updates as they were developed prior to publication EPA Region 8
anticipates that both the Tribes and the State will adopt the updated EPA Criteria within the term
of the permit.
The updated hardness dependant metals criteria are calculated using the following factors:
CMC = exp{ma[ln(hardness)}+ba} CCC = exp{mc[ln(hardness)]+bc}
ma ba me bc_
cadmium 1.0166 -3924 0.7409 -4.719
copper 0.9422 -1.700 0.8545 -1.702
chromium (HI) 0.8190 3.7256 0.8190 0.6848
lead 1.273 -1.460 1.273 -4.705
nickel 0.8460 2.255 0.8460 0.0584
silver 1.72 -6.59
zinc 0.8473 0.884 0.8473
16
-------
Ammonia:
The updated ammonia criterion is calculated as follows:
(CMC) Acute Criterion - The one-hour average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen (in mg
N/L) does not exceed, more often than once every three years on the average, the CMC (acute
criterion) calculated using the following equations:
0.411 + 58.4
! + 107.204-pH 1 + 1()pH-7.204
Where salmonids are absent; or
0.275 + 39.0
! + 107.204-pH 1 + 1()pH-7.204
Where salmonids are present.
(CCC) Chronic Criterion- The thirty-day average concentration of total ammonia nitrogen
(expressed as N in mg/L) does not exceed, more often than once every three years on the average,
the CCC (chronic criterion) calculated using the following equations:
0.0577 + 2.487 * MIN (2.85, 1.45*1 Oa°28(25-T))
I _|_ | Q7.688-pH j + jQpH-7.688
When early life stages are present;
0.0577 + 2.487 * 1-45*10o.o28<25-MAxcr,7))
I + ^ Q7.688-pH j + jQpH-7.688
When early life stages are absent.
In addition, the highest 4-day average within the 30-day period should not exceed 2.5 times the
CCC.
Benzene:
The human health based criterion for benzene was changed to maximum values of 2.2 ug/L for
water consumption and 51 ug/L for water plus fish consumption.
Mercury:
The human health based criterion for water plus fish consumption for mercury was changed to a
methylmercury fish tissue concentration of 0.3 mg/kg. The updated aquatic life criteria CMC
(acute criterion) is 1.4 ug/L and the CCC (chronic criterion) is 0.77 ug/L. EPA Region 8 is
recommending that the previous CCC for mercury of 0.012 ug/L be applied to assure protection
of the new methylmercury fish tissue criterion.
Ethylbenzene:
The human health based criterion for water + organism and organism only were changed to 530
ug/L and 2,100 ug/L respectively.
17
-------
Toluene:
The human health based criterion for water + organism and organism only were changed to 1,300
ug/L and 15,000 ug/L respectively.
Summary of Tribally-adopted WQS and State WQS and EPA 304(a) Criteria
The East Fork of Shell Creek remains primarily within the external boundaries of the Fort
Berthold Indian Reservation as it travels towards Lake Sakakawea, however, approximately one
mile from the proposed project site it traverses the boundary of the Reservation into the State of
North Dakota for a short distance, prior to returning back to the Reservation. As such, WQBELs
developed for the proposed facility will take into consideration both Tribally-adopted WQS and
State of North Dakota WQS.
Narrative Tribally-adopted WQS and State WQS for prohibiting discharges of toxics in toxic
amounts [NDAC 33-16-02.1-08: General Water Quality Standards l.a.(4)], and Tribal Narrative
Water Quality Criteria a. (4), will be considered for the proposed facility.
Tribally-adopted WQS and State WQS for temperature will also be considered for the proposed
facility. The standard is eighty-five degrees Fahrenheit (29.44 degrees Celsius) and a maximum
increase of greater than five degrees Fahrenheit (2.78 degrees Celsius) above natural background
condition.
Tribally-adopted WQS for dissolved oxygen will also be considered for the proposed facility.
They will be expressed as a seasonal standards for April 1-September 30 of 8.0 mg/L (1-day
minimum), 9.5 mg/L (7-day mean), and 6.5 mg/L (30-day mean); and October 1-March 31 of 4.0
mg/L (1-day minimum), 5.0 mg/L (7-day mean), and 6.5 mg/L (30-day mean).
Table 3 presents a summary of the combined Tribally-adopted WQS, State WQS and EPA
Criteria that will be evaluated for effluent limitations and monitoring requirements in this permit.
The most stringent WQS are in bold. Where the EPA Criteria are more or less stringent than the
Tribally-adopted WQS and/or State WQS, the EPA Criteria have been designated as the
applicable value in anticipation of adoption of the EPA Criteria by the State or Tribes. Hardness
dependant metals standards are calculated using a hardness of 300 mg/L as CaCOs.
In order to determine if there is reasonable potential for pollutants expected in the discharge to
cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards, a comparison of expected discharge
pollutant concentrations with Tribally-adopted WQS, State WQS and EPA water quality criteria
was completed. The reasonable potential analysis is presented in Table 4.
18
-------
TABLE 3
Comparison of Tribally-adopted and State WQS and EPA Criteria
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
PH (s.u.)
Tribally-adopted
WQS
Acute
1.91
750
13.5
42701
16
49.9
331
2.4
3592
20
26.8
2971
19
860000
Chronic
1.21
700
10001
10000
300
2
0.431
2000
87
2.7
1001
11
30.2
300
50
12.9
0.012
1001
5
2691
11
230000
4000
1000
10000
7.0 - 9.0
State WQS
Acute
3.22
15.6
4430
16
39.4
331
1.7
1190
20
26.8
304
19
Chronic
71
29000
200000
300
l.l2
1000
5.8
212
11
23.8
12.9
0.051
132
5
304
11
250000
750000
10004
1004
7.0 - 9.0
EPA Criteria
Acute
3.22
750
6.5
4430
16
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
19
860000
Chronic
2.2
530
1300
300
2.0
l.l2
1000
87
0.61
212
11
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012J
132
5
304
11
230000
10000
6.5-9
1 Tribally-adopted WQS is more stringent than EPA Criteria and will be updated to EPA Criteria
value.
2 Ammonia-N values calculated using a pH of 8.5 and a temperature of 15°C. For State WQS and
EPA Criteria, salmonid fish are presumed absent (acute) and early life stages are presumed
present (chronic).
3 EPA Region 8 recommends using a water column concentration of 0.012 ug/L Hg (T) to protect
the chronic methylmercury fish tissue criterion.
4 The values for nitrate and phosphorous are interim guidance. In no case shall the standard for
nitrates exceed 10 mg/L for any waters used as municipal drinking water supply.
19
-------
TABLE 4
Reasonable Potential Analysis
(Treated Process Wastewater and Contaminated Stormwater)
(in ug/L unless otherwise indicated)
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
PH (s.u.)
NPDES Permit
Application
Daily
Maximum
10
0.0
0.0
NE
300
0.0
145
200
80
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
250
50
0.0
0.0
50
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
3500
150000
NR
40
200
Average
Daily
10
0.0
0.0
NE
300
0.0
90
10
10
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
40
20
0.0
0.0
50
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
1000
90000
NR
20
120
8.00-8.50
Applicable WQS
Acute
3.2
750
6.5
4430
16
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
19
860000
Chronic
2.2
530
1300
10000
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.61
212
11
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012
132
5
304
11
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
1004
7.0-9.0
Reasonable Potential
Acute
Yes
Yes
No3
No2
No2
No3
No3
No1
Yes
Yes
No3
No3
No
No1
Chronic
Yes
No1
No1
No
Yes
No2
Yes
Yes
Yes
No3
No2
No2
No3
Yes
Yes
No3
No1
Yes
Yes
No3
No
No1
Yes
Yes
No1
Yes
Yes4
Yes
1 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in discharge. Limits and monitoring
will be required for this parameter.
2 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in discharge. Also covered by ELG.
Limits and monitoring will be required for this parameter.
3 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in the discharge at low concentration so
monitoring only will apply.
4 State WQS is a guideline only, so monitoring only will be required.
NE- reported as not expected to be present
NR- not reported in application
note: Boron was reported in the permit application at 1500 ug/L (daily maximum) and 100 ug/L (average
daily) but there are no applicable WQS or EPA Criteria.
20
-------
Technology Based Effluent Limitations
The proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels refinery will be a new source and must comply with New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category pursuant to §40 CFR 419.36. The proposed
refinery size is 10,000 bpsd of synthetic crude plus 3,000 bpsd of field butane for a total refinery
throughput of of 13,000 bpsd. The proposed refinery process configuration is covered under
Subpart C Petrochemical Subcategory of the Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.
Process Effluent Limitations
Process Configuration (1000 bbl/day) [see §40 CFR 419.42(b)(3)]
Feedstock
Process
Crude- Atm. Dist
Cracking
(Hydrocracking)
Isomerization 3
Total
Feedstock
Rate
10
6.872
0.231
Relative
Rate
0.769
0.529
13
Weight
Factor
1
6
3.00
Process
Configuration
0.769
3.17
6.94
Using the above Process Configuration (6.94) and a 13, 000 bbl/day capacity, a Size Factor (SF)
of 0.73 and a Process Factor (PF) of 1.08 are derived pursuant to §40 CFR 419.36(b).
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Using the above Capacity, Size and Process
factors, the following table shows applicable effluent limitations for this facility. [Limit (lbs/1000
bbl) X (PF) X (SF) = Effluent Limit (Ibs/day)] [§40 CFR 419.36(a)]:
Pollutant
BOD5
TSS
COD
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
pH
TABLE 5
Effluent Limitation
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(lbs/1000 bbl) (lbs/1000 bbl)
7.7
5.2
47.0
2.4
0.056
8.3
0.050
0.116
0.0096
4.1
3.3
24.0
1.3
0.027
3.8
0.022
0.068
0.0044
Effluent Limitations
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
78.92
53.30
481.71
24.60
0.57
85.07
0.51
1.19
0.098
42.02
33.82
245.98
13.32
0.28
38.95
0.23
0.70
0.045
6.0 to 9.0
21
-------
BAT, BPT, BCT : Limitations for BAT, BPT, and BCT were also evaluated using the above
factors. Only BAT limitations for ammonia as N were more stringent than NSPS standards
above. The following BAT limits will be evaluated against water quality standards [§40 CFR
419.33(a)]:
Ammonia as N
Daily
Maximum
(IbsVday)
84.56
Average
Daily
(IbsVday)
38.95
Contaminated Runoff Allowance
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
The NSPS do not contain pollutant allowances for contaminated stormwater runoff from process
areas. Regulations under §40 CFR 419.36(e) were reserved. The BPT [§40 CFR 419.32(e), BAT
[§40 CFR 419.33(f)], and BCT [§40 CFR 419.34(e)] allowances for contaminated runoff were
evaluated using best professional judgment (BPJ) for this proposed facility. The BPT/BAT/BCT
allowances are based on flow and for this facility, average contaminated stormwater flows of 4.4
gallons per minute (6,336 gallons per day) as reported in the NPDES permit application was used
for the allowance calculation. BPT allowances were equivalent to BAT and BCT except for BAT
for total chromium was more stringent. The stormwater allowances shown in Table 6 will be
added to the process allowances for the total facility effluent limitations (see Table 7).
TABLE 6
Pollutant
BOD5
TSS
COD
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
pH
Effluent Limitation
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(lbs/1000 gal) (lbs/1000
0.40
0.28
3.0
0.13
0.0029
0
0
0.0050
0.00052
0.22
0.18
1.5
0.067
0.0014
0
0
0.0018
0.00023
6.0 to 9.0
Effluent Limitations
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
2.53
1.77
19.01
0.82
0.0184
0
0
0.032
0.0033
1.39
1.14
9.5
0.42
0.0089
0
0
0.011
0.0015
6.0 to 9.0
22
-------
Total Technology Effluent Limitations
(Process + Stormwater = Total)
TABLE 7
Process
Effluent Limitation
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Stormwater
Effluent Limitations
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Total
Effluent Limitations
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
81.45 43.41
55.07 34.96
500.72 255.48
25.42 13.74
0.59 0.29
84.56 38.95
0.51 0.23
1.222 0.711
0.101 0.046
6.0 to 9.0
Conversion of Technology Based Mass Limits to Concentration Limits
The mass based technology limits above were converted to concentration based limits using flow
information provided in the NPDES Permit Application (Table 8). Under the proposed
alternative in the DEIS, with full recycle, the average daily flow is anticipated to be
approximately 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) and the maximum daily flow of approximately
35,000 gpd. (See DEIS Figure 2-3) Without recycle average daily and maximum daily flows are
anticipated to be approximately 30,000 gpd and 50,000 gpd. (See DEIS Figure 2-4.) Under
Alternative 4 of the DEIS, maximum flow is expected to be 76,320 gpd and average 28,800 gpd.
For this conversion, the highest maximum flow (Alternative 4) will be used as it would be
protective of technology requirements regardless of recycle rates or choice of discharge
alternative. Conversion factors are 3.785 1/gal, and 454,500 mg/lb.
Pollutant
BOD5
TSS
COD
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
pH
78.92
53.30
481.71
24.60
0.57
84.56
0.51
1.19
0.098
6.0
42.02
33.82
245.98
13.32
0.28
38.95
0.23
0.70
0.045
to 9.0
2.53
1.77
19.01
0.82
0.0184
0
0
0.032
0.0033
1.39
1.14
9.50
0.42
0.0089
0
0
0.011
0.0015
Pollutant
BOD5
TSS
COD
Oil and Grease
Phenolic Compounds
Ammonia as N
Sulfide
Total Chromium
Hexavalent Chromium
TABLE 8
Effluent Limitation
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(Ibs/day) (Ibs/day)
Effluent Limitations
Daily Average
Maximum Daily
(mg/L) (mg/L)
81.45
55.07
500.72
25.42
0.59
84.56
0.51
1.222
0.101
43.41
34.96
255.48
13.74
0.29
38.95
0.23
0.711
0.046
128
87
788
40
0.93
133
0.8
1.9
0.16
68
55
402
22
0.45
61
0.4
1.1
0.07
23
-------
Comparison of Water Quality Based and Technology Based Effluent
Limitations
Table 9 contains a comparison of water quality and technology based requirements. The more
stringent limit will be carried forward as an effluent limitation in the proposed permit:
TABLE 9
Pollutant
BOD5 (Ibs/day)
COD (Ibs/day)
TSS (Ibs/day)
Oil and Grease
(Ibs/day)
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Phenolic Compounds
(Ibs/day)
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N
(mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (Total)
(Ibs/day)
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (VI)
(Ibs/day)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
Technology Based Limit
(ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
81
500
55
25.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.59
800
133
N/A
N/A
N/A
1900
1.22
160
0.101
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Average
Daily
43
255
35
13.7
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.29
400
61
N/A
N/A
N/A
1100
0.71
70
0.046
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6.0-9.0
Water Quality Based
Limit (ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
(a)
(a)
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.2
750
6.5
4430
1.84
16
0.0067
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
860000
Average
Daily
(a)
(a)
N/A
N/A
2.2
530
1300
300
N/A
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.61
212
0.035
11
0.0018
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012
132
5
304
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
100
7.0 - 9.0
Most Stringent Limit
(ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
81 (a)
500 (a)
55
25.4
0.59
3.2
750
MON
MON
1.22
16
0.0067
MON
MON
1.4
1190
20
MON
MON
860000
Average
Daily
43 (a)
255 (a)
35
13.7
2.2
530
1300
300
0.29
2.0
1.1
1000
87
MON
MON
0.035
11
0.0018
MON
300
50
MON
0.012
132
5
MON
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
MON
7.0-9.0
(a) Oxygen demanding parameters (BOD, COD) will also be limited by WQS for dissolved oxygen.
MON- Monitor Only
24
-------
Whole Effluent Toxicity Limitations (Outfall 002)
The MHA Nation Water Quality Standards (Tribally-adopted WQS) contain narrative conditions
that ensure surface waters of the Reservation are free from substances in wastewater discharges
that "cause injury to, or are toxic to, or produce adverse physiological responses in humans,
animals or plants... " Implementation of the narrative Tribally-adopted WQS for purposes of
NPDES permits "shall result in appropriate acute and chronic effluent quality limitations
consistent with the federalwater quality-basedpermitting found at 40 CFR 122.44(d), including
whole effluent toxicity (WET) limitations as required in the latest edition of the EPA Region VIII
NPDES Whole Effluent Toxics Control Program document. " (1997 Region 8 WET Policy)
Since the proposed MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery will have discharges from Outfall 002 that
may contain substances that alone or in combination with other substances that exhibit toxicity to
aquatic organisms, whole effluent toxicity (WET) limitations will be imposed in the proposed
permit. In accordance with the Region 8 WET Policy, the permit will require both acute and
chronic WET limits and monitoring for two species, ceriodaphnia dubia and pimephales
promelas on a quarterly basis. The requirement for both acute and chronic WET limits and
monitoring is due to the uncertain nature of the treated process wastewater discharge from this
new facility. If the results of at least ten WET tests during this permit term show there is no
reasonable potential for acute and/or chronic WET the discharge, the permittee may request a
reduction in test frequency and/or number of species. The WET monitoring data collected during
this proposed permit term will also be evaluated at the time of permit reissuance for reasonable
potential and if a reduction in test frequency and/or number of species tested is warranted.
Proposed effluent limitations and monitoring frequencies for Outfall 002 are presented in Tables
10 and 11 respectively.
25
-------
Proposed Numeric Effluent Limitations (Outfall 002)
TABLE 10
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
BOD5 (Ibs/day)
COD (Ibs/day)
TSS (Ibs/day)
Oil and Grease (Ibs/day)
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Phenolic Compounds (Ibs/day)
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (Total) (Ibs/day)
Chromium (VI)
Chromium (VI) (Ibs/day)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
WET, acute
WET, chronic
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Effluent Limit (ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
0.08
81
500
55
25.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.59
NA
3.2
NA
750
MON
1.22
16
0.0067
MON
NA
NA
MON
1.4
1190
20
MON
MON
860000
NA
NA
NA
NA
MON
Average
Daily
0.03
43
255
35
13.7
2.2
530
1300
300
0.29
2.0
1.1
1000
87
MON
0.035
11
0.0018
MON
300
50
MON
0.0012
132
5
MON
MON
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
MON
7.0-9.0
LC50>100%
IC25>100%
April 1 -Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Basis for Effluent Limitation
Permit Application , DEIS
§40CFR419
§40CFR419
§40CFR419
§40CFR419
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
§40CFR419
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion
§40 CFR 419, State WQS,EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
Tribal WQS
State WQS
Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
State WQS
State WQS, Tribal WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS and State WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS and State WQS
Tribal WQS
MON- Monitor Only
26
-------
The discharge from Outfall 002 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which causes a
visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining shoreline or causes a
sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the adjoining shorelines or
prevents classified uses of such waters.
Proposed Effluent Monitoring Requirements (Outfall 002)
TABLE 11
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
BOD5 , Ibs/day
COD, Ibs/day
TSS, Ibs/day
Oil and Grease, Ibs/day
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Phenolic Compounds, Ibs/day
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (Total), Ibs/day
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Chromium (VI), Ibs/day
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (T), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, ug/L
Fluoride, ug/L
Sulfate, ug/L
Nitrite as N, ug/L
Nitrate as N, ug/L
Phosphorous as P, ug/L
pH (s.u.)
WET, acute
WET, chronic
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Temperature, °C
Monitoring
Frequency
Daily
2X/Week
Monthly
2X/Week
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Additional Monitoring Requirement for Outfall 002:
Approximately 90 days and 270 days after startup of the facility, monitoring shall be required for:
Total Metals - Table III §40CFR 122 Appendix D
Volatile, acid, and base/neutral compounds - Table II §40CFR 122 Appendix D
27
-------
Contaminated (oily) Stormwater (Outfall 002a)
Under Alternative 4 of the DEIS, an additional Outfall (002a) is proposed for discharges of
segregated contaminated (oily) stormwater. The discharge of this wastewater may be necessary
due to the lack of storage capacity in the wastewater tank system to contain all runoff resulting
from unusual or episodic precipitation events.
Technology Limitations
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
The NSPS for Petroleum Refining (§40 CFR 419.36) also do not contain provisions for release of
segregated contaminated stormwater runoff from process areas. As discussed under Outfall 002
above, regulations under §40 CFR 419.36(e) were reserved.
The BPT [§40 CFR 419.32(e)], BAT [§40 CFR 419.33(f)], and BCT [§40 CFR 419.34(e)]
provisions for discharge of segregated contaminated runoff were evaluated using best
professional judgment (BPJ) for this proposed facility. The BPT/BAT/BCT provisions limit
discharge to segregated contaminated (oily) stormwater that is not commingled or treated with
process wastewater that meets the following limitations:
BPT Oil and Grease <15mg/L
BAT Total Organic Carbon <110 mg/L
BCT Oil and Grease <15mg/L
The limits cannot be exceeded in either a grab or composite sample of the discharge.
Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations
Numeric and Narrative Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Numeric water quality standards considered in establishing limitations for this discharge would
be the same as presented in Table 3 above.
Narrative water quality standards (dissolved oxygen, whole effluent toxicity, etc.) considered in
establishing effluent limitations would also be the same as described for discharges through
Outfall 002 above.
Reasonable Potential
Water quality standard based effluent limitations will also be evaluated for the discharges of
segregated contaminated (oily) stormwater. Pollutants reported in the permit application for the
combined process and contaminated (oily) stormwater for Outfall 002 were compared with
Tribally-adopted WQS, State WQS and EPA criteria. Table 12 shows the comparison. Tables 13
and 14 show proposed effluent limits and monitoring requirements for Outfall 002a.
28
-------
Reasonable Potential Analysis (Contaminated (oily) Stormwater)
(in ug/L unless otherwise indicated)
Table 12
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
PH (s.u.)
NPDES Permit
Application
Daily
Maximum
10
0.0
0.0
NE
300
0.0
145
200
80
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
250
50
0.0
0.0
50
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
3500
150000
NR
40
200
Average
Daily
10
0.0
0.0
NE
300
0.0
90
10
10
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
40
20
0.0
0.0
50
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
1000
90000
NR
20
120
8.00-8.50
Applicable WQS
Acute
3.2
750
6.5
4430
16
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
19
860000
Chronic
2.2
530
1300
10000
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.61
212
11
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012
132
5
304
11
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
1004
7.0-9.0
Reasonable Potential
Acute
Yes
Yes
No3
No2
No2
No3
No3
No1
Yes
Yes
No3
No3
No
No1
Chronic
Yes
No1
No1
No
Yes
No2
Yes
Yes
Yes
No3
No2
No2
No3
Yes
Yes
No3
No1
Yes
Yes
No3
No
No1
Yes
Yes
No1
Yes
Yes4
Yes
1 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in discharge. Limits and monitoring
will be required for this parameter.
2 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in discharge. Also covered by ELG.
Limits and monitoring will be required for this parameter.
3 Reported as 0.0 ppm in permit application but likely to be present in the discharge at low concentration so
monitoring only will apply.
4 State WQS is a guideline only, so monitoring only will be required.
NE- reported as not expected to be present
NR- not reported in application
note: Boron was reported in the permit application at 1500 ug/L (daily maximum) and 100 ug/L (average
daily) but there are no applicable WQS or EPA Criteria.
29
-------
Proposed Numeric Effluent Limitations (Outfall 002 a)
TABLE 13
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
WET, acute
WET, chronic
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Effluent Limit (ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
0.027
15
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
NA
750
MON
16
MON
NA
NA
MON
1.4
1190
20
MON
MON
860000
NA
NA
NA
NA
MON
Average
Daily
0.0065
15
110
2.2
530
1300
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
MON
11
MON
300
50
MON
0.0012
132
5
MON
MON
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
MON
7.0-9.0
LC50>100%
IC25>100%
April 1 -Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Basis for Effluent Limitation
Permit Application, DEIS
BPJ(40CFR419)
BPJ(40CFR419)
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
Tribal WQS
State WQS
Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
State WQS
State WQS, Tribal WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS and State WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS and State WQS
Tribal WQS
MON- Monitor Only
The discharge from Outfall 002a shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which causes
a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining shoreline or causes a
sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the adjoining shorelines or
prevents classified uses of such waters.
30
-------
Proposed Effluent Monitoring Requirements (Outfall 002a)
Table 14
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
TOC, mg/L
Oil and Grease, mg/L, visual
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (T), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, ug/L
Fluoride, ug/L
Sulfate, ug/L
Nitrite as N, ug/L
Nitrate as N, ug/L
Phosphorous as P, ug/L
pH (s.u.)
WET, acute
WET, chronic
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Temperature, °C
Monitoring
Frequency
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Visual1
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
31
-------
Uncontaminated (non-oily) Stormwater (Outfall 001)
Water Quality Based Effluent Limits
Water quality based effluent limits are evaluated for the discharges of uncontaminated (non-oily)
Stormwater from Outfall 001. A reasonable potential analysis for pollutants expected to be in the
discharge from Outfall 001 is presented in Table 15.
TABLE 15 - Reasonable Potential Analysis (Uncontaminated (non-oily) Stormwater)
(in ug/L unless otherwise indicated)
Pollutant
Benzene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Xylenes
Phenol
Hydrogen Sulfide
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
NPDES Permit
Application
Daily
Maximum
0.0
0.0
0.0
NE
300
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
200
50
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
60000
NR
40
300
Average
Daily
0.0
0.0
0.0
NE
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
8.00-8.50
Applicable WQS
Acute
3.2
750
6.5
4430
16
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
19
860000
Chronic
2.2
530
1300
10000
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.61
212
11
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012
132
5
304
11
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
1004
7.0-9.0
Reasonable Potential
Acute
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Chronic
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
4 State WQS is a guideline only, so monitoring only will be required.
NE- reported as not expected to be present
NR- not reported in application
note: Boron was reported in the permit application at 1000 ug/L (daily maximum) but there are no
applicable WQS or EPA Criteria.
32
-------
Limits for Outfall 001
Uncontaminated (non-oily) wastewater discharges from Outfall 001 will meet the effluent
limitations shown in Table 16. The limits are based on numeric and narrative water
quality standards. Proposed monitoring requirements for Outfall 001 are shown in Table
17.
Proposed Numeric Effluent Limitations (Outfall 001)
TABLE 16
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
Oil and Grease
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5 -Day (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Phenol
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Sulfate
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Effluent Limit (ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
0.095
15
45
45
NA
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
MON
Average
Daily
NA
NA
30
30
300
300
50
5
750000
10000
MON
7.0-9.0
April 1 -Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Basis for Effluent Limitation
Permit Application, DEIS
Narrative Tribal WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS
Narrative Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State WQS, Tribal WQS
State WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal WQS
State WQS
State WQS, Tribal WQS
Tribal WQS
MON- Monitor Only
The discharge from Outfall 001 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which causes a
visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining shoreline or causes a
sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the adjoining shorelines or
prevents classified uses of such waters.
33
-------
Proposed Effluent Monitoring Requirements (Outfall 001)
TABLE 17
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5 -Day, mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Phenol, ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Fluoride, ug/L
Sulfate, ug/L
Nitrate as N, ug/L
Phosphorous as P, ug/L
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Monitoring
Frequency
Daily
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type
Continuous, Recorder
Visual1
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
Best Management Practices (BMPs)
In addition to the numeric effluent limits and monitoring requirements for process and
contaminated stormwater discharges (Outfall 002 and 002a) and uncontaminated stormwater
(Outfall 001), additional requirements will be added to the permit for control of pollutants that are
likely to be present in the stormwater systems at the proposed facility.
The permittee will be required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). The SWPPP will identify members of the facility's pollution prevention team, contain
a site description, a summary of potential pollutant sources and pollutants, and stormwater
controls that will be implemented at the site. Specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be
identified by the permittee in the SWPPP. Examples of appropriate BMPs for this facility include
good housekeeping, eliminating or minimizing exposure, preventative maintenance, spill
prevention, runoff management, routine facility inspections, and employee training programs, as
well as any more stringent measures necessary to meet the water quality standards provisions of
the permit. The SWPPP must remain compliant with relevant State, Tribal and local regulations.
There are two distinct stormwater systems proposed for the facility, one to manage oily or
contaminated stormwater from process areas and the other for uncontaminated stormwater. For
the SWPPP, the permit will require the permittee to evaluate both stormwater systems,
uncontaminated and contaminated, for appropriate controls and actions that will minimize
pollutants discharged via stormwater from the facility.
34
-------
The SWPP must be completed and the contents approved for compliance with the terms of this
permit by the EPA Region 8 Stormwater Program Coordinator.
(POTENTIAL) Sanitary Wastewater (Outfall 003)
Technology Limitations (BPJ)
Technology requirements for sanitary wastewater discharges (POTWs) are found in 40 CFR Part
133, Secondary Treatment Requirements. The proposed package plant to treat sanitary
wastewater is not a POTW but will treat the sanitary wastewater in a similar manner and should
be capable of meeting the POTW technology standards. The following technology requirements
(40 CFR 133.102) in Table 18 are applied as Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) to discharges
from Outfall 003:
TABLE 18 -Effluent Limitation
7-Day Average
Average Daily
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Pollutant
BOD5 45 30
TSS 45 30
pH 6.0 to 9.0
Percentage Removal Requirements
85% BOD5
85% TSS
Water Quality Based Effluent Limitations
Numeric and Narrative Water Quality Standards and Criteria
Water quality based effluent limits are evaluated for the discharges of treated sanitary wastewater
from Outfall 003. The NPDES Permit application for this facility did not include information on
the potential sanitary wastewater discharge due to recent design changes for the proposed project
that are described under Alternative 4 of the DEIS. Therefore estimates of pollutants present in
the discharge were obtained from similar types of sanitary wastewater treatment facilities and the
potable water supply information provided in the DEIS. A reasonable potential analysis for
pollutants expected to be in the discharge from Outfall 003 is presented in Table 19.
35
-------
TABLE 19 -Reasonable Potential Analysis (Sanitary Wastewater)
(in ug/L unless otherwise indicated)
Pollutant
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Barium (tr)
Aluminum (tr)
Cadmium (tr)
Chromium (III) (tr)
Chromium (VI)
Copper (tr)
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Lead (tr)
Mercury (T)
Nickel (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Silver (tr)
Zinc (tr)
Chlorine (TRC)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
Phosphorous as P
pH (s.u.)
NPDES Permit
Application
Daily
Maximum
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Average
Daily
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Applicable WQS
Acute
3.2
750
6.5
4430
16
39.4
331
1.4
1190
20
25.0
304
19
860000
Chronic
1.1
1000
87
0.61
212
11
23.8
300
50
12.9
0.012
132
5
304
11
230000
4000
750000
1000
10000
1001
NR
Reasonable Potential
Acute
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Chronic
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 State WQS is a guideline only, so monitoring only will be required.
NR- No information provided in application.
Narrative water quality standards (dissolved oxygen, whole effluent toxicity, etc.)
considered in establishing effluent limitations would also be the same as described for
discharges through Outfall 002 above, however toxicity is not reasonably expected to be
present in the sanitary wastewater discharge.
Proposed effluent limitations and monitoring requirements for Outfall 003 are presented
in Tables 20 and 21 respectively.
36
-------
(POTENTIAL) Proposed Numeric Effluent Limitations (Outfall 003)
TABLE 20
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5 -Day (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/L)
Ammonia as N (mg/L)
Total Residual Chlorine
Iron (tr)
Manganese (tr)
Selenium (tr)
Sulfate
Nitrite as N
Nitrate as N
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Effluent Limit (ug/L)
Daily
Maximum
0.007
NA
NA
3.2
19
NA
NA
20
NA
NA
NA
7-Day
Average
NA
45
45
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Daily
Average
0.005
30
30
1.1
11
300
50
5
750000
1000
10000
7.0-9.0
April 1 -Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1 - March 3 1
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Basis for Effluent Limitation
DEIS
BPJ (40 CFR 133)
BPJ(40CFR133)
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State
WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State
WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal
WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal
WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, State
WQS, Tribal WQS
State WQS
Tribal WQS
EPA 304(a) Criterion, Tribal
WQS
State WQS, Tribal WQS
Tribal WQS
The discharge from Outfall 003 shall be free from floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating materials
attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or agricultural practices in sufficient amounts to be
unsightly or deleterious.
Percentage Removal Requirements (TSS and BOD5 Limitation): In addition to the concentration limits for
total suspended solids and BOD5 indicated above, the arithmetic mean of the concentration for effluent
samples collected in a 30-day consecutive period shall not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetic mean of the
concentration for influent samples collected at approximately the same times during the same period (85
percent removal).
37
-------
(POTENTIAL) Proposed Effluent Monitoring Requirements (Outfall
003)
TABLE 21
Pollutant
Flow, MOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5 -Day, mg/L a/
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L a/
Total Residual Chlorine, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, ug/L
Nitrite as N, ug/L
Nitrate as N, ug/L
Phosphorous as P, ug/L
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Monitoring
Frequency
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
a/ In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this
constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.
Solids
Solids generated in the process wastewater treatment unit processes and other solid and hazardous
wastes associated with the refinery operations will be managed in accordance with all applicable
laws.
Refinery unit processes will generate both listed and characteristic hazardous wastes under RCRA
Part 261.
Proposed Alternative DEIS
Under the proposed alternative in the DEIS, the facility would be classified as a Treatment,
Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) under RCRA. . The wastewater treatment facility would
be designed to meet all RCRA construction requirements for a TSDF. Wastewater management
units (ponds, tanks, etc.) would generate sludges that are either listed or characteristic hazardous
wastes. Solids removed will be containerized and sent to a third party off-site facility that
handles hazardous waste. All treatment storage and disposal of hazardous wastes would comply
with 40 CFR Part 268.
38
-------
Alternative 4 DEIS
Under Alternative 4 of the DEIS, The MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery is expected to maintain
a status as a Large Quantity Generator under RCRA. All hazardous waste generated at the
refinery will be managed in accordance with RCRA regulations. The wastewater treatment unit
would be designed to meet the RCRA definitions at 40 CFR 260.10 for wastewater treatment
unit, tank, and tank system. The wastewater unit will also meet the requirements under 40 CFR
261.31(b)(2) for aggressive biological treatment. As long as the sludges remain in the wastewater
treatment system, they would be exempt from listing under F037.
Sludges generated and removed from the wastewater treatment processes (API Separator, DAF,
biological treatment sludge) via the sludge thickening process, possibly a centrifuge with a
solvent wash (naptha) will be managed as hazardous waste. Solids removed will be containerized
and sent to a third party off-site facility that handles hazardous waste. All disposal of hazardous
wastes would comply with 40 CFR Part 268.
In addition, the package sanitary wastewater treatment plant would generate biological sludges
that would be disposed of in accordance with 40 CFR Part 503 regulations for biosolids.
Reporting Requirements
Since this facility is classified as a major discharger, monthly reporting requirements will apply.
Monitoring results from the previous month's discharge will be required to be reported on a
standard Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) Form, EPA 3320-1.
Bruce Kent, USEPA Region VIII
6/16/2006
39
-------
Comments and responses to comments;
BIA and EPA announced the availability of the Draft EIS, including the NPDES permit in the
Federal Register (Volume 71, Number 125, Pages 37092-37093), in press releases and in mailed
announcements on June 29, 2006. BIA and EPA held seven public hearings on the Draft EIS
including the NPDES permit in Twin Buttes, White Shield, Parshall, Mandaree, New Town, and
Makoti, North Dakota between July 31 and August 5, 2006. Written comments were accepted
until September 14, 2006.
All comments and responses to those comments can be reviewed in the "Response to Comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project". The NPDES specific comments can be found in section
D.3 of the Response to Comments in Appendix E of the FEIS.
In addition the NPDES permit specific comments are attached to the NPDES permit fact sheet.
EPA is issuing the NPDES permit with an effective date 30 days after issuance. EPA regulations
at 40 C.F.R. 124.19 provide that within 30 days of the final decision on the NPDES permit any
person who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in the public hearings may petition
the Environmental Appeals Board. 40 C.F.R. 124.19 states in part ".. .The petition shall include a
statement of the reasons supporting that review, including a demonstration that any issues being
raised were raised during the public comment period (including any public hearing) to the extent
required by these regulations and when appropriate, a showing that the condition in question is
based on:(l) A finding of fact or conclusion of law which is clearly erroneous, or (2) An exercise
of discretion or an important policy consideration which the Environmental Appeals Board
should, in its discretion, review."
Questions should be addressed to:
Robert B. Brobst P.E.
EPA Region 8
TAT questions
Wastewater Unit (8P-W-WW)
1595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Or e-mail Brobst.bob@epa.gov
Robert B. Brobst, P.E.
Wastewater Unit
40
-------
Permit No: ND-0030988
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. §1251 et
seq; the "Act"),
the MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery
is authorized to discharge from its wastewater treatment facilities located in the NW 1/4 of Section
19, Township 152N, Range 87W, Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, Ward County, North Dakota
to wetlands tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek,
in accordance with discharge point(s), effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other
conditions set forth herein. Authorization for discharge is limited to those outfalls specifically listed
in the permit.
This permit shall become effective to be determined upon issuance
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight, to be determined upon
issuance
Signed this day of
Authorized Permitting Official
Stephen S. Tuber, Assistant Regional Administrator
Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance
Title
INDUSTRIAL (Rev.02/06)
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 2 of 36
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Definitions
1.2. Description of Discharge Point(s)
1.3. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1.3.1. Effluent Limitations Outfall 001
1.3.2. Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 001
1.3.3 Effluent Limitations Outfall 002
1.3.4 Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002
1.3.5 Additional Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002
1.3.6 Effluent Limitations Outfall002a
1.3.7 Self-Monitoring Requirements Outfall 002a
1.3.8 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing-Acute
1.3.9 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing-Chronic
1.3.10Toxicity Identification Evaluation/Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
1.4 Stormwater Requirements
1.4.1 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
1.4.2 Section 313 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements
1.4.3 Additional Requirements for Salt Storage
2. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.1. Representative Sampling
2.2. Monitoring Procedures
2.3. Penalties for Tampering
2.4. Reporting of Monitoring Results
2.5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
2.6. Records Contents
2.7. Retention of Records
2.8. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
2.9. Other Noncompliance Reporting
2.10. Inspection and Entry
3. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1. Duty to Comply
3.2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
3.3. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
3.4. Duty to Mitigate
3.5. Proper Operation and Maintenance
3.6. Removed Substances
3.7. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
3.8. Upset Conditions
3.9. Toxic Pollutants
3.10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 3 of 36
4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. Planned Changes
4.2. Anticipated Noncompliance
4.3. Permit Actions
4.4. Duty to Reapply
4.5. Duty to Provide Information
4.6. Other Information
4.7. Signatory Requirements
4.8. Penalties for Falsification of Reports
4.9. Availability of Reports
4.10. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
4.11. Property Rights
4.12. Severability
4.13. Transfers
4.14. Permittees in Indian Country
4.15. Reopener Provision
4.16. Toxicity Limitation-Reopener Provision
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 4 of 36
1. EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
1.1. Definitions.
The 30-day (and monthly) average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the
arithmetic average of all samples collected during a consecutive 30-day period or calendar month, whichever
is applicable. Geometric means shall be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria. The
calendar month shall be used for purposes of reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report
forms.
The 7-day (and weekly) average, other than for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria, is the
arithmetic mean of all samples collected during a consecutive 7-day period or calendar week, whichever is
applicable. Geometric means shall be calculated for fecal coliform bacteria and total coliform bacteria. The 7-
day and weekly averages are applicable only to those effluent characteristics for which there are 7-day average
effluent limitations. The calendar week, which begins on Sunday and ends on Saturday, shall be used for
purposes of reporting self-monitoring data on discharge monitoring report forms. Weekly averages shall be
calculated for all calendar weeks with Saturdays in the month. If a calendar week overlaps two months (i.e.,
the Sunday is in one month and the Saturday in the following month), the weekly average calculated for that
calendar week shall be included in the data for the month that contains the Saturday.
Daily Maximum (Daily Max.) is the maximum measured value for a pollutant discharged during a calendar day
or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents a calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with
daily maximum limitations expressed in units of mass (e.g., kilograms, pounds), the daily maximum is
calculated as the total mass of pollutant discharged over the calendar day or representative 24-hour period. For
pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of measurement (e.g milligrams/liter, parts per billion), the
daily maximum is calculated as the average of all measurements of the pollutant over the calendar day or
representative 24-hour period. If only one measurement or sample is taken during a calendar day or
representative 24-hour period, the single measured value for a pollutant will be considered the daily maximum
measurement for that calendar day or representative 24-hour period.
Daily Minimum (Daily Min.) is the minimum value allowable in any single sample or instantaneous
measurement collected during the course of a day.
Mean (7-day mean, 30-day mean) is the arithmetic mean value of all results for samples collected during either
a seven day period or calendar week whichever is applicable, or a thirty day period or a calendar month
whichever is applicable.
Grab sample, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single "dip and take" sample collected at a
representative point in the discharge stream.
Instantaneous measurement, for monitoring requirements, is defined as a single reading, observation, or
measurement.
Composite samples shall be flow proportioned. The composite sample shall, at a minimum, contain at least
four (4) samples collected over the compositing period. Unless otherwise specified, the time between the
collection of the first sample and the last sample shall not be less than six (6) hours, nor more than twenty-four
(24) hours. Acceptable methods for the preparation of composite samples are as follows:
a. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume proportional to flow rate at the time of
sampling;
b. Constant time interval between samples, sample volume proportional to total flow (volume) since last
sample. For the first sample, the flow rate at the time of the first sample was collected may be used;
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 5 of 36
c. Constant sample volume, time interval between samples proportional to flow (i.e., sample taken every
"X" gallons of flow); and,
d. Continuous collection of sample with sample collection rate proportional to flow rate.
Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with
technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee.
An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed
treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper
operation.
Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities
which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can
reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic
loss caused by delays in production.
Director means the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 8 or an authorized representative.
EPA means the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Storm Water or Stormwater means storm water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
CWA means the Clean Water Act (formerly referred to as either the Federal Water Pollution Act or the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972), Pub. L. 92-500, as amended by Pub. L. 95-217, Pub. L.
95-576, Pub. L. 96-483, Pub. L. 97-117, and Pub. L. 100-4. In this permit the CWA may be referred to as "the
Act".
Sewage Sludge is any solid, semi-solid or liquid residue generated during the treatment of domestic sewage in
a treatment works. Sewage sludge includes, but is not limited to, domestic septage; scum or solids removed in
primary, secondary or advanced wastewater treatment processes; and a material derived from sludge. Sewage
sludge does not include ash generated during the firing of sewage sludge in a sewage sludge incinerator or grit
and screenings generated during preliminary treatment of domestic sewage in a treatment works.
Whole Effluent Toxicity, Acute toxicity occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is observed for either
species (see Part 1.3.) at any effluent concentration. Mortality in the control must simultaneously be 10
percent or less for the effluent results to be considered valid. Chronic toxicity occurs when during a chronic
toxicity test, the 25% inhibition concentration (IC2s) calculated on the basis of test organism survival and
growth or survival and reproduction, is less than or equal to 100% effluent concentration.
Section 313 Water Priority Chemicals means a chemical or chemical categories which: 1) are listed at 40 CFR
372.65 pursuant to Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
(also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986); 2) are
present at or above threshold levels at a facility subject of EPCRA Section 313 reporting requirements; and 3)
that meet at least one of the following criteria: (i) are listed in Appendix D of 40 CFR 122 on either Table II
(organic toxic pollutants), Table III (certain metals, cyanides, and phenols) or Table V (certain toxic pollutants
and hazardous substances); (ii)are listed as a hazardous substance pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the
CWA at 40 CFR 116.4; or (iii) are pollutants for which EPA has published acute or chronic water quality
criteria.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 6 of 36
1.2. Description of Discharge Point(s). The authorization to discharge provided under this permit is limited
to those outfalls specifically designated below as discharge locations. Discharges at any location not
authorized under an NPDES permit is a violation of the Clean Water Act and could subject the person(s)
responsible for such discharge to penalties under Section 309 of the Act.
Outfall
Serial Number(s) Description of Discharge Point(s)
001 Any discharge of uncontaminated storm water from the Evaporation Ponds to the
wetland swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87
West. Longitude 47°58'25" Latitude 101°52'11"
002 Any discharge from the Final Effluent Holding Ponds or the Final Release Tanks
to the wetland swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North,
Range 87 West. Longitude 47°58'29" Latitude 101°52'9"
002a Any discharge from the Stormwater Final Release Tanks to the wetland swale
located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
Longitude 47°58'29" Latitude 101°52'9"
003 Any discharge from the Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant to the wetland
swale located in the NW1/4 Section 19, Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
Longitude 47°58'??" Latitude 101°52'??"
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 7 of 36
1.3. Specific Limitations and Self-Monitoring Requirements
1.3.1. Effluent Limitations - Outfall 001. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Stormwater Evaporation Ponds by the facility shall, as a
minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Phenol, ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
NA
NA
30
30
300
300
50
5
750
10
7-Day
Average a/
NA
NA
45
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.08
15
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u.or greater than 9.0 s.u.at
anytime.
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 001 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 8 of 36
1.3.2 Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 001. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Phenol, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
pH (s.u.)
Oil and grease, visual c/
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Visual c/
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 9 of 36
1.3.3. Effluent Limitations - Outfall 002. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Final Effluent Holding Ponds or Effluent Final Release
Tanks by the facility shall, as a minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), Ibs./day
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Ibs./day
Total Suspended Solids, Ibs./day
Oil and Grease, Ibs./day
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Phenolic Compounds, Ibs./day
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (Total), Ibs./day
Chromium (VI) , ug/L
Chromium (VI), Ibs/day
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
0.025
43
255
35
13.7
2.2
530
1300
300
0.29
2.0
1.1
1000
87
0.035
11
0.0018
300
50
0.0012
132
5
230
4.0
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.05
81
500
55
25.4
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.59
NA
3.2
NA
750
1.22
16
0.0067
N/A
N/A
1.4
1190
20
860
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LC50> 100%
IC25 > 100%
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u. or greater than 9.0 s.u. at
anytime.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 10 of 36
1.3.4
Effluent Characteristic
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1-March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 002 shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
Ibs./day
Chemical Oxygen Demand, Ibs./day
Total Suspended Solids, Ibs./day
Oil and Grease, Ibs/day
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Phenolic Compounds, Ibs./day
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Frequency
Daily
2X/Week
Monthly
2X/Week
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 11 of 36
1.3.5
Effluent Characteristic
Chromium (Total), Ibs./day
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Chromium (VI), Ibs./day
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
pH (s.u.)
Temperature, °C
Oil and grease, visual c/
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Composite
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - total recoverable
Additional Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002.
Additional Monitoring Requirement for Outfall 002:
Approximately 90 days and 270 days after startup of the facility, monitoring shall be required for:
Total Metals - Table III §40CFR 122 Appendix D
Volatile, acid, and base/neutral compounds - Table II §40CFR 122 Appendix D
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 12 of 36
1.3.6 Effluent Limitations - Outfall 002a. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Stormwater Final Release Tanks by the facility shall, as a
minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, mgd
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
0.0065
15
110
2.2
530
1300
300
2.0
1.1
1000
87
11
300
50
0.0012
132
5
230
4.0
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.027
15
110
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3.2
NA
750
16
N/A
N/A
1.4
1190
20
860
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LC50>100%
IC25 > 100%
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u. or greater than 9.0 s.u. at
anytime.
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Octl- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 13 of 36
1.3.7
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 002a shall be free from oil and grease attributable to wastewater, which
causes a visible film or sheen upon the waters or any discoloration of the surface of adjoining
shoreline or causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon the
adjoining shorelines or prevents classified uses of such waters.
Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 002a. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on
the Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Organic Carbon, mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Benzene, ug/L
Ethyl benzene, ug/L
Toluene, ug/L
Phenol, ug/L
Hydrogen Sulfide, ug/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Barium (tr), ug/L
Aluminum (tr), ug/L
Chromium (VI), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Mercury (Total), ug/L
Nickel (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Chloride, mg/L
Fluoride, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
2X/Week
Monthly
2X/Week
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 14 of 36
Effluent Characteristic
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
Whole Effluent Toxicity, acute
Whole Effluent Toxicity, chronic
pH (s.u.)
Temperature, °C
Oil and Grease, visual c/
Oil and Grease, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Daily
Weekly
Daily
Sample Type a/
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ A daily visual observation is required. If a visible sheen is detected, a grab sample shall be taken and
analyzed immediately. The concentration of oil and grease shall not exceed 15 mg/L in any sample.
tr - Total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 15 of 36
1.3.8 Effluent Limitations - Outfall 003. Effective immediately and lasting through the life of this permit,
the quality of effluent discharged from the Sanitary Wastewater Treatment Plant by the facility shall,
as a minimum, meet the limitations as set forth below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow, MOD
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(5 -day), mg/L
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine, ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L:
Effluent Limitation
30-Day
Average a/
NA
30
30
1.1
11
300
50
5
750
1.0
10
7-Day
Average a/
NA
45
45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Daily
Maximum a/
0.08
N/A
N/A
3.2
19
N/A
N/A
20
N/A
N/A
N/A
April 1 - Sept 30
8.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
Oct 1- March 31
4.0 (1-day min.)
5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean)
The pH of the discharge shall not be less than 7.0 s.u.or greater than 9.0 s.u.at
anytime.
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
tr - total recoverable
The discharge from Outfall 003 shall be free from floating debris, oil, scum, and other floating
materials attributable to municipal, industrial, or other discharges or agricultural practices in
sufficient amounts to be unsightly or deleterious.
Percentage Removal Requirements (TSS and BOD5 Limitation): In addition to the concentration
limits for total suspended solids and BOD5 indicated above, the arithmetic mean of the concentration
for effluent samples collected in a 30-day consecutive period shall not exceed 15 percent of the
arithmetic mean of the concentration for influent samples collected at approximately the same times
during the same period (85 percent removal).
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 16 of 36
1.3.9 Self-Monitoring Requirements - Outfall 003. As a minimum, upon the effective date of this permit,
the following constituents shall be monitored at the frequency and with the type of measurement
indicated; samples or measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored
discharge. If no discharge occurs during the entire monitoring period, it shall be stated on the
Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1) that no discharge or overflow occurred.
Effluent Characteristic
Total Flow, mgd b/
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (5 -day),
mg/L c/
Total Suspended Solids, mg/L c/
Ammonia as N, mg/L
Total Residual Chlorine, ug/L
Selenium (tr), ug/L
Manganese (tr), ug/L
Iron (tr), ug/L
Sulfate, mg/L
Nitrite as N, mg/L
Nitrate as N, mg/L
Total Phosphorous as P, mg/L
pH (s.u.)
Dissolved Oxygen, mg/L
Frequency
Daily
Monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Daily
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Quarterly
Daily
Daily
Sample Type a/
Continuous, Recorder
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Grab or Continuous
Grab
a/ See Definitions, Part 1.1., for definition of terms.
b/ Flow measurements of effluent volume shall be made in such a manner that the permittee can
affirmatively demonstrate that representative values are being obtained. The average flow rate (in
million gallons per day) during the reporting period and the maximum flow rate observed (in mgd) shall
be reported.
c/ In addition to monitoring the final discharge, influent samples shall be taken and analyzed for this
constituent at the same frequency as required for this constituent in the discharge.
tr - total recoverable
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 17 of 36
1.3.10 Whole Effluent Toxicitv Testing - Chronic Toxicitv
Starting in the first full quarter after the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall, at least once
each quarter, conduct chronic short term toxicity tests on the final effluent from Outfalls 002 and
002a. There shall not be chronic toxicity in 100 percent concentration of the final effluent.
The monitoring frequency shall be quarterly. Quarterly samples shall be collected on a two day
progression; i.e., if the first quarterly sample is on a Monday, during the next quarter, the sampling
shall begin on a Wednesday. If chronic toxicity is detected, an additional test shall be conducted
within two weeks of the date of when the permittee learned of the test failure. The need for any
additional samples shall be determined by the permit issuing authority.
The chronic toxicity tests shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in the latest
revision of "Short Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater Organisms", EPA 821-R-02-013, Rev. Oct. 2002. Test species shall consist of
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas. A multi dilution test consisting of five concentrations
and a control is required. If test acceptability criteria is not met for control survival, growth, or
reproduction, the test shall be considered invalid. Chronic toxicity occurs when, during a chronic
toxicity test, the 25% inhibition concentration (IC25) calculated on the basis of test organism survival
and growth or survival and reproduction, is less than or equal to 100% effluent concentration. The
tests shall be done using effluent concentrations of 100%, 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, and 0%
(control).
Test results shall be reported along with the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) submitted for the
end of the calendar period during which the whole effluent test was run (e.g. results for the calendar
quarter ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28, with the remaining reports
submitted with DMRs due each July 28, October 28, and January 28). Monthly test results shall be
reported along with the DMR submitted for that month. The format for the report shall be consistent
with the latest revision of the "Region VIII Guidance for Chronic Whole Effluent Reporting"
(Appendix C of Region VIIINPDES Whole Effluent Toxics Control Program, August 1997), and
shall include all the physical and chemical testing as specified.
If the results for one year (four consecutive quarters) of whole effluent testing indicate no chronic
toxicity, the permittee may request the permit issuing authority to allow the permittee to reduce
testing frequency, and/or reduce testing to one species on an alternating basis, and/or modify testing
to the acute test program. The permit issuing authority may approve, partially approve, or deny the
request based on results and other available information. If approval is given, the modification will
take place without a public notice.
1.3.11 Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing - Acute Toxicity
Starting in the first full quarter after the effective date of this permit, the permittee shall conduct
quarterly acute static replacement toxicity tests on an effluent sample of the discharge from Outfalls
002 and 002a. The effluent shall be obtained from the sample required for the chronic toxicity tests
as noted in Part 1.3.10. of this permit.
The replacement static toxicity tests shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set out in
the latest revision of "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and
Marine Organisms", EPA 821-R-02-012 (Rev Oct. 2002). The permittee shall conduct an acute 48-
hour static toxicity test using Ceriodaphnia dubia an acute 96-hour static toxicity test using
Pimephales promelas. The tests shall be done using effluent concentrations of 100%, 75%, 50%,
25%, 12.5%, 6.25% and 0% (control).
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 18 of 36
Acute toxicity occurs when 50 percent or more mortality is observed for either species at any
effluent concentration. If more than 10% control mortality occurs, the test shall be repeated until
satisfactory control survival is achieved. If acute toxicity occurs, an additional test shall be
conducted within two weeks of the date of when the permittee learned of the test failure. If only one
species fails, retesting may be limited to this species. Should toxicity occur in the second test,
testing shall occur once a month until further notified by the permit issuing authority.
Quarterly test results shall be reported along with the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR)
submitted for the end of the reporting calendar quarter (e.g., whole effluent results for the calendar
quarter ending March 31 shall be reported with the DMR due April 28, with the remaining reports
submitted with DMRs due each July 28, October 28, and January 28). Monthly test results shall be
reported along with the DMR submitted for that month. The format for the report shall be consistent
with the latest revision of the "Region VIII Guidance for Acute Whole Effluent Reporting"
(Appendix C of Region VIIINPDES Whole Effluent Toxics Control Program, August 1997), and
shall include all chemical and physical data as specified.
If the results for four consecutive quarters of testing indicate no acute toxicity, the permittee may
request the permit issuing authority to allow a reduction to quarterly acute toxicity testing on only
one species on an alternating basis. The permit issuing authority may approve or deny the request
based on the results and other available information without an additional public notice. If the
request is approved, the test procedures are to be the same as specified above for the test species. If
approval is given, the modification will take place without a public notice.
1.3.12 Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIEVToxicity Reduction Evaluation (TRE)
Should acute toxicity and/or chronic toxicity be detected in two (2) consecutive tests of the
permittee's discharge, a TIE-TRE shall be undertaken by the permittee to establish the cause of the
toxicity, locate the source(s) of the toxicity, and develop control of or treatment of the toxicity.
Failure to initiate, or conduct an adequate TIE-TRE, or delays in the conduct of such tests, shall not
be considered a justification for non-compliance with the whole effluent toxicity limitations
contained in Part 1.3.3 and 1.3.6 of this permit. A TRE plan needs to be submitted to the permitting
authority within 45 days after confirmation of the continuance of the effluent toxicity.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 19 of 36
1.4 Stormwater Requirements
1.4.1 Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
The permittee shall continue to implement all existing best management practices (BMP) that may
affect the quality of storm water runoff unless those BMPs are modified or replaced by the storm water
pollution prevention plan required below. The permittee shall develop a storm water pollution
prevention plan for the MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery site. The storm water pollution prevention
plan shall be prepared in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with the factors
outlined in 40 CFR 125.3(d)(2) or (3) as appropriate. The plan shall identify potential sources of
pollution which may reasonably be expected to affect the quality of storm water discharges associated
with industrial activity from the facility. In addition, the plan shall describe and ensure the
implementation of practices which are to be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity at the facility and to assure compliance with the terms and conditions
of this permit. The facility must implement the provisions of the storm water pollution prevention plan
required under this Part as a condition of this permit.
1.4.1.1 Deadlines for Plan Preparation and Compliance.
The plan for a storm water discharge:
1.4.1.2 Shall be prepared and submitted to the permit issuing authority for review and approval no later than
six months after the effective date of this permit (and updated at a minimum of every two years or
more frequently if deemed appropriate). The plan shall be submitted to the U.S. EPA Region 8
Stormwater Program at the following address:
Greg Davis
EPA Region 8 Stormwater Program Coordinator
Mailcode: 8P-W-P
999 18th Street, Suite 200
Denver, CO 80202-2466
A copy of the plan shall also be submitted to the Three Affiliated Tribes Environmental Department at
the following address:
Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
1.4.1.3 Shall provide for implementation and compliance with the terms of the plan on or before six months
after the plan is approved by the U.S. EPA Region 8 Stormwater Program.
1.4.1.5 Upon a showing of good cause, the permit issuing authority may establish a later date in writing for
preparation, implementation, and compliance with the plan.
1.4.1.6 Except as provided in Part 1.4.1.3 above, the plan shall be implemented in accordance with the
approval of the permit issuing authority no later than one year after the effective date of this permit
unless the permit issuing authority approves a later date.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 20 of 36
1.4.1.7 The permit issuing authority may notify the permittee at any time that the plan does not meet one or
more of the minimum requirements of this Part. Such notification shall identify those provisions of
the permit which are not being met by the plan, and identify which provisions of the plan require
modifications in order to meet the minimum requirements of this Part. Within 30 days of such
notification from the permit issuing authority, (or as otherwise provided by the permit issuing
authority), the permittee shall make the required changes to the plan and shall submit to the permit
issuing authority a written certification that the requested changes have been made.
1.4.1.8 Keeping Plans Current - The permittee shall amend the plan whenever there is a change in design,
construction, operation, or maintenance, which has a significant effect on the potential for the
discharge of pollutants to the waters of the United States or if the storm water pollution prevention
plan proves to be ineffective in eliminating or significantly minimizing pollutants from sources
identified under Part 1.4.1.9.2 (description of potential pollutant sources) of this permit, or in
otherwise achieving the general objectives of controlling pollutants in storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity. Amendments to the plan shall be submitted for review to the
permit issuing authority in the same manner as Part 1.4.1.2(above).
1.4.1.9 Contents of Plan - The plan shall include, at a minimum, the following:
1.4.1.9.1 Pollution Prevention Team - The plan shall identify a specific individual or individuals within the
facility organization as members of a storm water Pollution Prevention Team that are responsible
for developing the storm water pollution prevention plan and assisting the facility or plant
manager in its implementation, maintenance, and revision. The plan shall clearly identify the
responsibilities of each team member. The activities and responsibilities of the team shall address
all aspects of the facility's storm water pollution prevention plan.
1.4.1.9.2 Description of Potential Pollutant Sources - The plan shall provide a description of potential
sources which may reasonably be expected to add significant amounts of pollutants to storm water
discharges or which may result in the discharge of pollutants during dry weather from separate
storm sewers draining the facility. Each plan shall identify all activities and significant materials
which may potentially be significant pollutant sources. The plan shall include, at a minimum:
1.4.1.9.3 Inventory of Exposed Materials - An inventory of the types of materials handled at the site that
potentially may be exposed to precipitation. Such inventory shall include a narrative description
of significant materials that have been handled, treated, stored or disposed in a manner to allow
exposure to storm water between the time of 3 years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit
and the present; method and location of on-site storage or disposal; materials management
practices employed to minimize contact of materials with storm water runoff between the time of
3 years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit and the present; the location and a
description of existing structural and non-structural control measures to reduce pollutants in storm
water runoff; and a description of any treatment the storm water receives. Note: The limitation of
three (3) years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit does not apply to radioactive
materials.
1.4.1.9.4 Drainage A site map indicating an outline of the portions of the drainage area of each storm water
outfall that are within the facility boundaries, each existing structural control measure to reduce
pollutants in storm water runoff, surface water bodies, locations where significant materials are
exposed to precipitation, locations where major spills or leaks identified under Part 1.4.1.9.6
(Spills and Leaks) of this permit have occurred, and the locations of the following activities where
such activities are exposed to precipitation: fueling stations, vehicle and equipment maintenance
and/or cleaning areas, loading/unloading areas, locations used for the treatment, storage or
disposal of wastes, liquid storage tanks, processing areas and storage areas.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 21 of 36
1.4.1.9.5 For each area of the facility that generates storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity with a reasonable potential for containing pollutants, a prediction of the direction of flow,
and an identification of the types of pollutants which are likely to be present in storm water
discharges associated with industrial activity. Factors to consider include the toxicity of chemical;
quantity of chemicals used, produced or discharged; the likelihood of contact with storm water;
and history of significant leaks or spills of toxic or hazardous pollutants. Flows with a significant
potential for causing erosion shall be identified.
1.4.1.9.6 Spills and Leaks: A list of significant spills and significant leaks of toxic, hazardous or radioactive
pollutants that have occurred at areas that are exposed to precipitation or that otherwise drain to a
storm water conveyance at the facility after the date of 3 years prior to the effective date of this
permit. Such list shall be updated as appropriate during the term of the permit. Note: The
limitation of three (3) years prior to the date of the issuance of this permit does not apply to
radioactive materials:
1.4.1.9.7 Sampling Data: A summary of existing discharge sampling data describing pollutants in storm
water discharges from the facility, including a summary of sampling data collected during the term
of this permit.
1.4.1.9.8 Risk Identification and Summary of Potential Pollutant Sources: A narrative description of the
potential pollutant sources from the following activities: loading and unloading operations;
outdoor storage activities; outdoor manufacturing or processing activities; significant dust or
particulate generating processes; and on-site waste disposal practices. The description shall
specifically list any significant potential source of pollutants at the site and for each potential
source, any pollutant or pollutant parameter (e.g., radioactive materials, acids, solvents, etc.) of
concern shall be identified.
1.4.1.9.9 Spills and Leaks: The permittee shall develop a description of storm water management controls
appropriate for the MF£A Nation Clean Fuels Refinery Site, and implement such controls. The
appropriateness and priorities of controls in apian shall reflect identified potential sources of
pollutants at the facility. The description of storm water management controls shall address the
following minimum components, including a schedule for implementing such controls:
1.4.1.9.10 Good Housekeeping: Good housekeeping requires the maintenance of areas which may contribute
pollutants to storm waters discharges in a clean, orderly manner.
1.4.1.9.11 Preventive Maintenance: A preventive maintenance program shall involve timely inspection and
maintenance of storm water management devices (e.g., cleaning oil/water separators, catch basins)
as well as inspecting and testing facility equipment and systems to uncover conditions that could
cause breakdowns or failures resulting in discharges of pollutants to surface waters, and ensuring
appropriate maintenance of such equipment and systems.
1.4.1.9.12 Spill Prevention and Response Procedures: Areas where potential spills which can contribute
pollutants to storm water discharges can occur, and their accompanying drainage points shall be
identified clearly in the storm water pollution prevention plan. Where appropriate, specifying
material handling procedures, storage requirements, and use of equipment such as diversion valves
in the plan should be considered. Procedures for cleaning up spills shall be identified in the plan
and made available to the appropriate personnel. The necessary equipment to implement a clean
up should be available to personnel.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 22 of 36
1.4.1.9.13 Inspections: In addition to or as part of the comprehensive site evaluation required under Part
1.4.1.9.18 of this permit, qualified facility personnel shall be identified to inspect designated
equipment and areas of the facility at appropriate intervals of no less than one time each year as
specified in the plan. A set of tracking or follow-up procedures shall be used to ensure that
appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections. Records of inspections shall be
maintained.
1.4.1.9.14 Employee Training: Employee training programs shall inform personnel responsible for
implementing activities identified in the storm water pollution prevention plan or otherwise
responsible for storm water management at all levels of responsibility of the components and
goals of the storm water pollution prevention plan. Training should address topics such as spill
response, good housekeeping and material management practices. The pollution prevention plan
shall identify periodic dates for such training.
1.4.1.9.15 Record keeping and Internal Reporting Procedures: A description of incidents (such as spills, or
other discharges), along with other information describing the quality and quantity of storm water
discharges shall be included in the plan required under this part. Inspections and maintenance
activities shall be documented and records of such activities shall be incorporated into the plan.
1.4.1.9.16 Sediment and Erosion Control: The plan shall identify areas which, due to topography, activities,
or other factors, have a high potential for significant soil erosion, and identify structural,
vegetative, and/or stabilization measures to be used to limit erosion.
1.4.1.9.17 Management of Runoff: The plan shall contain a narrative consideration of the appropriateness of
traditional storm water management practices (practices other than those which control the
generation or source(s) of pollutants) used to divert, infiltrate, reuse, or otherwise manage storm
water runoff in a manner that reduces pollutants in storm water discharges from the site. The plan
shall provide the measures that the permittees determine to be reasonable and appropriate and
these measures shall be implemented and maintained. The potential of various sources at the
MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery Site to contribute pollutants to storm water discharges
associated with industrial activity (see Part 1.4.1.9.2 shall be considered when determining
reasonable and appropriate measures. Appropriate measures may include: vegetative swales and
practices, reuse of collected storm water (such as for a process or as an irrigation source), inlet
controls (such as oil/water separators), snow management activities, infiltration devices, and wet
detention/retention devices.
1.4.1.9.18 Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation: Qualified personnel shall conduct site compliance
evaluations at appropriate intervals specified in the plan, but, in no case less than once a year.
Such evaluations shall provide:
1.4.1.9.19 Areas contributing to a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity shall be visually
inspected for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system. Measures
to reduce pollutant loadings shall be evaluated to determine whether they are adequate and
properly implemented in accordance with the terms of the permit or whether additional control
measures are needed. Structural storm water management measures, sediment and erosion control
measures, and other structural pollution prevention measures identified in the plan shall be
observed to ensure that they are operating correctly. A visual inspection of equipment needed to
implement the plan, such as spill response equipment, shall be made.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 23 of 36
1.4.1.9.20 The analytical results from the storm water monitoring required under Parts 1.3.2 and 1.3.7 shall
be evaluated with the objective of determining whether or not the storm water discharges from the
plant site are causing or contributing to water quality problems in the East Fork of Shell Creek. To
the extent that data are available, the evaluation shall include data for the previous 12 months.
Earlier data may be included to give an indication of trends. The data should also be evaluated in
terms of giving an indication of whether or not the plan is effective in minimizing the discharge of
pollutants or whether additional control measures are needed.
1.4.1.9.21 Based on the results of the visual inspection (Part 1.4.1.9.13 above) and the evaluation of the
monitoring data (Part 1.4.1.9.20 above), the plan shall be revised as appropriate. The revision
shall include, as appropriate, the description of potential pollutant sources identified in the plan
and pollution prevention measures and controls identified in the plan. The revision shall be
completed within four (4) weeks of such inspection and shall provide for implementation of any
changes to the plan in a timely manner, but in no case more than 12 weeks after the inspection
unless additional time has been approved by the permit issuing authority.
1.4.1.9.22 A report summarizing the scope of the inspection, personnel making the inspection, the date(s) of
the inspection, major observations relating to the implementation of the storm water pollution
prevention plan, and actions taken in accordance with Part 1.4.1.9.20 (above) of the permit shall
be made and retained as part of the storm water pollution prevention plan for at least one year after
coverage under this permit terminates. The report shall identify any incidents of non-compliance.
Where a report does not identify any incidents of non-compliance, the report shall contain a
certification that the facility is in compliance with the storm water pollution prevention plan and
this permit.
1.4.1.9.23 Consistency with other plans: Storm water pollution prevention plans may reflect requirements
for spill prevention control and countermeasure (SPCC) plans developed for the MHA Nation
Clean Fuels Refinery under section 311 of the CWA; best management practices plans; or other
environmental control plans prepared for the MF£A Nation Clean Fuels Refinery. Provided such
requirement(s) are incorporated into the storm water pollution prevention plan, or referenced by
specific document title, volume, heading, and page number(s). All referenced documents must be
available for review and inspection upon request.
1.4.2 Additional requirements for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity from facilities
subject to EPCRA Section 313 requirements. In addition to the requirements of Part 1.4.1.9 through
1.4.1.9.22 of this permit and other applicable conditions of this permit, storm water pollution
prevention plans for facilities subject to reporting requirements under EPCRA Section 313 for
chemicals which are classified as 'Section 313 water priority chemicals' in accordance with the
definition in PART LA of this permit, shall describe and ensure the implementation of practices which
are necessary to provide for conformance with the following guidelines:
1.4.2.1 In areas where Section 313 water priority chemicals are stored, processed or otherwise handled,
appropriate containment, drainage control and/or diversionary structures shall be provided. At a
minimum, one of the following preventive systems or its equivalent shall be used:
1.4.2.2 Curbing, culverting, gutters, sewers or other forms of drainage control to prevent or minimize the
potential for storm water run-off to come into contact with significant sources of pollutants; or,
1.4.2.3 Roofs, covers or other forms of appropriate protection to prevent storage piles from exposure to storm
water, and wind.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 24 of 36
1.4.2.4 In addition to the minimum standards listed under Part 1.4.1.10.1 of this permit, the storm water
pollution prevention plan shall include a complete discussion of measures taken to conform with the
following applicable guidelines, other effective storm water pollution prevention procedures, and
applicable Tribal rules, regulations and guidelines:
1.4.2.5 Liquid storage areas where storm water comes into contact with any equipment, tank, container, or
other vessel used for Section 313 water priority chemicals.
1.4.2.5.1 No tank or container shall be used for the storage of a Section 313 water priority chemical unless
its material and construction are compatible with the material stored and conditions of storage
such as pressure and temperature, etc.
1.4.2.5.2 Liquid storage areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals shall be operated to minimize
discharges of Section 313 chemicals. Appropriate measures to minimize discharges of Section
313 chemicals may include secondary containment provided for at least the entire contents of the
largest single tank plus sufficient freeboard to allow for precipitation, a comprehensive spill
contingency and integrity testing plan, and/or other equivalent measures.
1.4.2.6 Material storage areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals other than liquids. Material storage
areas for Section 313 water priority chemicals other than liquids which are subject to runoff, leaching,
or wind shall incorporate drainage or other control features which will minimize the discharge of
Section 313 water priority chemicals by reducing storm water contact with Section 313 water priority
chemicals.
1 A.2.1 Truck and rail car loading and unloading areas for liquid Section 313 water priority chemicals. Truck
and rail car loading and unloading areas for liquid Section 313 water priority chemicals shall be
operated to minimize discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Protection such as
overhangs or door skirts to enclose trailer ends at truck loading/unloading docks shall be provided as
appropriate. Appropriate measures to minimize discharges of Section 313 chemicals may include: the
placement and maintenance of drip pans (including the proper disposal of materials collected in the
drip pans) where spillage may occur (such as hose connections, hose reels and filler nozzles) for use
when making and breaking hose connections; a comprehensive spill contingency and integrity testing
plan; and/or other equivalent measures.
1.4.2.8 Areas where Section 313 water priority chemicals are transferred, processed or otherwise handled.
Processing equipment and materials handling equipment shall be operated so as to minimize
discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Materials used in piping and equipment shall be
compatible with the substances handled. Drainage from process and materials handling areas shall
minimize storm water contact with section 313 water priority chemicals. Additional protection such
as covers or guards to prevent exposure to wind, spraying or releases from pressure relief vents from
causing a discharge of Section 313 water priority chemicals to the drainage system shall be provided
as appropriate. Visual inspections or leak tests shall be provided for overhead piping conveying
Section 313 water priority chemicals without secondary containment.
1.4.2.9 Discharges from areas covered by paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6
1.4.2.9.1 Drainage from areas covered by paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6 of this Part should be
restrained by valves or other positive means to prevent the discharge of a spill or other excessive
leakage of Section 313 water priority chemicals. Where containment units are employed, such
units may be emptied by pumps or ejectors; however, these shall be manually activated.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 25 of 36
1.4.2.9.2 Flapper-type drain valves shall not be used to drain containment areas. Valves used for the
drainage of containment areas should, as far as is practical, be of manual, open-and-closed design.
1.4.2.9.3 If facility drainage is not engineered as above, the final discharge of all in-facility storm sewers
shall be equipped to be equivalent with a diversion system that could, in the event of an
uncontrolled spill of Section 313 water priority chemicals, return the spilled material to the
facility.
1.4.2.9.4 Records shall be kept of the frequency and estimated volume (in gallons) of discharges from
containment areas.
1.4.2.9.5 Facility site runoff other than from areas covered by 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6. Other areas
of the facility (those not addressed in paragraphs 1.4.1.10.2.1 through 1.4.1.10.2.6, from which
runoff which may contain Section 313 water priority chemicals or spills of Section 313 water
priority chemicals could cause a discharge shall incorporate the necessary drainage or other
control features to prevent discharge of spilled or improperly disposed material and ensure the
mitigation of pollutants in runoff or leachate.
1.4.2.9.6 Preventive maintenance and housekeeping. All areas of the facility shall be inspected at specific
intervals identified in the plan for leaks or conditions that could lead to discharges of Section 313
water priority chemicals or direct contact of storm water with raw materials, intermediate
materials, waste materials or products. In particular, facility piping, pumps, storage tanks and
bins, pressure vessels, process and material handling equipment, and material bulk storage areas
shall be examined for any conditions or failures which could cause a discharge. Inspection shall
include examination for leaks, wind blowing, corrosion, support or foundation failure, or other
forms of deterioration or noncontainment. Inspection intervals shall be specified in the plan and
shall be based on design and operational experience. Different areas may require different
inspection intervals. Where a leak or other condition is discovered which may result in significant
releases of Section 313 water priority chemicals to waters of the United States, action to stop the
leak or otherwise prevent the significant release of Section 313 water priority chemicals to waters
of the United States shall be immediately taken or the unit or process shut down until such action
can be taken.
1.4.2.9.7 When aleak or noncontainment of a Section 313 water priority chemical has occurred,
contaminated soil, debris, or other material must be promptly removed and disposed in accordance
with Federal, Tribal, and local requirements and as described in the plan.
1.4.2.9.8 Facility security. Facilities shall have the necessary security systems to prevent accidental or
intentional entry which could cause a discharge. Security systems described in the plan shall
address fencing, lighting, vehicular traffic control, and securing of equipment and buildings.
1.4.2.9.9 Training. Facility employees and contractor personnel that work in areas where Section 313 water
priority chemicals are use or stored shall be trained in and informed of preventive measures at the
facility. Employee training shall be conducted at intervals specified in the plan, but not less than
once per year, in matters of pollution control laws and regulations, and in the storm water
pollution prevention plan and the particular features of the facility and its operation which are
designed to minimize discharges of Section 313 water priority chemicals. The plan shall designate
a person who is accountable for spill prevention at the facility and who will set up the necessary
spill emergency procedures and reporting requirements so that spills and emergency releases of
Section 313 water priority chemicals can be isolated and contained before a discharge of a Section
313 water priority chemical can occur. Contractor or temporary personnel shall be informed of
facility operation and design features in order to prevent discharges or spills from occurring.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 26 of 36
1.4.2.9.10 Engineering Certification. - The storm water pollution prevention plan for a facility subject to
EPCRA Section 313 requirements for chemicals which are classified as 'Section 313 water priority
chemicals' shall be reviewed by a Registered Professional Engineer and certified to by such
Professional Engineer. A Registered Professional Engineer shall recertify the plan every 3 years
thereafter or as soon as practicable after significant modification are made to the facility. By
means of these certifications the engineer, having examined the facility and being familiar with the
provisions of this Part, shall attest that the storm water pollution prevention plan has been
prepared in accordance with good engineering practices. Such certifications shall in no way
relieve the owner or operator of a facility covered by the plan of their duty to prepare and fully
implement such plan.
1.4.3 Additional Requirements for Salt Storage.
1.4.3.1 Storage piles of salt used for deicing or other commercial or industrial purposes and which generate
a storm water discharge associated with industrial activity which is discharged to a water of the
United States shall be enclosed or covered to prevent exposure to precipitation, except for exposure
resulting from adding or removing materials from the pile.
1.4.3.2 Dischargers shall demonstrate compliance with this provision as expeditiously as practicable, but in
no event later than two years after the effective date of this permit. Piles do not need to be enclosed
or covered where storm water from the pile is not discharged to waters of the United States.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 27 of 36
2. MONITORING, RECORDING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
2.1. Representative Sampling. Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements established
under Part 1. shall be collected from the effluent stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters.
Samples and measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
Sludge samples shall be collected at a location representative of the quality of sludge immediately prior
to use-disposal practice.
2.2. Monitoring Procedures. Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40
CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified in this permit. Sludge monitoring
procedures shall be those specified in 40 CFR 503, or as specified in the permit.
2.3. Penalties for Tampering. The Act provides that any person who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or
renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this permit shall,
upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than
two years, or by both. Second conviction is punishable by a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of
violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or both.
2.4. Reporting of Monitoring Results. Effluent monitoring results obtained during the previous month shall
be summarized and reported on one Discharge Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked
no later than the 28th day of the month following the completed reporting period. If no discharge
occurs during the reporting period, "no discharge" shall be reported. Until further notice, sludge
monitoring results may be reported in the testing laboratory's normal format (there is no EPA standard
form at this time), but should be on letter size pages. Whole effluent toxicity (biomonitoring) results
must be reported on the most recent version of EPA Region 8's Guidance For Whole Effluent Reporting.
Legible copies of these, and all other reports required herein, shall be signed and certified in accordance
with the Signatory Requirements (see Part 4.). and submitted to the Planning and Targeting Program,
and the TAT Environmental Department at the following addresses:
original to: U.S. EPA, REGION 8
PLANNING AND TARGETING PROGRAM (8ENF-PT)
ATTENTION: PCS COORDINATOR
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
copy to: Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
2.5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee. If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 136, 40 CFR 503, or as specified
in this permit, the results of this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased frequency shall also be indicated.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 28 of 36
2.6. Records Contents. Records of monitoring information shall include:
2.6.1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2.6.2. The initials or name(s) of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
2.6.3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
2.6.4. The time(s) analyses were initiated;
2.6.5. The initials or name(s) of individual(s) who performed the analyses;
2.6.6. References and written procedures, when available, for the analytical techniques or methods used;
and,
2.6.7. The results of such analyses, including the bench sheets, instrument readouts, computer disks or
tapes, etc., used to determine these results.
2.7. Retention of Records. The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all
calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, and records of all data used to complete
the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the date of the sample,
measurement, report or application. Records of monitoring required by this permit related to sludge use
and disposal activities must be kept at least five years (or longer as required by 40 CFR 503). This
period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. Data collected on site, data used to
prepare the DMR, copies of Discharge Monitoring Reports, and a copy of this NPDES permit must be
maintained on site.
2.8. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting.
2.8.1. The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment as
soon as possible, but no later than twenty-four (24) hours from the time the permittee first became
aware of the circumstances. The report shall be made to the EPA, Region 8, Preparedness,
Assessment and Response Program at (303) 293-1788, and the TAT Environmental Division at (701)
627-5469.
2.8.2. The following occurrences of noncompliance shall be reported by telephone to the EPA, Region 8,
Technical Enforcement Program at (303) 312-6720 (8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) or the
appropriate EPA State Program Manager, NPDES Program, (toll-free 866-457-2690) (8:00 a.m. -
4:30 p.m. Mountain Time) and the TAT Environmental Division at (701) 627-5469 (8:00 a.m. - 4:30
p.m. Central Time) by the first workday following the day the permittee became aware of the
circumstances:
2.8.2.1. Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part 3.7.,
Bypass of Treatment Facilities.);
2.8.2.2. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit (See Part 3.8., Upset Conditions.);
or,
2.8.2.3. Violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of the pollutants listed in the permit to
be reported within 24 hours.
2.8.3. A written submission shall also be provided to the USEPA, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and
Environmental Justice, and to the TAT Environmental Division within five days of the time that the
permittee becomes aware of the circumstances. The written submission shall contain:
2.8.3.1. A de scription of the noncompliance and its cause;
2.8.3.2. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 29 of 36
2.8.3.3. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it has not been corrected; and,
2.8.3.4. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
2.8.4. The Director may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis for an occurrence of
noncompliance listed under Part 2.8.2. above, if the incident has been orally reported in accordance
with the requirements of Part 2.8.2.
2.8.5. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part 2.4., Reporting of Monitoring Results.
2.9. Other Noncompliance Reporting. Instances of noncompliance not required to be reported within 24
hours shall be reported at the time that monitoring reports for Part 2 A. are submitted. The reports shall
contain the information listed in Part 2.8.3.
2.10. Inspection and Entry. The permittee shall allow the Regional Administrator, or authorized
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a representative of the Administrator) upon
presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
2.10.1. Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or
where records must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
2.10.2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of
this permit;
2.10.3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment),
practices, or operations regulated or required under this permit; and,
2.10.4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of assuring permit compliance or as
otherwise authorized by the Act, any substances or parameters at any location.
3. COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITIES
3.1. Duty to Comply. The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any failure to comply
with the permit may constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act and may be grounds for enforcement
action, including, but not limited to permit termination, revocation and reissuance, modification, or
denial of a permit renewal application. The permittee shall give the director advance notice of any
planned changes at the permitted facility that will change any discharge from the facility, or of any
activity that may result in failure to comply with permit conditions.
3.2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions. The Clean Water Act provides for specified civil and
criminal monetary penalties for violations of its provisions. However, the Federal Civil Penalties
Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996,
requires EPA to adjust the civil monetary penalties for inflation on a periodic basis. EPA previously
adjusted its civil monetary penalties on December 31, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 69359-69365), with technical
corrections and additions published on March 20, 1997 (62 Fed. Reg. 13514-13517) and June 27, 1997
(62 Fed. Reg. 35037-35041). On February 13, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 7121-7127) EPA once again adjusted
its civil monetary penalties. The civil and criminal penalties, as of March 15, 2004, for violations of the
Act (including permit conditions) are given below:
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 30 of 36
3.2.1. Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any permit
condition or limitation implementing any such sections in a permit issued under section 402, or any
requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under sections 402(a)(3) or 402(b)(8) of
the Act, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $32,500 per day for each violation.
3.2.2. Any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for
a negligent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $50,000 per day
of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
3.2.3. Any person who knowingly violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of the
Act, or any requirement imposed in a pretreatment program approved under section 402(a)(3) or
402(b)(8) of the Act, is subject to criminal penalties of $5,000 to $50,000 per day of violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for
a knowing violation, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than $100,000 per
day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than 6 years, or both.
3.2.4. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or
any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of the Act, and who knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than
$250,000 or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent
conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than
$500,000 or by imprisonment for not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, as defined in
section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the CWA, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger
provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to $2,000,000 for
second or subsequent convictions.
3.2.5. Any person may be assessed an administrative penalty by the Administrator for violating section
301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of this Act, or any permit condition or limitation implementing
any of such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act. Where an administrative
enforcement action is brought for a Class I civil penalty, the assessed penalty may not exceed
$11,000 per violation, with a maximum amount not to exceed $32,500. Where an administrative
enforcement action is brought for a Class II civil penalty, the assessed penalty may not exceed
$11,000 per day for each day during which the violation continues, with the maximum amount not to
exceed $157,500.
3.3. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense. It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an
enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to
maintain compliance with the conditions of this permit.
3.4. Duty to Mitigate. The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or
sludge use or disposal in violation of this permit which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment.
3.5. Proper Operation and Maintenance. The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related appurtenances) which are installed or used
by the permittee to achieve compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 31 of 36
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance procedures.
This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are
installed by a permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions
of the permit. However, the permittee shall operate, as a minimum, one complete set of each main line
unit treatment process whether or not this process is needed to achieve permit effluent compliance.
3.5.1 The permittee shall, as soon as reasonable and practicable, but no later than six (6) months after the
effective date of this permit, do the following as part of the operation and maintenance program for
the waste water treatment facility:
3.5.1.1. Have a current O & M Manual(s) that describes the proper operational procedures and maintenance
requirements of the wastewater treatment facility;
3.5.1.2. Have the O & M Manual(s) readily available to the operator of the wastewater treatment facility and
require that the operator become familiar with the manual(s) and any updates;
3.5.1.2. Have a schedule(s) for routine operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment
facility; and,
3.5.1.3. Require the operator to perform the routine operation and maintenance requirements in accordance
with the schedule(s).
3.5.1.4. Deadlines for O&M Manual(s) Preparation.
The O&M Manual(s)
3.5.1.4.1 Shall be prepared and submitted to the permit issuing authority for review and approval no later than
six months after the effective date of this permit (and updated at a minimum of every two years or
more frequently if deemed appropriate). The plan shall be submitted to the U.S. EPA Region 8
NPDES Permits Unit at the following address:
EPA Region 8 NPDES Permits Unit
Mailcode: 8P-W-P
999 18th Street, Suite 300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
A copy of the plan shall also be submitted to the Three Affiliated Tribes Environmental
Department at the following address:
Environmental Division
Three Affiliated Tribes
204 West Main
New Town, ND 58763
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 32 of 36
3.5.2. The permittee shall maintain a daily log in a bound notebook(s) containing a summary record of all
operation and maintenance activities at the wastewater treatment facility. At a minimum, the
notebook shall include the following information:
3.5.2.1. Date and time;
3.5.2.2 Name and title of person(s) making the log entry;
3.5.2.3. Name of the persons(s) performing the activity;
3.5.2.4. A brief description of the activity; and,
3.5.2.5. Other information, as appropriate.
The permittee shall maintain the notebook in accordance with proper record-keeping procedures and
shall make the log available for inspection, upon request, by authorized representatives of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency or the TAT Environmental Division.
3.6. Removed Substances. Collected screenings, grit, solids, sludge, or other pollutants removed in the
course of treatment shall be buried or disposed in a manner consistent with all applicable federal and
tribal regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 257, 40 CFR 258, 40 CFR 503, 40 CFR 268 and in a manner so as to
prevent any pollutant from entering any waters of the United States or creating a health hazard. In
addition, the use and/or disposal of sewage sludge shall be done under the authorization of an
NPDES permit issued for the use and/or disposal of sewage sludge by the appropriate NPDES
permitting authority for sewage sludge. Sludge/digester supernatant and filter backwash shall not be
directly blended with or enter either the final plant discharge and/or waters of the United States.
3.7. Bypass of Treatment Facilities.
3.7.1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any bypass to occur which does not
cause effluent limitations to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of Parts 3.7.2. and 3.7.3.
3.7.2. Notice:
3.7.2.1. Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit
prior notice, if possible at least 10 days before the date of the bypass to the USEPA, Technical
Enforcement Program, and the TAT Environmental Division.
3.7.2.2. Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall submit notice of an unanticipated bypass as required
under Part 2.8., Twenty-four Hour Noncompliance Reporting, to the USEPA, Technical
Enforcement Program, and the TAT Environmental Division.
3.7.3. Prohibition of bypass.
3.7.3.1. Bypass is prohibited and the Director may take enforcement action against a permittee for a
bypass, unless:
3.7.3.1.1. The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property
damage;
3.7.3.1.2. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment
facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment
downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been
installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to prevent a bypass which
occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and,
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 33 of 36
3.7.3.1.3. The permittee submitted notices as required under Part 3.7.2.
3.7.3.2. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the
Director determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in Part 3.7.3.1.
3.8. Upset Conditions
3.8.1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense to an action brought for
noncompliance with technology based permit effluent limitations if the requirements of Part 3.8.2.
are met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that noncompliance was
caused by upset, and before an action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review (i.e., Permittees will have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of
upset only in an enforcement action brought for noncompliance with technology-based permit
effluent limitations).
3.8.2. Conditions necessary for a demonstration of upset. A permittee who wishes to establish the
affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence that:
3.8.2.1. An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the cause(s) of the upset;
3.8.2.2. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
3.8.2.3. The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under Part 2.8., Twenty-four Hour Notice
of Noncompliance Reporting; and,
3.8.2.4. The permittee complied with any remedial measures required under Part 3.4., Duty to Mitigate.
3.8.3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee seeking to establish the occurrence
of an upset has the burden of proof.
3.9. Toxic Pollutants. The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions established under
Section 307 (a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within the time provided in the regulations that establish
those standards or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to incorporate the
requirement.
3.10. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances. Notification shall be provided to the Director as soon as the
permittee knows of, or has reason to believe:
3.10.1. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in the discharge, on a routine or
frequent basis, of any toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
3.10.1.1. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 ug/L);
3.10.1.2. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 ug/L) for acrolein and acrylonitrile; five hundred
micrograms per liter 500 ug/L) for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4,6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony;
3.10.1.3. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported forthat pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
3.10.1.4. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(f).
3.10.2. That any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in any discharge, on a non-routine or
infrequent basis, of a toxic pollutant which is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will exceed
the highest of the following "notification levels":
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 34 of 36
3.10.2.1. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 ug/L);
3.10.2.2. One milligram per liter (1 mg/L) for antimony:
3.10.2.3. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that pollutant in the permit
application in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(g)(7); or,
3.10.2.4. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(f).
4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
4.1. Planned Changes. The permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible of any planned
physical alterations or additions to the permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
4.1.1. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutant
discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are not subject to effluent limitations in the
permit; or,
4.1.2. There are any planned substantial changes to the existing sewage sludge facilities, the manner of its
operation, or to current sewage sludge management practices of storage and disposal. The permittee
shall give the Director notice of any planned changes at least 30 days prior to their implementation.
4.1.3. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether
a facility is a new source.
4.2. Anticipated Noncompliance. The permittee shall give advance notice to the Director of any planned
changes in the permitted facility or activity which may result in noncompliance with permit
requirements.
4.3. Permit Actions. This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause. The filing
of a request by the permittee for a permit modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not stay any permit condition.
4.4. Duty to Reapply. If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this permit after the
expiration date of this permit, the permittee must apply for and obtain a new permit. The application
should be submitted at least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit.
4.5. Duty to Provide Information. The permittee shall furnish to the Director, within a reasonable time, any
information which the Director may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking
and reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with this permit. The permittee
shall also furnish to the Director, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
4.6. Other Information. When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a
permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a permit application or any report to the
Director, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
4.7. Signatory Requirements. All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director shall be
signed and certified.
4.7.1. All permit applications shall be signed by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected
official.
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 35 of 36
4.7.2. All reports required by the permit and other information requested by the Director shall be signed by
a person described above or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly
authorized representative only if:
4.7.2.1. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above and submitted to the Director;
and,
4.7.2.2. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall
operation of the regulated facility, such as the position of plant manager, superintendent, position
of equivalent responsibility, or an individual or position having overall responsibility for
environmental matters. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named individual
or any individual occupying a named position.)
4.7.3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part 4.7.2. is no longer accurate because a
different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of Part 4.7.2. must be submitted to the Director prior to or
together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative.
4.7.4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this section shall make the following
certification:
"I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my
direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or
persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the
information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate,
and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
4.8. Penalties for Falsification of Reports. The Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to
be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or
noncompliance shall, upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than six months per violation, or by both.
4.9. Availability of Reports. Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public inspection at the
offices of the Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, permits and effluent data shall not
be considered confidential.
4.10. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability. Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to
which the permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
4.11. Property Rights. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of any sort, or any
exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of personal
rights, nor any infringement of federal, state, tribal or local laws or regulations.
4.12. Severability. The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such
provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be affected thereby.
4.13. Transfers. This permit may be automatically transferred to a new permittee if:
-------
Permit No. ND-0030988
Page No. 36 of 36
4.13.1. The current permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in advance of the proposed transfer date;
4.13.2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new permittees containing a
specific date for transfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and,
4.13.3. The Director does not notify the existing permittee and the proposed new permittee of his or her
intent to modify, or revoke and reissue the permit. If this notice is not received, the transfer is
effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in Part 4.13.2.
4.14.1. Permittees in Indian Country. EPA is issuing this permit pursuant to the Agency's authority to
implement the Clean Water Act NPDES program in Indian country, as defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151.
4.14.2. Reopener Provision. This permit may be reopened and modified (following proper administrative
procedures) to include the appropriate effluent limitations (and compliance schedule, if necessary),
or other appropriate requirements if one or more of the following events occurs:
4.15.1. Water Quality Standards: The water quality standards of the receiving water(s) to which the
permittee discharges are modified in such a manner as to require different effluent limits than
contained in this permit.
4.15.2. Wasteload Allocation: A wasteload allocation is developed and approved by the TAT Tribes and/or
EPA for incorporation in this permit.
4.15.3. Water Quality Management Plan: A revision to the current water quality management plan is
approved and adopted which calls for different effluent limitations than contained in this permit.
4.16. Toxicity Limitation-Reopener Provision . This permit may be reopened and modified (following
proper administrative procedures) to include whole effluent toxicity limitations if whole effluent
toxicity is detected in the discharge.
-------
MANDAN, HIDATSA& AR1KARA NATION
Three Affiliated Tribes Ft. Berthold Reservation
40-1 Froniagc Road New Town, KD 58763-94(12
Mi. Horace Pipe/ Project Engineer
Oil & Gas ReSnery
Three Affiliated Tribes
404 Frontage Road
New Town, North Dakota
58763
April 4, 2005
Dear Mr. Pipe
The Cultural Preservation Office of the Three Affiliated Tribes, and in coordination
with the State Historical Society of North Dakota has completed a Class I survey oi
NW1/4 of Section 20; Township 1 52 North; Range 87 West, andtheNorth % of Secton
19; Township 1 52 North; Range 87 West.
The Cultural Preservation office of the Three Affiliated Tribes gives a « No Historic
Properties Effected" for the two sites for the Oil Refinery, which will be located on the
above mentioned land description. No sites or previous cultural resources were located.
However there's always the possibility of inadvertent discoveries of Archaeological
and Cultural Resources during the construction phase of the project i.e.; accessroads,
water & sewer etc. If there is a discovery, all *ork must stop and my office ,s ^ _be
contacted immediately. If you have any farther questions or concerns, please feel free to
. call me @ 627-4781 or stop by my office. Thank you.
File Elpn Crows Breast
Preservation Office
Three Affiliated Tribes
404 Frontage Road
New Town, No. Dakota
58763
anlTjanoir.il
-------
STATE
HISTORICAL
SOCIETY
OF NORTH DAKOTA
John Hoevcn
Governor of N'on/i Doioia
North Dakota
Sole Historical Board
. .. Diane K. Larson,
Bismarck - President
Marvin. L Kaiser
Willis ton - Via: Presides
Albcrc 1. Bcrgcr
Grand Forics - Secraorj
CKcscer E. Nelson, Jr
Bismarck
Gerald Gerntholx
ValkyCit]
A. Ruric Todd III
jaraetoum
Sara One Colcman
Director
Tourism Division
Kelly Sdimidc
Scai£ Treasurer
Aivin A. Jaeger
Secretary of Slate
Douglass Prchai
Director
Pcrta and Recreation
Deportment
David A. Spryrcrynacyk
Director
'Department of Transportation
John E. Von Rueden
BusriuJrcJi
Metlan E. Pasverud, ]t
Direcior
ioJ 07 :)ic
of Museum.',
24 March 2005
Elgin Crows Breast
Cultural Preservation Office
Three Affiliated Tribes
404 Frontage Road
New Town ND 58763
RE: SHPO#98-0343; MHA Nation's Clean Fuel Refinery Project
Dear Elgin:
We have reviewed the locations of the proposed refinery, as requested . For
both T152N R87W Section 20 NW1/4 and T152N R87W Section 19 Nl/2
there are no recorded sites but there has not been a cultural resource inventory.
Based on the proposed location this area appears to have a low probability for
cultural resources. If consulted by the lead federal agency, we would
recommend a no historic properties affected determination.
Thank you for the opportunity to review these projects. If you need additional
information, please feel free to contact me at 701-328-3575.
Sincerely,
Fern Swenson
Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer
North Dakota Heritage Center 612 East Boulevard Avenue, Bismarck, ND 58505-0830 Phone 701-328-2666 Fax: 701-328-3710
Email: hisisoc@state.nd.us Web site: http://DiscoverND.com/hist TTY:-1-800-366-6888
f THAI
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 8
1595 Wynkoop Street
DENVER, CO 80202-1129
Phone 800-227-8917
http://www.epa.gov/region08
Ref: 8P
MAR 0 8 2007
Marcus Wells, Jr., Chairman
Three Affiliated Tribes
404 Frontage Road
New Town, North Dakota 58763
Re: Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project
Dear Chairman Wells:
The EPA is working with BIA to prepare a response to the comments received from the
public on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the proposed refinery. The issue of the
Tribes' ability to pay for any clean-up that may be required as a result of refinery operations or
future closure appears to be of significant concern to the public. EPA believes that it is important
that the Tribes have sufficient funds available for clean-up and closure regardless of the chosen
construction alternative.
EPA has previously discussed the need for an adequate clean-up fund with the Tribes to
address cither a substantial chronic release or a catastrophic event at the refinery. If Option 1 A
(the Tribes' original proposed alternative) is selected as the preferred alternative, a demonstration
of financial assurance (in the form of a clean-up funding mechanism) will be required by a
Resource Conservation and Recoveiy Act (RCRA) permit.
We understand from your letter of January 22, 2007, that the Tribes now favor Option
4A. Under Option 4A, a demonstration of financial assurance is not required pursuant to RCRA,
as long as the proposed refinery operates as a generator. Please note, however, that the proposed
refinery could lose its generator-only status by, for example, storing hazardous waste for greater
than 90 days. In the event of a loss of generator-only status, the facility will be required to obtain
a RCRA permit and to demonstrate financial assurance.
We also understand that there was a January 16, 2007 meeting between Mr. William
Benjamin, Regional Director, BIA, and the Tribal Business Council for TAT, during which the
Tribes committed to establishing such a clean-up fund on a voluntary basis. EPA strongly
supports this action. We have provided TAT via electronic mail and during teleconference
discussions, a range of potentially suitable financial tools, as well as estimates for conducting
environmental response activities at refinery facilities.
-------
As this issue is related to our completion of the Response-To-Comments and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), we request that the Tribal Business Council confirm its
intent by March 27, 2007, to establish a voluntary clean-up fund for the proposed refinery. EPA
will continue to work with TAT and BIA to develop and implement the necessary tools to
address any potential long-term contamination of the proposed refinery site.
We have enclosed the information previously provided to you concerning different
financial instruments and a general range of clean-up costs for your consideration. We look
forward to your response. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Steve
Wharton, Team Leader for this project, at 303-312-6935 or Carol Campbell, Senior Leadership
Champion at 303-3 12-6340.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Roberts
Regional Administrator
Enclosures
cc: Horace Pipe (LID Geological, Refinery Project Manager)
William Benjamin (Regional Director, BIA, Aberdeen Regional Office)
Diane Mann-Klager (BIA, Aberdeen Regional Office)
Roger Bird Bear (TAT Legal Department)
Frank White Calf (Treasurer, TAT Business Council)
Mervin Packineau (TAT Business Council)
Nathan Hale (TAT Business Council)
Malcolm Wolf (TAT Business Council)
Judy Brugh (TAT Business Council)
Barry Benson (TAT Business Council)
Chris Many Deeds (TAT BIA Agency Superintendent)
Elton Spotted Horse (Director, TAT Environmental Department)
Bob Woolley (Triad)
-------
U.S. EPA Region 8
Solid and Hazardous Waste Program
Three Affiliated Tribes Proposed Refinery DEIS
Response to Comments
Estimated Potential RCRA-Related Cleanup Costs
March 7, 2007
Introduction and Background
This document provides an estimated range of potential RCRA-related cleanup costs
for the Three Affiliated Tribes (TAT), Fort Berthold, North Dakota proposed petroleum
refinery. The estimates shown below were developed as part of EPA's response to public
comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and to assist the project
proponents in planning for potential cleanup costs regardless of the selected alternative.* The
amounts are based on the use of contractor personnel only, and are based on the size, type,
design, operational practices, operational life, and potential for releases from the facility.**
As discussed below, the average annual potential cleanup costs could range from
$100,000 to $1,000,000 for each year that the refinery operates. The potential range of
costs was estimated by considering likely cleanup activities and the types of professionals
needed to conduct those activities.***
Potential Facility Investigations and Remedial Activities
The following is a listing of potential facility investigation and remediation activities
related to corrective action at RCRA facilities. Such activities could include:
-Preparation of work plans
-Investigations of and responses to leaks, spills, and releases
-Ground water monitoring wells installation and monitoring
-Soil borings installation and sampling
-Surface water monitoring
-Wetlands monitoring and restoration
-Laboratory analysis of environmental data
-Removal actions for contaminated soil and wastes
-Transportation of wastes to off-site locations
-Off-site treatment and disposal of wastes
-Ground water remediation systems operation
-Subsurface hydraulic containment systems or barrier walls installation
-Soil vapor extraction systems operation
-Insitu treatment systems operation
-Installation of caps over contamination including Corrective Action Management Units
-Installation of waste unit liners
-------
-Installation and operation of waste treatment units
-Emergency responses
-Health and safety concerns
-Implementation of interim measures
-Data quality assurance
-Community outreach
-Determination of remedial goals
-Implementation of long-term final remedial goals
-Periodic review of selected remedies
-Reporting
Contractor Personnel Likely Needed
The following is a listing of contractor personnel that would likely be needed to perform
the types of tasks listed above:
Project Manager
Hydrogeologist
Geologist
Toxicologist
Biologist
Risk Assessment Specialist
Senior Engineer
Staff Engineer
Senior Chemist
Staff Chemist
Environmental Scientist
GIS Analyst
Public Involvement Specialist
Health and Safety Specialist
Database Programmer
Clerical / Administrative
Records Management Specialist
Financial Analyst
Field Technicians
Training Specialist
Subcontractors
Rough Assumptions
As this is a proposed facility, a number of rough assumptions about potential cleanup
costs must be made. The cost for future cleanup expenses could potentially range anywhere
from $100,000 per year to $1,000,000 per year depending on the amount, type, and
distribution of contamination. The operational life of the refinery is assumed to be at least
25-years. The costs estimates provided below are potential average annual costs over the life
of the refinery. The design and operational practices of the refinery are the most important
-------
variables in determining potential cleanup cost estimates. Other methods to calculate
potential cleanup costs are also available***. Two examples are provided below to illustrate
a $100,000 to $1,000,000 range of potential annual cleanup expenses:
Example #1 - The Refinery is Well Designed and Well Operated to Prevent and/or
Immediately Respond to Releases- Potential Average Cleanup Costs: $100,000 per year.
The new refinery has been well designed and operated in environmental terms and there
have been only minor spills, leaks, and releases. This includes the use of double wall and
double bottom tanks with leak detection and recovery systems. This also includes double
wall pipelines with leak detection and recovery systems for all underground pipelines. All
spills and leaks are properly responded to immediately. As such, the following assumptions
could be made:
1. Average annual salary of the above personnel: $100,000
2. Average number of full-time personnel needed per year (from all contributions of
personnel listed above): 0.5
3. Average annual cost of monitoring and remediation equipment installation, maintenance,
and monitoring: $30,000
4. Average annual off-site laboratory costs: $10,000
5. Average annual off-site remediation waste shipping, treatment and disposal costs:
$10,000
The total annual cost of items 1 through 5 above is $100,000. Therefore, financial assurance
for annual cleanup costs in this amount may be appropriate. [Note: Actual cleanup costs
could be lower or higher for any given year.]
Example #2 - The Refinery is Designed and Operated Such That Significant Releases
Occur- Potential Average Cleanup Costs: $1,000,000 per year.
The refinery is operated such that there are a number of significant spills, leaks, and
releases. Tanks do not have double walls, double bottoms and leak detection and recovery
systems. Not all underground pipelines have double walls with leak detection and recovery
systems. Spills and leaks are not always responded to immediately and adequately. As such,
the following assumptions could be made:
1. Average annual salary of the above personnel: $100,000
2. Average number of full-time personnel needed per year: 6
3. Average annual cost of monitoring and remediation equipment installation, maintenance,
and monitoring: $300,000
-------
4. Average annual off-site laboratory costs: $50,000
5. Average annual off-site remediation waste shipping, treatment, and disposal costs:
$25,000
6. Miscellaneous costs: $25,000
The total annual cost of items 1 through 6 above is $1,000,000. Therefore, financial
assurance for annual cleanup costs in this amount may be appropriate. [Note: Actual
cleanup costs could be lower or higher for any given year. It should also be noted that total
cleanup costs at refineries may be much higher (see examples from other refineries provided
below).]
Conclusions and Recommendations
The estimated range of potential average annual cleanup costs using the approach
outlined above is $100,000 to $1,000,000. Other methods could also be used to calculate a
range of potential cleanup costs.*** However, as this is a proposed facility, the types,
amounts and distribution of contamination that could occur are not known. As such, the
estimates in this paper are valid based on our best professional judgment.
It is recommended that some type of financial assurance mechanism be established for
the proposed project to cover the potential range of cleanup costs discussed above. We
suggest that the MHA Nation establish a financial assurance mechanism in the mid-range of
these values as a conservative approach for planning for cleanups. The type and duration of
the instrument should be one that would be acceptable to all MOA parties.
Financial assurance for cleanup costs would be required under a RCRA permit as part of
corrective action. The type and amount of financial assurance would be specified in the
RCRA permit. A RCRA permit would be required for all alternatives except Alternative
4&A. Under Alternative 4&A, the facility would be a RCRA generator only, and would not
be subject to RCRA permitting requirements. In that case, EPA strongly recommends that a
financial assurance mechanism still be established to cover potential cleanup costs. This will
help ensure that the facility is properly cleaned-up during and after its operational life
regardless of the selected alternative.
-------
Supporting Information
Examples of RCRA Cleanup Cost at Selected Refineries:
Examples of RCRA cleanup costs at an existing and a former refinery are provided below:
-Existing Refinery: Giant Refining, Yorktown, Virginia. Period of operation: 1956-present. Production capacity:
approximately 56,000 barrels per day. Products include: gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, and liquid propane gas.
Approximate cleanup costs: $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 (Source: Robert Greaves, EPA Region 3)
-Former Refinery: BP Amoco, Casper Wyoming. Period of operation: 1912-1991. Former production capacity:
approximately 48,000 barrels per day. Products included: gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, liquid propane gas, and asphalt.
Approximate cleanup costs: >$100,000,000 (Source: Felix Flechas, EPA Region 8)
Notes:
* Under Alternative 4&A, the facility would be a RCRA generator only, and would not be subject to RCRA
permitting requirements which would include financial assurance for corrective action as appropriate.
** Legal counsel costs are not included.
*** There are other ways to calculate potential cleanup costs. For example, one could also estimate the size, type,
and duration of potential leaks, spills and releases. In that case, one could estimate the cubic yards of contaminated
soil and waste to be removed for treatment or off-site disposal. One could also estimate the amount of contaminated
ground water to be treated, etc. Models such as RACER (available from Earth Tech, Inc.) are available for
developing such cost estimates for existing facilities with known contamination. However, in this case (a proposed
facility) it may be difficult to come up with representative input parameters for such models.
-------
sent by : bZVifbttt STAFF 84-23-87 11:29 Pgr: 2/2
THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES p,,,,
Mandan, ffidatsa & Ankara Fort Berthold Reservation "
404 frontage Road New Town, North Dakota 58763-9402
Tiinw JtffBatad Trttes n**on)awn ite (TOD 527-3503
MANDAN * HIDATSA * ARIKARA
's Office
Mtmus to.VMk, Jr. '"Ee-Qa-toa-gis/i' I" April 2007
Mr, Robert B. Roberts, Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region VHI
1 595 Wynkoop Street
Denver, Colorado 80202-1 129
Re: TAT Clean Fuels Refinery Project
Dear Regional Administrator Roberts:
The Three Affiliated Tribes hereby confirm a commitment expressed during their
conference with BIA Regional Director William Benjamin held January 16, 2007. Of
course, that expression and this confirmation may apply only to the extent financial
assurance may or may not be required by circumstance, the permit or applicable law.
EPA correctly understands that the Tribes favor Option 4A. As you are aware, Option
4A would not require a RCRA permit or subsequent demonstration of financial assurance
because the refinery would operate as a generator rather than a storage facility. Even in
the very remotest scenario, it is highly unlikely mat the facility could ever store waste
beyond the 90-day threshold because me operation would dispose waste well before the
deadline.
Although the Tribes remain committed to pay for clean-up costs, selection of a specific
funding method is premature because any selection must reconcile with BIA, which is
unknown at this point The Tribes appreciate EPA's assistance in developing the
refinery, and look forward to completing this process. You may contact either Horace
Pipe at (701) 726-5894 or Roger Birdbear at (701) 6274781 for any questions regarding
this matter.
Tribal Chairma
Three Affiliated Tribes4
xc: Tribal Business Council
BIA Regional Director
Triad.
-------
JAN. 3.2
6052267358
NO. 4?*
D. 2
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
3425 Miriam Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501 *flg £.>.= '
3 C7
MEMORANDUM
AUG222008
^:;V:.PUIWS
To:
From:
Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Great Plains Rsfpon
Aberdeen, South Dakota
supervisor, North Dakota Field Office
Bismarck, North Dakota
Subj ect: Section 7 Consultation-en Ae-Psefesed Construction and
Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation's Clean Fuels Refinery
AU6302006
BRANCH OF NATURAL ScSOURCES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
(BIA) biological assessment related to the Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara (MHA) Nation's
proposal to construct and operate a clean fuels refinery on the Fort Berthold Reservation
in Ward County, North Dakota. The Service offers the following comments in
accordance with the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 153 et seq.).
The MHA Nation proposes to construct and operate a new 15,000 barrels per day clean
fuels refinery and produce forage for buffalo on a 469-acre tract of land on the Fort
Berthold Reservation located near Makoti, North Dakota (N1A, Sec. 19 and NW !/4> Sec.
20> T. 152N-,R. 87 W.. Ward County). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement'
(DEIS) has been prepared that analyzes the environmental impacts of the following
Federal decisions pertaining to the MHA Nation's proposed refinery;
* Whether the BIA should accept a 469-acre parcel into trust for purposes of the
MHA Nation's proposal to construct and operate a clean fuels petroleum refinery,
and produce buffalo forage;
Whether EPA should issue a NPDES permit for processed water discharges
associated with operation of the proposed refinery.
Both the EPA and BIA incorporated, into the DEIS, their respective biological
assessments and subsequent affect determinations as stipulated in the Endangered Species
Act, Section 7(c)(l). The Service's comments and concurrence language in this
memorandum pertain only to BIA's affect determination to threatened and endangered
species. A separate concurrence letter will be sent to EPA pertaining to their affect
determination.
BIA's biological assessment considered the affect of their proposed action (taking 469
acres of land into trust for purposes of the MHA Nation's, proposal to wmtiuU
propt
Routs
* Regional Director
^ Dopuy Regional Director
Date
-------
JAN. 3.2008 3:36PM 6052267358 NO, 4731 P. 3
operate a clean fuels petroleum refinery, and produce buffalo forage) upon the following
endangered, threatened or candidate species: gray wolf (Cams lupus), Dakota skipper
(Hasperia dacotae), interior least tern (Sterna antillarum), whooping crane (Grus
americana), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), and the piping plover (Charadrius melodus).
BIA has determined, through its biological assessment, that the construction and
operation alternatives discussed in the DEIS will have "no affect" on the gray wolf,
Dakota skipper, interior least tern, bald eagle, and pallid sturgeon. Further, BIA has
determined that the construction and operation alternatives "may affect, but are not likely
to adversely effect" piping plovers and whooping cranes. The "not likely to adversely
effect" determination is based on the required implementation of conservation measures
the Service suggested in a memorandum dated January 11,2006.
The ServisexoncuJs with botii the i%e-affectt'-aud-%tay-affect, not likely to adversely
effect" determinations. Under requirements of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act,
further consultation is not necessary. Should the construction and operation alternatives
change from those described in the DEIS, a reassessment of impacts to threatened or
endangered species and designated critical habitat is necessary.
The above comments and recommendations constitute the report of the Department of the
Interior on the proposed BIA action, and serves as notice that we do not object to the
action. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and if you have any
questions or require additional information, please contact Kevin Johnson of my staff at
(701) 250-4481, or at the letterhead address.
cc: EPA, Region 8, Water Program
(Arm: B. Kent)
USAGE, Bismarck Regulatory Office
X Cimarosti).
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
3425 Miriam Avenue
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
IAN
MEMORANDUM
To : Regional Director, Great Plains Region, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Aberdeen, South Dakota
-- *j->-_'
From: Field Supervisor, North Dakota Field Office
Bismarck, North Dakota
Subject: Development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation's Clean Fuels Refinery
In response to your December 8,2005, request, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The
DEIS discusses the Three Affiliated Tribes' (Tribes) request that the United States
Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) accept 469 acres of land into
trust status for the Tribes. This land is located within the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation boundaries. The Tribes plan to construct a clean fuels refinery on 160 acres
of the 468 acres, with the remaining land being used for the production of feed for
buffalo. The land proposed to be taken into trust is located in the northeast corner of the
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation along the south side of North Dakota Highway 23,
about 2 miles west of the tumoff to Makoti, North Dakota, in Sections 19 and 20 of
Township 152 North, Range 87 West.
The Service offers the following general and specific comments under the authority of
and in accordance with the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16
U.S.C. 661 et seq.), Migratory Bird Treat Act (16 (U.S.C. 703 et seq.), and the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
General Comments
Service Easements - The preferred alternative's newly constructed power lines and
pipelines would cross, or run adjacent to, parcels where the Service administers wetland
and grassland easements. Provisions of wetland easements prohibit draining, filling,
leveling or burning; and provisions of grassland easements prohibit alteration or
destruction of vegetative cover; and no haying, mowing, or seed harvesting until after
-------
July 15. BIA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will need to coordinate
with the Service's Audubon Wetland District Manager (701- 442-5474) and Lostwood
Wetland District Manager (701-848-2466) to ensure compliance with existing or new
right-of-ways in Ward and Mountrail Counties, respectively. The final EIS will need to
discuss project impacts and implications to the easement encumbrances.
Wetlands - The final EIS needs to discuss in detail a wetland mitigation plan. Several
wetlands will be impacted from construction activities outlined in the DEIS. These
construction activities are subject to permitting and authorization under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, and the provisions of Executive Order 11990. Thus, wetland
impacts also will need to be mitigated subject to 404 permitting and EO 11990. The
mitigation plan should outline acreages of wetlands impacted and mitigated, mitigation
type, location of mitigation, and future management of these mitigation areas. The
Service recommends unavoidable wetland losses be replaced on a functional value-for-
value basis. Additionally, trees or shrubs should also be replaced on a 2:1 basis. If
grasslands are disturbed during project construction, reseed disturbed areas with native
grass species. If construction is unavoidable in or near wetlands, the Service
recommends deferring the timing of construction to late summer (after July 15) or fall, so
as not to disrupt waterfowl or other wildlife during the nesting season and to avoid high
water conditions.
Constructed Ponds - The federally threatened piping plover breeds on wetlands within
close proximity (3 miles) to the proposed refinery site. Plovers breed and forage on un-
vegetated, gravel shorelines of wetlands. It is reasonable to expect that plovers would use
exposed shorelines of constructed ponds while foraging. Therefore, 4-6" rock (as
opposed to gravel) should be used to line exposed in-slopes of all wastewater/storage
ponds. Any ponds having the potential to hold contaminated water should be netted. The
larger rock and netting will prevent the creation of an attractive nuisance for piping
plovers and other migratory shorebirds.
Power Lines - The Service recommends for overhead lines that poles and other
construction be sited to avoid placement of fill in wetlands along the routes. Projects
which involve the burying of cable likely will not significantly affect wetlands, provided
precautions are taken during installation of underground facilities to restore the existing
basin contours and to compact trenches sufficiently through the wetlands to prevent any
drainage along the trench or through bottom seepage. Procedures similar to those for
wetlands should be applied in the restoration of stream channels.
To minimize the electrocution hazard to birds, the Service, with support from the Rural
Utilities Service, recommends that new or updated overhead power lines be constructed
in accordance with the current guidelines for preventing raptor electrocutions. The
recommended guidelines can be found in "Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on
Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1996". To increase power line visibility and reduce
bird fatalities resulting from collisions with power lines, the Service recommends new
power lines be modified according to "Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The
State of the Art in 1994". Both publications can be obtained by writing or calling the
-------
Edison Electric Institute, P.O. Box 266, Waldorf, Maryland, 20604-0266, (1-800-334-
5453) or visiting their website at \v\v\v. eei.org.
Threatened and Endangered Species - The current DEIS states the preferred alternative
will not affect any federally threatened or endangered species in North Dakota. The
Service does not concur with that determination at this time. The Service believes the
preferred alternative, as proposed in the DEIS, may affect, and is likely to adversely
affect, threatened piping plovers and endangered whooping cranes. As stated above,
without netting or use of proper substrate, the constructed ponds pose a risk to piping
plovers. Additionally, the proposed overhead power lines pose a collision risk to plovers
and endangered whooping cranes. Current and historic records show the proposed
construction area to be an important corridor for the movements of both these species.
However, if overhead power lines are either buried or have visual markers (as outlined in
"Mitigating Bird Collisions with Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1994"). and netting
and proper substrate are used on constructed ponds, then the preferred alternative may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, threatened piping plovers and endangered
whooping cranes.
Specific Comments
Page v: Delete "W^r-Fisk -awl ...... WiWW^^p^t?rB^»>afel^^>f»h-l4akito" as a
Cooperating Agency. The Service, in a December 12, 2005, memo to the BIA Great
Plains Regional Office declined to participate as a Cooperating Agency in development
oftheEIS.
Page xiv; par. 4: "BIA asked the FWS to participate as a cooperating agency
i-fs- aetiwf-»f»r-forthf^a-lt?H-etl-'tM-- e^hkH^t^^sf)^-H?vHt14e^^:h^4^b^
fh&A-K Jjtc I \\ s dcdj|Kd to partiupalt as a coupciatmg agency. A
uoliiariicipak1 .KS ,1 L-ixyuTJlnu: agcm \. it_did agree to pru\jdcJnj[mTn^hp_n and data
where Jicoy Id ..... and rcvieu dgcunients, BIA and EPA must determine if their decisions
about the parcels of land and refinery "may affect" species listed as threatened or
endangered or "adversely modify" critical habitats. If BIA or EPA determine their
decisions "may affect" a listed species or "adversely affect" critical habitat, they must
consult with FWS."
Page xv; par. 3: Delete "K-W-S"
Page 1-3, par. 4: "BIA asked the FWS to participate as a cooperating agency W,wse «
Us m-rthwM-y- for tlwatowtl w-ewkw«tH^ S|>tetfs Aft
ftaSA-). I he LVVS .declined to BlIlKinille asAe«H!£IMtIlIli itgytK}- .Although 1 \\ S will
"M iMEiicipatc. asiajjpojTcratimi agency,,!! ...... did . a.greejiLi)Hnjde mlormatjon and data
\\here it coy Uhyul ...... ivvje^loajments, BIA and EPA must determine if. . .
Page 1-4; par. 4: Delete "FWS"
-------
Page 1-7; 2nd column; 1st line: "Protects IcderaJiyJisied threatened or endangered species
Page 1-7; 3rd column; 1st line: "Any project activity that potentially affects species listed
as or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered, and^LOlciLdeskiialcd critical
habitats." ......... " ...... " .................................... ............... " ~
Page 1-7; 3rd column; 2nd line: "All jcdcriij (iJMQikiL rwrniiUoL or_ayii]iTn/ct!
activities."
Page 1-7; 3rd column; 3rd line: "All iMciaJlyJuiKJoUwi^ swfee*
4tstwNftg activities."
Page 3-59; Special-Status Species; 1st line: "Several species that occur or potentially
occur within the project area are classified as federally threatened or endangered. . ."
Page 3-63; par. 4: "FWS designated critical habitat for the Great Plains breeding
population of piping plovers on September 1 1, 2002. North Dakota, Nebraska, and South
Dakota contain critical habitat for the piping plover. Habitat included in the federal
designation includes midstream sandbars of the Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers and
along shorelines of saline wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). North Dakota
is the most important State in the U.S. Great Plains for nesting piping plovers. The
State's population of piping plovers was 496 breeding pairs in 1991 and 399 breeding
pairs in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). SjjvcraLiircas oMs^iaj^Umiiiij
..... 7 lUjJ.tLrattiusjir^yic^Trojcct site. jrjie_closcst
Page 3-64; par. 2: Delete the last sentence "NestttMi
t* R+ver-ftt MeKt?»/-»er4v1efet;rr«Htl
Page 6-1; par. 1: Delete "I- -W-S,"
Page 6-1; Table 6-3: Delete all of Table 6-3
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the DEIS. I look forward to
seeing another draft. If you have any questions, please have your staff contact Kevin
Johnson, of my staff, or contact me directly at (701) 250-4481 or at the letterhead
address.
-------
cc: Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council, New Town
environmental Protection Agency, Denver
(Attn; M, Morales)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bismarck
(Attn: D. Cimerosti)
Audubon Wetland District Manager, Coleharbor
Lostwood Wetland District Manager, Kenmare
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 6, Denver
(Attn: C. Young-Dubovsky)
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry
Atlanta GA 30333
February 28, 2007
Carol Campbell
Deputy Assistant Regional Administrator
US EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite #300
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Dear Ms. Campbell,
Please consider this letter as the response to your April 21,2006 request for ATSDR
assistance resolving public/environmental health concerns associated with development
of the proposed Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation (MHA) Clean Fuels Refinery at the
Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota. An initial ATSDR response letter,
dated July 25,2006, identified two specific areas where assistance/information could be
provided to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
1) "Coordinate a [supplemental] literature review summarizing what is known about the
adverse health effects (i.e. cancer and asthma) observed in communities living near
such refineries,"
2) "Conduct a baseline health assessment for the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation with
an emphasis on asthma and cancer."
ATSDR organized and worked closely with an interagency team to prepare a response to
EPA's request. Representatives from the EPA Region 8, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) (Great Plains Regional Office, Aberdeen, SD), and an Indian Health Service (IHS)
epidemiologist (Aberdeen, SD), met monthly with ATSDR to identify and obtain the
necessary public health information. Assistance was also obtained from the North
Dakota Health Department, and the Public Health Agency of Canada officials
(Edmonton, Alberta).
ATSDR reviewed the available literature and public health information. The literature
citations, public health and epidemiological information used by ATSDR to conduct the
supplemental literature and the chemical review and the baseline health assessment are
enclosed.
-------
Below are summaries of the ATSDR activities:
1) Supplemental Literature Review
The goal of the literature review was to identify References and information not
already cited in the draft EPA Environmental Impact Statement. The literature
review targeted information pertaining to health ^utcomes of residents living near
a refinery. The review also attempted to identify
compounds present in the oil industry that might
and describe chemicals and
be related to cancer (e.g. criteria
air contaminants, volatile organic compounds, and polycychc aromatic
hydrocarbons). To conduct the supplemental literature review, ATSDR queried
staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Library Resources
who conducted a search, searched using the National Library of Medicine's
PubMed, and contacted several air quality researjchers and experts. The CDC
Library Resources staff found 30 different sources of information; three articles
were newly identified. Review of these articles j-evealed that health outcome
studies conducted of conventional refineries usiijg old technology did not
adequately represent potential exposures that mikht result from the new
technological processes at the proposed MHA Cfean Fuels Refinery. Researchers
and experts in air quality and adverse health outcomes associated with refineries
were also contacted. These contacts shared industry-specific reports for projects
in western Canada during the years 2001-2006 regarding chemicals of concern
for an increased cancer risk. The list of chemicals of concern was included in the
document, "Literature Review and Summary of JPotential Adverse Health Effects
Associated with Living near and/or Working at &n Oil Refinery."
2) Baseline Risk Assessment for Cancer and Asthma, Nf>rth Dakota
CancerOccupational studies of workers who have been exposed to high levels
of oil or gasoline have indicated an increased incidence in cancers of the kidney
and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Attached is the document, "Baseline Health
Assessment for Cancer and Asthma, North Dak<
ita;" Appendix A includes the
reported age-adjusted average annual cancer incidence (per 100,000 population)
for kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphom^ in North Dakota between the
years 1997-2004 for McLean, Mountrail, and WJard counties and for North
Dakota; data were from the North Dakota Cance> Registry. The reported
incidence of these cancers among persons living in these three counties is similar
to the rate in all persons living in North Dakota. The small population size in
each of the three counties hinders the ability to statistically detect changes in
cancer rates.
AsthmaATSDR used asthma data collected fifom the North Dakota Department
of Health to determine baseline data regarding the prevalence of asthma among
adults and children living in North Dakota. Betjveen 2001 and 2005, the
prevalence rate of lifetime asthma among North Dakota adults ranged from 9.1%
-------
to 11.1%. In 2005, the lifetime asthma prevalence
Dakota was 9.7% (range 7.8% to 11.6%).
surveillance, the prevalence rates of lifetime
were similar to the U.S. and American Indian
The method used to assess asthma prevalence rat
detection of changes in asthma incidence at the county
rate among children in North
According to self-reported asthma
asthma in adults in North Dakota
prevalence rates during this period.
es hinders the statistical
r-level.
ATSDR appreciates the assistance provided by the EPA,
Agency of Canada and the State of North Dakota. Please
questions or comments regarding this response.
Sincerely,
BIA, fflS, the Public Health
contact me if you have any
G. David Williamson, PhD
Director
Division oft Health Studies
Agency for
Registry
Toxic Substances and Disease
cc
Tina Forster, Director, Division of Regional Operations
(DRO), ATSDR
Clement Welsh, Deputy Director, DRO, ATSDR
Dan Strausbaugh, DRO, Region VHI, ATSDR
Chris Poulet, DRO, Region VHI, ATSDR
Steve Wharton, EPA, Region VIII
Diane Mann-Klager, BIA Great Plains Regional Office
Sarah Patrick, IHS Contract Epidemiologist
Stephen Pickard, Medical Epidemiologist, North Dakot^ Department of Health
Enclosures:
1. Literature Review and Summary of Potential Adverse
Living near and/or Working at an Oil Refinery
2. Baseline Health Assessment for Cancer and Asthma^ North
3. Appendix A. Average Annual Incidence Rates for S
and McLean, Mountrail and Ward Counties, 1997-'
Registry
4. Appendix B. Childhood Reported Asthma, North
Health Effects Associated with
Dakota
lected Cancers, North Dakota
, North Dakota Cancer
2004
DiJcota
-------
Appendix E - Response to Comments
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response to Comments
on the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
MHA Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly published
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's
Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery Project in June 2006. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) is a
cooperating agency for this National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis and the Three Affiliated
Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation [MHA Nation]) is a Cooperating Sovereign Nation.
BIA and EPA announced the availability of the DEIS and the start of the public comment period in the
Federal Register (Volume 71, Number 125, Pages 37092-37093), in press releases and mailed
announcements on June 29, 2006. BIA and EPA held seven public hearings on the DEIS in Twin Buttes,
White Shield, Parshall, Mandaree, New Town, and Makoti, North Dakota between July 31 and August 5,
2006. Written comments were received until September 14, 2006. Comments (questions and statements)
received orally at the hearings were recorded by a court reporter. Additional written comments were
received on comment cards at these hearings and in letters to BIA and/or EPA.
This Response to Comments document is organized by topic categories so that similar comments can be
responded to collectively. The overall topics for the comments received are:
National Environmental Policy Act Process
(DEIS Information and Public Participation)
Government Responsibilities
(EPA, BIA, Tribal Government and Joint Responsibilities)
Project Definition
(Project Description and Technologies and Alternatives)
Environmental Impacts
(Geology, Ground Water, Surface Water, Solid and Hazardous Wastes, Vegetation, Wildlife,
Cultural Resources, Air Quality, Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, Human Health)
Emergencies, Spills and Safety
Closure
During the public review period, BIA and EPA received 31 letters submitted by individuals and
organizations; 65 people testified at the seven public hearings on the DEIS and 20 comment cards were
submitted during the public hearings. BIA and EPA have reviewed and evaluated every letter, card, and
oral statement submitted during the public review period. To effectively and efficiently summarize and
respond to the comments, the agencies: (1) organized by topic and subtopic, an outline of issues raised
(see Response to Comments Table of Contents); (2) evaluated each issue raised in every written or oral
statement; (3) categorized each issue and as appropriate, included issues in corresponding topics and
August 2009 E-1 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
subtopics; and (4) responded to every categorized comment. Generally, BIA and EPA used the
following approach to responding to comments received on the DEIS:
When a comment requests further information, the response has been written to point out where
in the DEIS the requested information can be found; why such information is not relevant, not
available, or not needed; or indicate where new information or clarification of existing
information has been added in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
When a comment challenges information on a specific topic, the response was developed to
explain why the information presented was correct, or indicate that inaccurate or unclear
information in the DEIS information has been corrected in the FEIS.
When a comment expressed concern about specific topics or issues addressed in the DEIS, if the
concern is relevant to the environmental impacts analysis, the response explains how the issue is
adequately addressed in the DEIS, how it is adequately addressed in the FEIS by the addition of
new information or by clarification of existing information, or why it cannot or should not be
addressed.
The agencies received numerous comments to which no responses are required. Many
commenters expressed personal opinions, histories or experiences which are not appropriately
addressed as part of the NEPA process. Some comments reflect differences in opinions or
preferred outcomes, to which an agency response is not appropriate.
Following this approach, BIA and EPA have considered, evaluated, and as appropriate, responded to all
comments received. Most comments have been responded to directly in the Response to Comments.
Some responses in this document reflect revisions made in the FEIS and/or technical reports. The public
comments received on the DEIS have been included in the FEIS as an appendix on CD-ROM. Individual
commenter's names are obscured in the transcripts, comment cards and comment letters due to several
requests for anonymity. The names of individuals representing corporations, government entities or
organizations remain in the comments. Individuals who would like information on where and how their
comments were addressed may contact: Steve Wharton in EPA's Office of Partnerships and Regulatory
Assistance at 303-312-6935.
August 2009 E-2 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. NEPA PROCESS 5
A.I. Adequacy of Information and Requests for Additional Information 5
A.2. Availability of DEIS Information 7
A.3. DEIS Public Participation Process 8
B. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 12
B.I. EPA Responsibilities 12
B.2. BIA Responsibilities 12
B.3. Tribal Government Responsibilities 16
B.4. Joint Government Responsibilities 17
C. PROJECT DEFINITION 20
C.I. Project Description and Technologies 20
C.I.(a). Support For and Opposition To the Refinery 20
C.l.(b). Project Description 20
C.l.(c). Design and Technology 23
C.l.(d). Cost and Employment 25
C.l.(e). Future Expansion 26
C.2. Project Alternatives 26
C.2.(a). Alternate Economic Development 26
C.2.(b). Alternate Site Location 26
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 27
D.I. Geology 27
D.2. Ground Water 27
D.2.(a). Ground Water Resources, Impacts and Contamination 27
D.2.(b). Underground Injection Control 29
D.2.(c). Uses of the Ground Water and Water Supply 29
D.2.(d). Ground Water Monitoring 31
D.2.(e). Ground Water Mitigation 31
D.3. Surface Water Resources 32
D.3.(a). Surface Water Impacts 32
D.3.(b). NPDES Permit 33
D.3.(c). Water Quality Standards 35
D.3.(d). Surface Water Quantity 36
D.3.(e). Surface Water Monitoring 37
D.3.(f). Surface Water Mitigation 37
D.4. Hazardous Waste and RCRA 38
D.5. Vegetation 39
D.5.(a). Agricultural Impacts 39
August 2009 E-3 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
D.5.(b). Wetlands 41
D.6. Wildlife 43
D.7. Cultural Resources 46
D.8. Air Quality 46
D.8.(a). Air Quality Impacts 46
D.8.(b). Cumulative Air Impacts 48
D.8.(c). Permitting and Emissions 50
D.8.(d). Air Quality Monitoring 58
D.8.(e). Climate Change 60
D.9. Socioeconomics 61
D.10. Environmental Justice 64
D.ll. Human Health 67
E. EMERGENCIES, SPILLS AND SAFETY 72
F. CLOSURE 75
F.I. Cleanup 75
F.2. Financial Assurance 76
August 2009 E-4 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
A. NEPA PROCESS
A.1. ADEQUACY OF INFORMATION AND REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION
Comment 1: Comments stated the DEIS is inadequate and/or should be withdrawn so that more
adequate analysis, more detailed analysis and more complete disclosure of "actual" impacts could be
included. A related comment stated the DEIS frequently discounts impacts or characterizes them as
benign and that the DEIS instills a false sense of security. Comments asserted all information on
impacts was based on projections and not facts and even when information was provided it was
technical and very difficult to interpret. Comments also asserted new circumstances and information
provided by commenters are significant enough that the DEIS should be rewritten.
Response 1: BIA and EPA prepared the DEIS analysis of projected environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project and alternatives in a manner consistent with the requirements of NEPA. The
DEIS Affected Environment chapter provides factual information on the current conditions of various
environmental resources and the DEIS Environmental Consequences chapter includes our agencies'
analysis of potential impacts from the proposed project and alternatives. This approach provides
information on both the existing conditions and the potential environmental impacts from the proposed
project and alternatives, consistent with the requirements of NEPA. When commenters identified
specific DEIS omissions, inconsistencies and/or confusing information presented in the DEIS, the
agencies have addressed those comments in the FEIS to the extent possible with the information
available. For example, the FEIS clarifies the analysis and information in the air impacts and
environmental justice sections, and the health and safety section includes additional baseline
information on human health. While we recognize it is always possible, and from some perspectives
also desirable, to expand the information in a NEPA document, there must be some realistic limits on
the scope and time allotted for the environmental analysis. The DEIS content and public participation
processes provided for meaningful opportunities for public participation and are consistent with the
requirements of NEPA.
Comment 2: A comment stated that the DEIS and information provided by the project proponent and
consultants are extremely deficient due to the failure to identify air emissions and because they
provide no security that these emissions will be limited through permit conditions.
Response 2: Table 4-14 in the DEIS (page 4-105) provides information regarding projected air
emissions from the facility. The Air Quality section in Chapter 4 of the FEIS includes additional
information on air emissions. Based on the projected emissions, a Clean Air Act Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) (related to construction) permit is not required. The refinery will be
subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) under the Clean Air Act that will apply to
various units and equipment at the refinery. The NSPS in effect when the DEIS went out for public
review did not require the refinery to obtain a Title V (operating) permit. However, since that time,
the requirement for a Title V permit (operating) was triggered upon the publication of new source
NSPS Subpart GGGa. {FEIS changes in Section 4.13.1.1}
Comment 3: There was a request that more information from the Air Quality Technical Report be
incorporated in readable form into the EIS so that it is readily available.
August 2009 E-5 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 3: EPA has summarized relevant portions of the revised Air Quality Technical Report
(December 2007) and included the summaries in the Air Quality section of Chapter 4 in the FEIS.
{FEIS changes in Section 4.13.1.1}
Comment 4: A comment stated that the DEIS did not adequately address previously-made scoping
comments, including comments on Environmental Justice, various resources, socioeconomic issues,
cumulative effects, etc. There was also a request for new scoping for this project.
Response 4: Scoping is an important part of the EIS process and is conducted to identify significant
environmental issues for analysis. NEPA scoping regulations require solicitation of public input but
do not prescribe the exact method of public participation. During the scoping phase for this project,
BIA provided public notice of the scoping process from November 7, 2003 to December 8, 2003, BIA
and EPA provided opportunity for public review and comment on the draft scoping report of the EIS
from October 1, 2004 to November 18, 2004, held a public meeting on November 9, 2004, at which
representatives from both the BIA and EPA were present, and developed a Final Scoping Report.
Therefore, BIA and EPA consider that there has been adequate scoping for this project and decline the
request for a new scoping process. The Agencies believe the EIS documents adequately address the
issues raised during the scoping process.
Comment 5: A comment noted that BIA was previously asked for a copy of "the feedstock" and had
not received a response.
Response 5: Requests were made for copies of the FrontEnd Engineering Design (FEED) study from
BIA. The FEED study was conducted for the Tribes by their consultants. The Tribes have not
provided, nor are required to provide, the study to either BIA or EPA. Individuals requesting this
study were informed that they should request the information from the Tribes. BIA and EPA
requested and received information from MHA Nation and their consultants pertinent to various
analyses for the NEPA process and technical report completion that may have been part of the FEED
study.
Comment 6: A comment requested information on who prepared the DEIS.
Response 6: Persons who prepared the DEIS and their affiliation were listed in Chapter 6.0 of the
DEIS.
Comment 7: A comment asked why the process of refinery approval is taking such a long time and
how long the Tribes will have to wait for the refinery.
Response 7: The refinery must be evaluated under the NEPA process because it involves major
federal actions that may significantly affect the human environment. For this project, BIA's decision
on accepting the land into trust status and EPA's issuance of a Clean Water Act National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit invoke NEPA and the federal agencies are required to
conduct an environmental analysis as part of the decision-making process. The NEPA process has
specific requirements that must be met and that take time. The NEPA process also includes public
involvement periods that have prescribed minimum timeframes. Generally, the more complex a
project the more time required to adequately analyze the environmental impacts for the decision-
making process.
August 2009 E-6 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
A.2. AVAILABILITY OF DEIS INFORMATION
Comment 1: There were requests for copies of the appendices and technical reports and concerns that
information from the appendices, and technical reports needed to be reviewed but were not readily
available. Several comments expressed concerns regarding the time it took to receive the DEIS and/or
the technical reports. It was noted that access to technical information was hindered by lack of
computer/internet access by Tribal members.
Response 1: The agencies mailed copies of the DEIS to individuals on the mailing list on the same
date that the notice of the availability of the DEIS appeared in the Federal Register. Upon request,
technical reports were also mailed to interested parties. The agencies posted the DEIS and technical
reports on the Internet for review or download (with the exception of the Environmental Justice (EJ)
report as discussed below). Copies of the DEIS were also available for public review in each of the
MHA Nation segment offices and at the garage in Makoti, ND. Documents were available for public
review at the following 11 locations: Bureau of Indian Affairs (Aberdeen, SD and New Town, ND),
EPA Region 8 Library (Denver, CO), Three Affiliated Tribes (Legal Department and Office of the
Secretary in New Town, ND), Twin Buttes Segment Office, White Shield Segment Office, Parshall
Segment Office, Mandaree Segment Office, Four Bears Segment Office, North Segment Office and
Rensch Garage in Makoti, ND. Addresses for these offices were included in the public notice and
posted on EPA's web site for this project. Addresses and phone numbers of whom to contact in order
to receive (paper) copies of these documents were also provided in the notice and on the web.
Requests for further information on the DEIS were directed to those same contacts. These contacts
were available to assist the public in accessing available information, and to ensure that all questions
related to the DEIS were addressed.
Comment 2: Several comments asked how EPA developed the draft "Three Affiliated Tribes
Environmental Justice Analysis". Comments also questioned why EPA and BIA released the DEIS
for public comment in June 2006, but EPA did not release the draft Environmental Justice analysis
until August 2006. Comments stated that the DEIS erroneously listed June 2006 as the publication
date for the Environmental Justice analysis and expressed concern that they did not have adequate time
to consider and respond to the Environmental Justice analysis.
Response 2: During the summer of 2006, EPA Region 8 developed guidance on incorporating EJ into
the Region's permitting process. In anticipation of the issuance of this guidance, Region 8
commenced preparation of an Environmental Justice Tier 1 analysis related to the possible issuance of
a Clean Water Act NPDES permit for the MHA Nation's proposed refinery project. The EJ Tier 1
analysis was prepared using EPA's "Tool Kit for Assessing Potential Allegations of Environmental
Justice." On August 1, 2006, Region 8 issued guidance entitled "Incorporating Environmental Justice
in the Permitting Process." The guidance calls for EPA to determine the appropriate type of EJ
assessment that should be conducted for a particular permit (i.e., screening level, level 1, level 2). The
guidance further calls for EPA to evaluate, respond to, and address comments on the EJ assessment or
other EJ concerns raised during the permit comment period.
While the EJ analysis included in the DEIS satisfies the legal requirements for analysis pursuant to
NEPA and its implementing regulations, EPA determined that because the additional information
contained in the draft EJ Tier 1 analysis was relevant to the analysis, it would be helpful to reference
this report. The draft EJ Tier 1 analysis was completed in August 2006, rather than in June 2006, as
referenced in the DEIS. The erroneous reference has been corrected. EPA released the draft EJ Tier 1
analysis as soon as it was completed in August 2006. A revised EJ Tier 1 analysis has been prepared
for the FEIS, Environmental Justice Tier One Analysis for the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Ankara 'Nation's
August 2009 E-7 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
"Clean Fuels Refinery" Project, December 21, 2007. The analysis is available as a technical report
and is available on EPA's web site or upon request.
Comment 3: Comment stated the final Scoping Report was not made publicly available until before
the release of the DEIS, preventing the public from providing an adequate review and comment on the
DEIS.
Response 3: The final scoping report was completed in April 2005. The scoping report was not
required to be distributed for public review. The report is available as part of the public record. In
addition as discussed on page 2-2 of the DEIS, a draft of the Scoping Report was available for public
comment in fall of 2004 and BIA and EPA held a public hearing on November 9, 2004, to take
comments on the draft Scoping Report and gather additional information on the proposed scope of the
EIS. The Scoping Report and public comment received on the draft Scoping Report was used by BIA,
EPA, and the EIS contractors in preparing the DEIS.
A.3. DEIS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Comment 1: There were a number of requests for additional time to comment on the Draft EIS,
technical reports and/or NPDES permit. These comments stated that the comment period coincided
with Tribal cultural, social and spiritual events. Deaths of Tribal members, mourning periods,
funerals, pow-wows, sundances, school preparations, and campaigns were given as examples.
Comments questioned the timing of the public comment period. Comments also stated that such a
large and technical document requires time and concentration to review, that the original 60-day
comment period was not sufficient time to review of the documents, and also stated that the 14-day
extension granted during the hearing process was insufficient.
Response 1: The length of the public comment period is a balance between maintaining a reasonable
schedule to complete the environmental review for the project and seeking public comment on the
environmental impacts of the proposed action. The Council on Environmental Quality established
regulations requiring a minimum of 45 days for public review and opportunity to comment on a DEIS.
Section 40 CFR 1506.10. BIA's policy and procedures call for a minimum of 60 days for comment on
a DEIS. BIA's NEPA Handbook, 30 BIAM Supplement 1. The development of this EIS began prior
to BIA's revision of the NEPA Handbook, 59 IAM 3-H, in May 2005, which establishes a 45-day
comment period.
The timing for the public comment period was dictated by when the DEIS was completed. The
agencies worked to complete the DEIS in as expeditious a manner as possible given the complexity of
the project.
EPA and BIA recognize that reviewing a DEIS takes time that would otherwise be used differently.
However, we believe two months should be sufficient time to accommodate such a review, particularly
when an additional two weeks were added to the initial 60 days in order to assist those who had not yet
completed their review. In addition, there were question and answer sessions prior to each of the
public hearings which were attended by BIA, EPA, as well as representatives from the Tribes and their
contractors. This afforded the public time to ask questions about the NEPA process, permitting
requirements, and technical aspects of the project. The agencies extended the comment period from
August 29, 2006 to September 14, 2006, for a total of 76 days. The agencies consider 76 days to be
adequate time to review this DEIS.
Comment 2: Comment requested that EPA withdraw the NPDES permit comment period until the
DEIS is re-done or at least extended another 90 days.
August 2009 E-8 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 2: EPA felt that the public notice of the NPDES permit together with the DEIS and the
associated public hearings would provide more information to the public than public noticing the
NPDES separately. EPA followed the timeframe of the DEIS and any extensions granted for the DEIS
review were also granted for the NPDES permit. After the FEIS wait period, the EPA will issue a
record of decision (ROD) regarding issuance of the EPA's NPDES permit. Following issuance of the
final decision (ROD), EPA will issue the final permit. The effective date of the permit will be 30 days
following issuance.
Comment 3: Comment stated the public participation process was insufficient and suggested that
opportunities for public education on NEPA and more systematic efforts to involve communities in
NEPA were needed, citing the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, report of the
Environmental Justice Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Roundtable, U.S. EPA, Oct. 1996.
Comments stated there was a lack of educational opportunities for the public to learn about the pros
and cons of the refinery and a lack of concern for ensuring the public was educated about the refinery
resulted in an absence of trust in those associated with the refinery.
Response 3: Recognizing the dispersed population in the project vicinity, BIA and EPA provided
additional opportunities for public outreach than are typically offered and more outreach than that
prescribed by the NEPA regulations. BIA and EPA conducted public hearings at seven different
locations, and copies of the DEIS were provided at 11 different locations (nine of which were local to
the project area) as well as on two internet sites. In addition, the comment period on the DEIS was
initially 60 days, rather than the prescribed 45 days and the agencies extended the comment deadline
by two weeks. BIA and EPA also set up one-hour listening sessions before each of the public hearings
to provide the public an opportunity to ask questions about the EIS, the project and the NEPA process.
Comment 4: Comment inquired about whether there are loans/grants available for public outreach and
education to assist Tribal members in learning about environmental issues.
Response 4: There are two kinds of grants available: Environmental Justice Small Grants (EJSG) and
Community for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Program grants. EJSG are competitive grants
designed to provide funding for eligible applicants working on, or planning to work on, a project that
addresses a local environmental and/or public health issue within an affected community. The EJSG
Program is a multi-statute program designed to help communities understand and address their
exposure to multiple environmental harms and risks. The primary purposes of the proposed projects
should be to create and/or develop collaborative partnerships, educate the community, develop a
comprehensive understanding of environmental and/or public health issues, and identify ways to
address these issues at the local level.
The long-term goals of the EJSG Program are to help build the capacity of an affected community and
create self-sustaining, community-based partnerships that will continue to improve local environments
in the future. An eligible applicant must be either: a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization as designated
by the Internal Revenue Service; or a non-profit organization, recognized by the state, territory,
commonwealth, or tribe in which it is located. In addition, an eligible applicant must be able to
demonstrate that is it has worked directly with, or provided services to, the affected community.
An "affected community" for the purposes of this program, is a community that is disproportionately
impacted by environmental harms and risks and has a local environmental and/or public health issue
that is identified in the proposal. The focus of this assistance agreement program is to build the
capacity of community-based organizations to address environmental and/or public health issues at the
local level. These assistance agreements require that each project must include activities that are
related to Federal environmental statutes including the: Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act,
Solid Waste Disposal Act, Clean Air Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Federal Insecticide,
August 2009 E-9 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. For more
information, please refer to: http://www.epa. gov/compliance/environmentaljustice/grants/index.html.
The Community for a Renewed Environment (CARE) Program is a unique competitive, community-
based, community driven, multimedia demonstration program designed to help communities
understand and reduce risks due to toxics and environmental pollutants from all sources. The CARE
grant program will help communities form collaborative partnerships, develop a comprehensive
understanding of the many sources of risk from toxics and environmental pollutants, set priorities, and
identify and carry out projects to reduce risks through collaborative action at the local level. CARE's
long term goal is to help communities build self-sustaining, community-based partnerships that will
continue to improve human health and local environments into the future. EPA awards two types of
cooperative agreements under this program: Level I and Level II cooperative agreements. Level I
cooperative agreements will support the following types of activities: forming community-based
collaborative partnerships; developing a comprehensive understanding of the many sources of risk
from toxics and environmental pollutants; and setting community risk reduction priorities. The Level
II cooperative agreements will fund activities to identify and demonstrate actual risk reduction projects
"on the ground" in their community. Level II agreements are for communities that have already
completed the actions typically taken in a Level I agreement. However, receipt of a Level I
cooperative agreement is not a prerequisite to receiving a Level II cooperative agreement.
To be selected for funding, a project must consist of activities within the statutory terms of EPA's
research and demonstration grant authorities. Most of the statutes authorize financial assistance for the
following activities: "research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and
studies."
Local, public non-profit institution/organizations, Federally recognized Indian Tribal government,
Native American organizations, Private nonprofit institution/organizations, quasi-public nonprofit
institution/organizations both interstate and intrastate, local government, colleges, and universities are
all eligible. For more information, please refer to: www.epa.gov/care. For other grants that may be
available please check: www.grants.gov
Comment 5: Comment requested that EPA hold additional public hearings on the EIS after the EJ
analysis is available.
Response 5: The federal agencies will consult with the Tribes prior to issuance of the FEIS, but will
not schedule additional public hearings. EPA and BIA are planning to hold a public meeting or open
house after the FEIS is published.
Comment 6: Comment stated there is a silent majority of individuals who would not come to the
hearing to speak, so it is much better for the agencies to go out and talk to people. Comments stated
concerns of intimidation; fears of retaliation by the Tribal government, including the potential to
exacerbate lay-offs that were underway during this time period; general reluctance to participate based
on historical suspicions of government motives and oppression. A comment also stated that rebuttals
during the public meetings were "attacks" on commenters.
Response 6: The agencies and Tribal representatives have been available throughout the NEPA
process via phone or through correspondence. In addition, EPA and BIA conducted a public hearing
on the scoping report in 2004. Before the public hearing on the scoping report, a meeting was held
with concerned citizens and EPA's Environmental Justice staff on community issues. There were
question and answer sessions prior to each of the public hearings for the DEIS which were attended by
BIA, EPA, and representatives from the Tribes and their contractors. These sessions afforded the
August 2009 E-10 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
public time to ask questions about the NEPA process, permitting requirements, and technical aspects
of the project.
Judge Elyana Sutin, who presided over the public hearings, encouraged participants to mail, hand
carry, or telefax written comments on the DEIS to the EPA and BIA, if speaking publicly was
uncomfortable. Specific contact information was provided in a brochure available at the hearings, and
comment cards were handed out to participants who that might want to submit written statements.
Judge Sutin stated in her opening instructions that rebuttals to someone else's comments were not
appropriate. This was reinforced during some testimonies, so that any rebuttals that did occur were cut
short.
Comment 7: Comment criticized the absence of BIA and EPA at the early (September 2003)
meetings about the project where the commenter claimed Tribal officials and Triad were promoting
the project and giving the impression that it was a "done deal", but did not provide information about
the project or its impacts or appear receptive to open dialog or expressed concerns.
Response 7: The September 2003 meetings referenced in this comments were informational meetings
organized by the Tribal government and were not part of the formal NEPA process, thus federal
agency representatives were not present. The meetings occurred prior to the start of the formal
scoping process for the EIS which began on November 7, 2003 with the publication of the Notice of
Intent to Prepare an EIS in the Federal Register. The meetings provided information about the
proposed refinery and NEPA process. Comments received during these meetings were considered by
the Tribes and Federal Agencies.
Comment 8: Comment indicated concern about the length of time to speak at the public hearings and
questioned why the Tribal Chairman was afforded time to make an opening statement at each of the
hearings.
Response 8: Each presenter at the public hearings was afforded at least 5 minutes to make a
statement. Most people were provided as much time as they needed; however, in order to provide time
for everyone, some were asked to conclude their statements when they had spoken for over 20
minutes. If time was available at the end of the public hearing, speakers were allowed to continue
giving testimony. Many speakers spoke at several of the seven public hearings. The Tribal Chairman,
as spokesperson for the project and in recognition of the Tribes' status as a Cooperating Sovereign
Nation for this DEIS, was offered the opportunity to make an opening statement at each of the public
hearings.
Comment 9: Comments expressed concern that EPA's Environmental Justice staff did not respond to
requests for assistance during the development of the DEIS.
Response 9: In late 2004, the Fort Berthold Environmental Awareness Committee (the "Committee")
requested a meeting with EPA EJ staff to discuss the proposed refinery project. EPA EJ staff met with
the Committee in November 2004. EPA EJ staff attempted on numerous occasions to follow up on
this initial meeting with the Committee's designated point of contact. EPA also sought assistance in
these efforts from the Indigenous Environmental Network. In spite of these early efforts, EPA EJ staff
and the Committee did not engage in further substantive discussions until April 2006.
Comment 10: Comment requested further opportunities for questions to be answered.
Response 10: Diane Mann-Klager of BIA can be reached at 605-226-7621 and Steve Wharton of
EPA can be reached at 303-312-6935 for further questions regarding the EIS. Bob Brobst of EPA can
be reached at 303-312-6129 for questions regarding the NPDES permit.
August 2009 E-11 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
B. GOVERNMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
B.1. EPA RESPONSIBILITIES
Comment 1: Comments stated EPA should proceed with the NPDES permitting process so the
refinery can be built and the federal agencies should remain focused on the issues, such as NPDES
permitting and not stray into issues unrelated to the regulatory process.
Response 1: EPA and BIA are required by NEPA to analyze the impacts of major federal actions on
the human environment. By statute and policy, the federal agencies are required to look at the full
range of impacts on the environment, cultural resources, and socioeconomics regardless of agency
regulatory authority. EPA and BIA cannot complete their actions on this project until an adequate
NEPA analysis has been completed.
Comment 2: Comment that EPA should provide additional expertise specifically on oil refinery air
emissions to reassess the project, including review of the project's lack of a PSD permit far beyond
minimal assessment provided by the project proponents and their consultants.
Response 2: EPA staff with oil refinery expertise have evaluated the emissions information for the
project and reached the conclusion that a PSD permit (construction permit under the Clean Air Act) is
not required for the refinery based on the proposed equipment, emissions projections, and feedstocks.
Comment 3: Comment indicating concern about how well-funded and qualified EPA will be to
monitor the refinery.
Response 3: The majority of monitoring requirements under EPA permits are conducted by the
permitted facility. However, EPA will occasionally inspect the facility and monitor wastewater
discharges. If a RCRA TSD permit is not required for the facility (Alternative 4 and A), it is unlikely
that EPA would monitor ground water. Some unit specific monitoring for air quality will be required
under the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). Additionally, the Tribes' Environmental
Program plans to install and operate a new "ambient" air quality monitoring station near the refinery.
The ambient monitoring station will not specifically monitor air emissions from the refinery. Instead
the monitoring station will collect background air quality data near the site for SO2, NO2 and PM2 5;
and meteorological conditions prior to construction and operation of the refinery. Air quality data for
the same pollutants will be collected during operation of the refinery and compared to the background
data to verify the modeling results of minimal impacts from the refinery to the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS).
B.2. BIA RESPONSIBILITIES
Comment 1: There were comments regarding BIA's process for acquiring the land into United States
ownership in trust for the Tribes. These comments included questions on acquisition of land into trust
status that may become contaminated, burden on taxpayers, and burdens on the BIA Fort Berthold
Agency.
Response 1: The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, 25 USC § 465, is the general source of authority
for the Secretary of the Interior to acquire land for Indians. The land acquisition policy for the
Secretary of the Interior is provided in 25 CFR Part 151. The authority to acquire land in trust status
for this application is considered discretionary by the Secretary as the acquisition is not mandated by
legislation. This proposed acquisition is considered to be an on-reservation acquisition as this property
lies within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold Reservation. Therefore, the BIA must consider
August 2009 £-72 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
all of the criteria listed in 25 CFR Part 151-Land Acquisitions, including those requirements listed for
on-reservation acquisitions in 25 CFR § 151.10, when reviewing the Tribes' application for acquisition
of this land in trust status. These criteria are:
a. the existence of statutory authority for the acquisition and limitations contained in such authority;
b. the need of the individual Indian or the tribe for additional land;
c. the purposes for which the land will be used;
d. if the land is to be acquired for an individual Indian, the amount of trust or restricted land already
owned by or for that individual and the degree to which assistance in handling their affairs is
needed;
e. if the land is to be acquired in unrestricted fee status, the impact on the State and its political
subdivisions resulting from the removal of the land from the tax rolls;
f jurisdictional problems and potential conflicts of land use which may arise;
g. if the land to be acquired is in fee status, whether the BIA is equipped to discharge the additional
responsibilities resulting from the acquisition of land in trust status; and
h. the extent to which the applicant has provided information that allows the Secretary to comply
with 516 DM 6, Appendix 4, National Environmental Policy Act Revised Implementing
Procedure, and 602 DM 2, Land Acquisitions: Hazardous Substances Determinations.
Originally, the authority to acquire on-reservation land into trust was delegated to the Fort Berthold
Superintendent pursuant to authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8,
230 DM 1, to the Great Plains Regional Director by 3 IAM 4 (Release No. 00-03), and to the
Superintendents by Great Plains Regional Addendum 3 IAM 4 (Release No. 0502). In April 2007, the
Regional Director, under his authority as delegated from the Secretary, assumed jurisdiction for
decision from the Fort Berthold Agency to his office. In April 2008, the Assistant Secretary - Indian
Affairs assumed jurisdiction to make a final determination regarding the Tribes' application due to
take the land on which the refinery would be constructed into trust.
The Assistant Secretary must consider each of the above criteria in his decision whether or not to
acquire the land in trust status. The criteria are not weighted or ranked as to importance. The analysis
of the criteria must be included in the Administrative Record of the decision for this application.
The State and its political subdivisions have provided information on the impacts of removal of this
land from the tax rolls. The information has been provided to the Tribes for response. This will be
considered with the other criteria in the decision on this application.
The Department must analyze whether the BIA is equipped to discharge the additional responsibilities
resulting from the acquisition of land in trust status. An analysis of the services required by the
acquisition of the property in trust and how the BIA is able to provide the required services will be
conducted.
The Departmental Manual on Land Acquisitions: Hazardous Substances Determinations, 602 DM 2,
refers to the Department of the Interior's policy on acquiring land with the presence or potential
presence of contamination. In accordance with the policy, a pre-acquisition Environmental Site
Assessment was completed in November 2004. See Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Makoti.
North Dakota. A second Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed in January 2008 to
comply with requirements for BIA decisions on the acquisition of land into trust status.
This EIS will provide information to the Assistant Secretary on the environmental impacts of the
proposed use of the land that BIA is being requested to acquire in trust status. These impacts will be
considered with the other criteria in the decision. All land and activities on the land in trust status
must adhere to Federal laws and regulations unless specifically exempted.
August 2009 £-73 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
The Assistant Secretary's decision will be final for the Department of the Interior. A party wishing to
appeal must therefore appeal the decision to the appropriate federal court. If the Assistant Secretary
approves the Tribe's application, section 151.12 requires the publication in the Federal Register or in a
local newspaper a notice of the decision to acquire the land into trust for the Tribes. The notice will
state that the final agency determination to take land into trust has been made, and that the Secretary
shall acquire title in the name of the United States for the Three Affiliated Tribes, no sooner than 30
days after the notice is published.
Comment 2: There were some comments regarding the process times for BIA's acquisition of land
into trust, including a request to expedite this acquisition of land into trust status and a question of why
this application was being processed ahead of other applications.
Response 2: The processing time for an acquisition of land into trust status varies with the type of
land, location, and purpose. A simple application is one for land that is within the exterior boundaries
of the reservation and would continue to be used for the same purpose, such as agricultural land that
will remain agricultural land. Depending upon the actions needed to obtain a clear title, the process
may take up to two years. More complex applications such as those for gaming purposes or for other
economic development, or those outside of the reservation boundary generally take more time because
there are additional issues and concerns that must be analyzed. In addition to the time required to
obtain a clear title and comply with applicable regulations such as NEPA, the procedures for resolution
of any appeals can also extend the total time to acquire land in trust status.
On March 17, 2003, the Three Affiliated Tribes submitted a written request for trust acquisition to
BIA's Fort Berthold Agency by Tribal Resolution No. 03-020-RP dated March 14, 2003. The
resolution requested that the BIA acquire land into trust for the Three Affiliated Tribes for the future
site of the MHA Nation Clean Fuels Refinery. The decision on the Tribes' application for this
acquisition of land into trust status will impact the economic condition of the Tribes, and requires
careful analysis by the BIA. However, the BIA can and is working on several cases simultaneously
for individual applicants or the tribe during their individual phases. The BIA has referred the concerns
expressed at the public hearings about the time for processing applications to the Great Plains
Regional Director and Fort Berthold Superintendent.
Comment 3: Comment conveying concern about BIA accepting the land into trust and the
management issues regarding that land, including whether it would place a burden on the current
taxpayers and schools in the area.
Response 3: Please refer to Response 1 in this section. The Department must consider each of the 25
CFR § 151.10 criteria in its decision whether or not to acquire the land in trust status. The impact
from the removal of the land to the State and political subdivisions is analyzed under criteria contained
in 25 CFR § 151.10(e).
The proposed project is located on fee land within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation. If acquired in trust, this property would be treated the same as other trust land within the
boundaries of the reservation, and would thus be exempt from State and local taxation. The BIA
believes the impact of the removal of the tax assessment would be minimal since the tax levy and other
services would be addressed by the BIA and/or Tribe and would not have to be provided by Ward
County.
If the land is placed into trust status, jurisdiction would be then be transferred to the BIA Law
Enforcement and other services would be provided by the BIA and/or Tribe, which are equipped to
assume the additional responsibilities.
August 2009 E-14 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Comment 4: Comment requested BIA technical assistance to stop the project.
Response 4: The BIA has provided technical assistance on the acquisition of land into trust status
and the NEPA process to any individual or Tribe who has requested it. The BIA is responding to the
Tribal government's application for the acquisition of land into trust status for economic development,
specifically for construction and operation of a petroleum refinery and to produce buffalo forage. See
also response C. 1 .(a) regarding support or opposition to the refinery.
Comment 5: There were some comments on BIA facilitation in requesting a referendum on the
refinery and interactions with the Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council.
Response 5: The Secretary of the Interior must call an election on any proposed amendment to the
Tribes' constitution when requested by a two-thirds vote of the Tribal Council, or upon presentation of
a petition signed by one-third of the qualified voters pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act
Constitution of the Three Affiliated Tribes Business Council. Unless specifically requested or
otherwise provided by regulation, the Secretary of the Interior cannot become engaged in operations of
a Tribal government.
Comment 6: There was a comment regarding BIA's responsibility for monitoring to detect
contamination of the land or water.
Response 6: BIA is not an enforcement agency for environmental laws. BIA is required to comply
with Federal environmental laws that apply to land held in trust status.
Comment 7: Comment asked for the proposed date of the ROD for BIA's decision.
Response 7: The ROD for BIA's decision will be available after the 30 day wait period for the Final
EIS in accordance with applicable NEPA regulations.
Comment 8: Comment asked how BIA incorporates or applies the draft and final EIS documents into
its decision.
Response 8: Refer to Response 1 under B2. The EIS is one of several criteria that are considered by
the Approving Official in acquiring the land into trust status.
Comment 9: There was a comment concerning permits for haying.
Response 9: A permit for haying would be required if the land is under a BIA Agricultural lease as per
25 CFR § 162 or a Grazing permit as per 25 CFR § 166. A permit would not be required if the Tribes
manage the land unless there was a comparable Tribal regulation requiring a permit for that activity.
Comment 10: Comment asked whether the business plan would be available to Tribal members.
Response 10: As the economic viability or the financial aspects for the project are not part of the
Federal Agency decision making process, a business plan has not been requested by the agencies. The
BIA reviews business plans for economic benefits associated with the proposed business purpose for
off-Reservation acquisitions or business lease agreements.
According to 25 CFR § 151.3(a)(3), land may be acquired in trust status for a tribe "[w]hen the
Secretary determines that the acquisition of the land is necessary to facilitate Tribal self-determination,
economic development, or Indian Housing." This clause does not require the Secretary or his
designated official to mandate that the Tribe go into great detail regarding their intended use of the
August 2009 E-15 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
land, but that they specify what it will be used for. As long as Tribes or Individual Indians meet all of
the criteria regarding these acquisitions for trust status according to 25 CFR § 151, the Secretary of the
Interior or his designated Approving Official may approve the fee to trust transactions. The
Approving Official must ensure that all of the required steps regarding these land acquisitions are
completed appropriately before approval.
B.3. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Comment 1: There were a number of comments regarding Tribal Council support of the project
without having acquired support of the Tribal membership, distrust of the Tribal government,
including the Tribes' handling of revenue from the refinery and accountability. There were also
comments stating the refinery will support Tribal sovereignty and the Tribal Council understands the
entity that manages the refinery will have to be insulated from Tribal politics and that it will have to be
run as a business.
Response 1: As part of the well-established federal policy of respect for Tribal self- government, the
BIA defers to tribes and Tribal members to resolve intra-tribal disputes. Therefore, BIA will provide
these comments to the Tribes for consideration.
Comment 2: Comments requested that the Tribes hold a referendum on whether or not the refinery
should be built.
Response 2: BIA and EPA have referred these comments to the Tribal government for consideration.
In addition, please note that the Constitution of the Three Affiliated Tribes has an article on
referendums, Article VIII. It states that upon receipt of a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the
qualified voters of each community and demanding a referendum on any proposed or enacted
ordinance or resolution of the Tribal Business Council, the Council shall call an election and the vote
of a majority of the qualified voters voting in such referendum shall be binding upon the Tribal
Business Council, provided that at least 30 percent of the eligible voters shall vote in such referendum.
Comment 3: Comments questioned the Tribes' ability to maintain and operate the refinery and
questioning the Tribes' training and knowledge about health impacts.
Response 3: The MHA Nation, as owner and operator, will be required to ensure that the refinery
operates in compliance with all applicable federal laws, including federal environmental and health
laws and regulations. The MHA Nation states that the Tribes will have a management team in place to
handle the day-to-day operations and that this team will be qualified to maintain and operate the
refinery. The MHA Nation has also indicated that the Tribes are working with BIA, IHS, and other
agencies on health issues
Comment 4: Comment requested information on Tribal environmental laws, rules, regulations and
protections that apply to the proposed refinery.
Response 4: For information regarding Tribal laws and regulations, please contact the Tribal
Secretary's Office or the Tribal Legal Department at 701-627-4781.
Comment 5: Comment on the potential liability of the Tribes for accidents, explosions, fires, spills,
health impacts.
Response 5: The MHA Nation as owner and operator of this facility will be required to ensure that the
refinery is constructed and operates in compliance with all applicable federal laws, including federal
environmental and health laws and regulations. Failure to do so may result in federal enforcement
August 2009 £-76 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
actions. In addition, the MHA Nation has stated that it is setting up a fund to cover the costs of
mitigating accidents such as spills, fires and explosions. For more information, see the April 19, 2007
letter regarding financial assurance from the Three Affiliated Tribes to Robert E. Roberts EPA Region
8 in Appendix D of FEIS.
Comment 6: Comment that the Tribes should address clean up for the facility.
Response 6: Any clean up actions will need to be performed in compliance with applicable federal
laws and regulations. In addition, the MHA Nation has stated that the Tribes' management team for
the refinery will establish industry standards and the environmental mandates to ensure clean up for
the facility.
Comment 7: Comment on the potential for legal conflicts with the State overtaxation, zoning, and
jurisdiction that could erode Tribal sovereignty.
Response 7: This comment raised issues that are beyond the scope of this NEPA analysis.
Comment 8: Comments requested that Tribal Council representatives meet with individuals with
concerns about the refinery, provide Tribal members with more information, and hold a public
hearing.
Response 8: BIA and EPA have provided these comments to the Tribes for consideration.
B.4. JOINT GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
Comment 1: Comment that the federal government is pushing this process forward and ignoring the
will of the sovereign people.
Response 1: The MHA Nation is the proponent for the project. The Tribes have presented BIA with
an application to acquire land into trust status for the proposed refinery. The Tribes have also applied
to EPA for a NPDES discharge permit for the proposed refinery. In response to the Tribes' requests,
the federal agencies have prepared the EIS so that they may consider the environmental impacts of the
proposed project when making their respective decisions about acquiring the land into trust status and
issuing the NPDES discharge permit.
Comment 2: Comments expressed concerns about the capability of EPA, BIA and the MHA Nation
to ensure that the facility would be consistently operated and maintained in a manner to avoid
pollution, and adequately limit/control pollution emissions. Additional comments asked what would
happen after the refinery is built and begins operation, if the facility was not designed as proposed,
emissions are greater than proposed in the DEIS or some of the pollution prevention measures are not
installed or do not perform adequately. Another commenter expressed concerns that standards would
be waived by the regulatory agencies or violations would be overlooked.
Other comments were submitted regarding citizen complaints, monitoring and enforcement including:
who will respond to and investigate citizen complaints; who will conduct independent review of
emissions and other reporting and how often; who will monitor the refinery's records; how often and
will that information be made publicly available; who will investigate discrepancies or violations of
improper reporting and take enforcement actions; and who will pursue legal actions when
administrative penalties have failed to bring continuous compliance?
Response 2: The owner and operator of the refinery, the MHA Nation, is responsible for the proper
design, construction, operation and closure of the facility. EPA, as authorized by Congress, directly
August 2009 £-77 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
implements the federal environmental protection laws and regulations as they may apply to this facility
including, but not limited to, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, Safe Drinking Water Act and Oil Pollution Act.
EPA's NPDES permit contains effluent limits and monitoring requirements with respect to wastewater
discharges to surface water. EPA is authorized to take enforcement actions against a facility if
conditions of a permit are violated, such as if effluent limits are exceeded, or if there is a failure to
monitor. NPDES permit discharge monitoring information is available to the public.
Estimated air pollution emissions from the proposed refinery are below the pollution thresholds for a
Clean Air Act "major source" permit under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
construction permitting program and under the Title V operating permit program. Currently, there is
no federal program for minor sources of air pollution emissions. If air emissions are later found to
exceed any of the "major source" permitting thresholds, EPA can take enforcement actions and require
the facility to obtain the appropriate "major source" permit(s). The proposed refinery will be subject
to several Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60), which will
impose emission limits, fuel gas specifications and design requirements. NSPS requirements include
testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting of emissions for many of the refinery units. These
specific applicable NSPS requirements are discussed in more detail in section D.8 of this Response to
Comments document, and in Sections 3.12 and 4.13 in the FEIS.
EPA has also promulgated NSPS, subpart GGGa (November 16, 2007), which triggered the
requirement for the refinery to apply for a 40 CFR Part 71 operating permit within 12 months of
commencing operation. EPA is also promulgating new regulations to establish a preconstruction air
permitting program for "minor" stationary sources throughout Indian country. The rule was proposed
in the August 21, 2006 Federal Register. The effective date for implementing the new regulations is
anticipated to be 60 days after the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. These
regulations may apply to the proposed facility depending upon when construction on the refinery
commences relative to the effective date of these regulations.
Routine ambient air quality monitoring is not currently conducted in this area. In 2007, EPA worked
with the Tribes' Environmental Division on revisions to their Annual Network Review, which is a
review of the Tribes' current monitoring network to determine if monitoring needs for the Reservation
are being met. One of EPA's comments on the Annual Network Review suggested siting an air
monitoring station near Makoti and the proposed refinery location prior to construction of the refinery.
The Tribes' Environmental Division is currently in the process of locating and commencing operation
of a monitoring station near the proposed refinery site to monitor for SO2,, NO2 and PM2 5. Currently
there are no plans to monitor hazardous air pollutants.
EPA's ability to regulate the management of hazardous wastes at the facility depends on the selected
alternative. All alternatives except Alternative 4 and A require a RCRA Treatment Storage and
Disposal (TSD) permit under 40 CFR Part 264. Any RCRA TSD permit issued by EPA would include
requirements for proper design and operation of hazardous waste management units. A RCRA TSD
permit would also contain a number of other specific requirements, including: ground water
monitoring, corrective action, financial assurance, training, inspections, emergency response plans,
closure, and reporting requirements. No hazardous wastes are planned to be disposed of onsite.
If the proposed refinery qualifies for RCRA "generator-only" status, under Alternative 4 and A, it will
not be required to obtain a RCRA TSD permit. The facility would be subject to the RCRA generator
requirements of 40 CFR Part 262. As a generator, the proposed refinery would be required to, among
other things: 1) notify EPA of the initiation of hazardous waste activities and obtain an EPA
identification number; 2) properly store hazardous wastes and appropriately label containers used to
August 2009 E-18 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
store or transport hazardous wastes; 3) use a manifest to track hazardous waste shipments from the site
of generation to their final destination; 4) maintain records and file reports of all hazardous waste
activities with EPA; 5) institute waste minimization procedures to reduce the amount of toxicity of
hazardous wastes; and 6) prepare, maintain, and implement as needed, required contingency plans. In
addition, the proposed facility would be subject to RCRA generator closure performance standards and
procedures related to disposal or decontamination of equipment, structures, and contaminated soils.
If the facility were to lose its generator status, EPA could require the facility to obtain a RCRA TSD
permit. The facility could lose its generator status in a number of ways. For example, the facility
could lose its generator status by: 1) storing hazardous waste onsite for greater than 90-days, 2)
disposing, discarding, or abandoning hazardous wastes onsite (this would include failure to clean-close
hazardous waste management units), 3) placing listed or characteristic hazardous wastes in non-
hazardous waste management units, and 4) allowing or not correcting routine or systematic releases of
hazardous wastes or hazardous waste constituents to the environment. If the generator requirements
are violated, EPA could take enforcement action as appropriate in lieu of or in addition to requiring a
RCRA permit.
There is no federal program protecting ground water in a manner similar to the Clean Water Act,
which protects surface water. Ground water would be required to be monitored as part of the RCRA
TSD permit for all Alternatives except for Alternative 4 and A. For Alternative 4 and A, the agencies
have recommended that the refinery develop a ground water monitoring program. If the wastewater
would be disposed into an injection well(s) (Alternative C), the refinery would be required to obtain an
Underground Injection Control permit which would include monitoring and construction requirements.
The UIC program has both inspection and enforcement authorities.
Comment 3: Comment asked if the public could inspect the refinery with an expert of its choosing.
Response 3: Members of the public and their representatives would not generally be allowed to
inspect the refinery, although the refinery might provide tours to members of the public or their
representatives if requested. Inspections would be conducted by federal regulatory agencies and Tribal
officials.
Comment 4: Comment encouraged the co-leads and cooperating agencies to expeditiously approve
the applications and issue the Clean Water Act (CWA) NPDES and 404 permits to allow the project to
proceed.
Response 4: EPA has released the NPDES draft permit for public review and comment. EPA will
make a decision on issuance of the NPDES permit and BIA will decide whether to acquire the land
into trust status after the EIS process is complete. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will make a
decision on issuance of the CWA 404 permit after receipt of an application, which will incorporate
information from this NEPA process.
Comment 5: Comment expressed concerns about the DEIS in conjunction with the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) among EPA, BIA and the MHA Nation, stating that an amendment to the
MOU making EPA a Co-Lead agency on the EIS has not been signed by the MHA Nation. Comment
that the public does not know the decision-making processes of federal agencies based on the MOU.
Comment asked if the MOU obligated the MHA Nation to implement NEPA.
Response 5: EPA, BIA and the MHA Nation have agreed to and signed the MOU amendment. The
MOU and MOU amendment do not affect the required content or status of the EIS, but outline the
roles and responsibilities of each agency and the MHA Nation to help the NEPA process run more
smoothly. BIA and EPA, and potentially the USAGE are responsible for implementing NEPA, as the
August 2009 £-79 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
federal agencies taking major federal actions associated with the proposed project. The MHA Nation
does not have a NEPA obligation.
Comment 6: Comment asked who will be accountable for addressing Tribal members' environmental
concerns and providing Tribal members with information concerning the refinery.
Response 6: For environmental concerns which have permitting requirements such as the NPDES
permit, information on monitoring and compliance with the permit requirements and NSPS (CAA)
reports will be available from EPA. Other environmental information developed by the MHA Nation
as the refinery operator would not be available from EPA or BIA.
Comment 7: A comment stated that EPA and BIA should fulfill their trust responsibilities to the
Tribes with respect to this project.
Response 7: The federal government has a trust responsibility to federally-recognized Indian tribes
that arises from Indian treaties, statutes, executive orders and the historical relations between the
United States and Indian tribes. With regard to the proposed project, EPA and BIA have continuously
consulted with the Three Affiliated Tribes on a government-to-government basis, and have proceeded
and will continue to proceed in a manner consistent with the federal trust responsibility.
C. PROJECT DEFINITION
C.1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND TECHNOLOGIES
C.1.(a). Support For and Opposition To the Refinery
Comment 1: Comments received in support of the refinery included statements that the environmental
impacts of the refinery would be minimal; that the refinery will bring much-needed jobs, money, and
economic benefit to the Tribes; the refinery will make the Tribes leaders in energy production; in
support of the biodiesel to be produced at the refinery; urging EPA to approve the NPDES permit;
discussing how owning and operating the refinery will enhance the Tribes' sovereignty; that the Tribes
do not intend to sell the refinery, but to own it and manage it using a Tribal entity; and that the refinery
will be environmentally safe with minimal impacts to the environment.
Comment 2: Comments received in opposition to the refinery include statements: in support of
Alternative 2 (land put into trust with no refinery built); in support of Alternative 5 (no action); in
support of effluent discharge Alternative D (no action, no NPDES permit); and opposing the refinery
because of concerns about impacts to health from potential air, ground water, surface water and soil
contamination and potential impacts to wetlands; and concern about the Tribal government profiting
from the project.
Responses 1 and 2: The agencies have noted these comments.
C.1.(b). Project Description
Comment 1: Comments stated that the project descriptions were incomplete and requested that the
incomplete project descriptions and discrepancies be addressed, including air emissions controls such
as compressors to prevent flaring, and other standard controls.
Response 1: The agencies have attempted to ensure the project information in the EIS is complete and
correct. However, because the environmental analysis is conducted before the final design, some
specific design details are not available. The EIS describes the preliminary design of the proposed
August 2009 E-20 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
refinery (and alternatives), including the site layout of the refinery and process units. Appendix A of
the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) lists the emission controls for each proposed refinery
unit. The Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) has been revised to include applicable NSPS
requirements for each regulated refinery unit, which will impose emission limits, fuel gas
specifications, or design requirements and require testing, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting.
The Air Quality section in Chapter 4 of the FEIS summarizes the emission controls and the applicable
NSPS requirements.
Comment 2: Comments stated that the DEIS included inconsistencies in proposed refinery capacity -
10,000 versus 15,000 bpsd (barrels per stream day)(BPSD).
Response 2: As stated on page 2-7 of the DEIS and on page 3-2 of the May 2006 Air Quality
Technical Report, the proposed refinery would process 10,000 BPSD synthetic crude oil, 3,000 BPSD
of field butane, 6 million standard cubic feet per day (MMSCFD) of natural gas, and 300 barrels of
biodiesel. Emissions projections in the Air Quality Technical Report are based on these feedstocks.
Product from the refinery (see page 2-7 of the DEIS) would consist of about 5,750 BPSD of diesel
fuel, 6,770 BPSD of gasoline, and 300 BPSD of propane or about 13,000 BPSD of product (not
15,000 BPSD). The FEIS has been revised to account for any discrepancies in the feedstock and
product capacities.
Comment 3: Several comments addressed the source of feedstock for the refinery. Comments
inquired where the oil will come from and how much will be needed. Comment stated that the
refinery should use Williston Crude feedstock. Some comments raised concerns regarding the use of
sour crude oil which would contain hydrogen sulfide gas.
Response 3: The preliminary design for the proposed facility utilizes synthetic crude from the Alberta
tar sands which is a low sulfur feedstock. The facility has not been designed to accept local crude
products which would require additional refining similar to the upgrading that is performed on the
bitumen from the Alberta tar sands to form synthetic crude.
Comment 4: Comment asked how much chlorine would be used and stored at the refinery and
whether any chlorine would arrive in 90-ton or 180,000 pound railroad tank cars.
Response 4: Refineries frequently use chlorine gas on-site. Typical uses for chlorine at refineries are
to treat water to reduce fouling and to disinfect treated wastewater. The preliminary design does not
identify any chlorine gas use at the proposed refinery; however there is a possibility as the design is
finalized chlorine gas may be used. The facility could also use liquid or solid forms of hypochlorite
instead of chlorine gas. If the refinery opts to truck employee wastewater to a municipal wastewater
treatment plant, then one of the areas of chlorine use at the facility would be eliminated.
Comment 5: Comment recommended a change in the project purpose - rather than stating the
remaining acreage will be used for growing hay for bison, the use of the land parcel should be for
"uses determined by the management goals and objectives of the Three Affiliated Tribes."
Response 5: The Tribe must define the proposed use of the land being acquired into trust status as
part of the application process, 25 CFR §151.10(c). The proposed use of the land was designated by
the Tribe as 190 acres for the refinery and 279 acres for growing hay. If the Tribe decides to change
uses of the land after it is acquired into trust status, additional NEPA compliance may be necessary.
Comment 6: Comment asked how impacts would be confined to the project site as indicated in the
EIS, when the necessary storage tanks, pipelines, transmission lines would indicate that there would be
impacts offsite.
August 2009 £-27 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 6: Most impacts will occur on or near the project site. However, the utility and pipeline
corridors will be constructed outside of the refinery site. Chapter 4 of the EIS describes the impacts
for each resource including the areal extent of the impacts for the refinery site and utility corridors.
Comment 7: Comment asked how environmental conclusions can be reached when various
technologies have not been discussed.
Response 7: The environmental impacts of the project were determined using the preliminary design
of the refinery, the capacity of the refinery and types of processes in conjunction with information
regarding environmental impacts from other refineries and industrial facilities. As with any analysis
based on preliminary data, there may be changes in the assumptions used in the environmental
analysis, and there may be some deviations between projected and actual impacts. However the type
of impacts from refineries are well documented and there is a substantial amount of environmental
information available on impacts from existing refineries.
Comment 8: Comment that this project is not located within the exterior boundaries of the Fort
Berthold Reservation
Response 8: The legal description for the project site is described as: WA of Section 19, and the
NW%, Section 20, both located within Township 152 North, Range 87 West, 5th Principal Meridian,
Ward County, North Dakota, containing 468.39 acres more or less after consideration of existing
easements. This land is located on fee land within the exterior boundaries of the Fort Berthold
Reservation. The following figure indicates the official north-east corner of the Fort Berthold
Reservation.
August 2009 £-22 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Figure 1 ~ Plat designation for North East Boundary for Fort Berthold Reservation
1911
f'rtn-li,a,nl Township .f" 15 \nittl Ititntfr ,\~" &! \lt:\f fit tltf l-'tfilt him-ifml .Vfr/i/uai , .\nftli ilalfulii.
C.1.(c). Design and Technology
Comment 1: Comment stated that there is no hydrogen supply mentioned in treating stabilized
naphtha for sulfur removal and asked if the refinery will use a different process. Comment also stated
that there is not a source of hydrogen in the area, so another technology would have to be used and this
runs up the cost of the process.
Response 1: Stabilized naphtha from the saturated gas plant would, in fact, be mixed with hydrogen,
heated, and mixed with a catalyst to remove sulfur. Please refer to the DEIS, page 2-11, Unit B
Naphtha Hydrotreater. According to the DEIS (Page 2-16), a significant amount of hydrogen would
be required to operate specific refining processes. Some hydrogen would be produced within the
refinery operations, but the supply would not be sufficient for the refinery's operations. The refinery
August 2009 £-23 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
would use a steam-methane reforming (SMR) plant and a Pressure Swing Adsorption (PSA) plant to
produce the additional amount of hydrogen required for operations.
Comment 2: Comments stated the refinery processes to be used at the MHA refinery are not
substantially different from those used at other refineries; therefore, the term "clean fuels refinery" is
inappropriate; that there is no clean fuels process invented - the feedstock is used motor oil containing
metal from the motors of automobiles,
Response 2: The "clean fuels" terminology has several meanings. The use of the term "clean fuels
refinery" as the project name comes from the title of the MHA Nation proposal for the refinery. The
term is also used in describing the proposed refinery products - special formulations of gasoline to help
communities reduce air pollution and comply with the Clean Air Act. The term "clean fuels" is a
refinery industry standard referring to the production of low sulfur emission gasoline and diesels
containing less than 15 ppm sulfur. The feedstock for the MHA refinery will be synthetic crude oil
that has already been refined once in Canada to remove the heavier fractions that are typically part of
refining processes at standard petroleum refineries. The term also relates to modern construction
technology that would be used at any new refinery or refinery expansion.
Comment 3: Comments discussed the 1992 closure of the Turbo refinery, which used the same
technology as the proposed MHA refinery and questioned the use of emissions data from the Turbo
refinery as a basis for the air modeling conducted for the MHA refinery.
Response 3: The EIS has been changed to reflect the closure of the Turbo refinery. Emissions data
from the Turbo refinery were not used to calculate potential or maximum emissions from the proposed
refinery or used in the air quality modeling analysis. Potential emissions from the proposed refinery
were calculated using manufacturer's data and EPA's publication Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, (commonly known as "AP-42"). The
calculated potential emissions were input into the air model for the air quality analysis.
Comment 4: Comment addressed the design of the proposed MHA refinery and asked if the design is
based on 30-year old technology or on new technology and whether the technology would be
applicable for the next 30 or 40 years. Comments asked what the "state-of-the-art" technologies are to
be used in the refinery and where they are currently being used. Comments asked why no other
refineries using this technology have been built within the last 30 years if the technology is so superior
to that of other refineries, and stated concerns about importing the oil from Canada, problems with the
technology, and projections that the refinery will eventually shut down.
Response 4: The design of the proposed refinery will be comparable to other refineries that have been
retrofitted in the last decade to refine the synthetic crude or other refineries that have added on units to
refine the synthetic crude.
Comment 5: Comments questioning the safety and potential increased emissions from the use of used
equipment and tanks with "light rust." The comments state that although the proposed MHA refinery
is billed as "new" construction, it appears that many of the tanks are used and it is unclear if other
equipment will also be used.
Response 5: The phrase "light rust" appears in the Calculations section - Appendix C of the Air
Quality Technical Report for the DEIS. Specifically, "light rust" is listed as an internal shell condition
paint characteristic for each of the floating roof storage tanks listed in the output files for the TANKS
4.0 Emissions Reports. Volatile organic compound (VOC) and hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from working and breathing losses for each proposed refinery storage tank were calculated
using the TANKS program. TANKS is a computer software program that is used to estimate VOC and
August 2009 E-24 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
HAP emissions from fixed- and floating-roof storage tanks. TANKS is based on the emission
estimation procedures from Chapter 7 of EPA's Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-
42) and is designed for use by local, tribal, state, and federal agencies, environmental consultants, and
others who need to calculate air pollutant emissions from organic liquid storage tanks. The TANKS
program requires information about the construction and physical characteristics of a storage tank in
order to calculate a tank's air emissions. One of the tank physical characteristics needed as an input to
the TANKS program is the "Internal Shell Condition" for floating roof tanks. Inputs for the "Internal
Shell Condition" are limited to three choices, which are "Light Rust," "Dense Rust," and "Gunite
Lining." Gunite is a concrete mixture sprayed under pressure. The TANKS program recommends that
if the internal condition of the tank shell is unknown, then "Light Rust" should be used as the default
condition. The MHA Nation's refinery proposal did not include lining the refinery storage tanks with
gunite, so the default of "Light Rust" was used for conservatively estimating VOC and HAP storage
tank emissions. This does not mean that the proposed refinery will use rusted storage tanks. Tanks
and equipment storing or processing flammable and/or oily materials will have to meet rigorous safety
specifications under OSHA rules.
Comment 6: Comment expressed concern that the extreme temperatures in this part of North Dakota
would require considerably more engineering to keep finished products moving and flowing when in
storage.
Response 6: There are refineries operating in the region near Bismarck, ND and near Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada. The engineers hired by the Tribes to conduct the Front End Engineering Design
study are familiar with refineries in northern climates as well as other areas of the world.
Comment 7: Comment asked whether a plant configuration engineering plan has been filed with the
State.
Response 7: The engineering plan has not been filed with the State. As the proposed facility is
located within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, there are no plans to submit information to the
State except for information needed for emergency response coordination.
C.1.(d). Cost and Employment
Comment 1: Comment stated information is lacking on the costs associated with refinery
construction and operations and concerns about taxpayer money been misspent.
Response 1: General cost estimates for the refinery have been mentioned in several meetings.
Several very preliminary estimates have been made by the Tribes for construction of a refinery.
However, the cost estimates have not been available in writing and are not detailed enough to evaluate
the difference in costs between different refinery alternatives. Environmental review documents
usually do not include cost estimates, unless the federal government will be paying for part of the
project or if costs will be used as a decision factor by the federal agencies (e.g., demonstrating that one
alternative is unfeasible due to cost). For proponent driven environmental reviews such as the
proposed refinery, construction costs are rarely included. There are no plans to use federal funds for
construction of the refinery. However, BIA, Department of Energy, and EPA did fund some of the
work to prepare the EIS and preliminary engineering. The project also received additional funding
from the Economic Development Administration for project feasibility and preliminary engineering
studies.
The source of construction money is not part of the decision making process for the federal agencies as
the project has been proposed by the Tribes. However, should the Tribes decide to enter into a
August 2009 £-25 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
business lease with a third party, the regulations as specified under 25 CFR § 162 for the BIA would
be applicable.
Comment 2: Comments asked who will build the refinery and whether Tribal members will be
employed.
Response 2: Please refer to the DEIS, page 4-111, Economy and Employment. According to the
Tribes' (Page 4-111), the majority of the construction and operation workforce would be local hires.
The labor pool is anticipated to be hired through the MHA Nation and through private contractors.
The MHA Nation has a set hiring practice in accordance with Tribal Employment Rights Office
(TERO). Therefore, qualified Tribal members will have a hiring preference.
The Fort Berthold Community College currently offers a 2-year program for construction trades. In
addition, the College had an energy technologies program that graduated 17 students in 2006.
However, due to funding limitations the course was suspended.
C.1.(e). Future Expansion
Comment 1: Comments expressed concern about the undefined future expansion of the refinery,
pressure to expand, stated that the project description does not provide actual refinery maximum
capacity and omits description of plans to further expand and further increase air emissions.
Response 1: The only known plan regarding expansion of the proposed refinery is to add a unit to
produce soybean oil. The refinery will initially truck in soybean oil to add to various products. In the
future, the refinery could add a process for making soybean oil on-site. The EIS already includes the
impact analysis for this expansion. Based on discussions with the Tribes, the agencies have concluded
there are no current plans for expansion beyond the soybean processing unit in the foreseeable future.
C.2. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
C.2.(a). Alternate Economic Development
Comment 1: There were several comments that requested BIA consider different alternatives for
economic development, including: transitioning away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy;
including a biofuels plant alongside the traditional fossil fuel refinery; considering wind power,
biodiesel, ethanol, solar power and other alternate land uses.
Response 1: The BIA is acting on the Tribes' request to acquire the land into trust status for the
purposes of constructing and operating a clean fuels refinery and for producing buffalo forage. The
alternatives available to BIA are to acquire the land into trust status for the proposed use, acquire the
land into trust for the present use as an agricultural property with the Tribes' consent, or not acquire
the land into trust status. BIA cannot speculate on other alternate uses for the land other than those
proposed by the applicant. As part of the regulations for acquisition of land in trust status, the
applicant must identify the purpose for which the land will be used.
C.2.(b). Alternate Site Location
Comment 1: Comment addressed the location of the proposed MHA refinery and stated that it was too
close to Makoti, ND.
Response 1: The location of the proposed refinery with respect to the nearby communities and the
potential impacts to these communities were evaluated during development of the Proposed Project
August 2009 £-26 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Action. The final site selection process was conducted by the Tribes prior to purchasing the property.
The potential for effects to communities was evaluated based upon proximity to an adequate
population base to supply the work force and distance from a community such that impacts from
prevailing winds, air quality, noise levels, and traffic hazards are minimized. Because of the other
factors involved with the site selection, namely, proximity to highway, railroad, and pipelines, all of
the sites were within 5 miles of a community. The sites greater than 2 miles from a community were
considered to have less impact than those closer to a community. The site selection process was
conducted prior to the Federal agencies' involvement and is not part of the NEPA analysis. Impacts to
the surrounding communities are part of the NEPA analysis and have been addressed in Chapter 4 of
the EIS, especially in the air and human health sections.
Comment 2: Comment asked whether the refinery could be located closer to Mandaree because it is
close to a large oil reservoir.
Response 2: The refinery will not be using Williston Basin crude oil. Two of the main factors in
selecting the proposed refinery site were proximity to the synthetic crude oil pipeline which is located
several miles north of the selected site and proximity to the railroad spur which bisects the site.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
D.1. GEOLOGY
Comment 1: Comment that the DEIS states that events such as landslides, mudslides, etc., would be
unlikely, however, the DEIS also states that landslide incidents are moderate in the vicinity and the
DEIS should consider future projects in this area and the cumulative impacts this could have on
landslides.
Response 1: The references in Chapter 3 and 4 regarding landslide potential refer to the soils and
geology in the area. The third component of landslide potential is topography. As discussed on page
4-1 of the DEIS the landslide potential is not a factor at the refinery site because of the relatively flat
topography with rolling hills/ridges. Landslide prone areas tend to be on or next to steep slopes with
at least a moderate difference in elevation from top to bottom, or loss of soil from the toe of the slope.
For example, landslides tend to occur along river bluffs or steep highway embankments.
D.2. GROUND WATER
D.2.(a). Ground Water Resources. Impacts and Contamination
Comment 1: Contamination of Shallow Ground Water: Several comments expressed concern
regarding possible contamination of the ground water, including shallow aquifers beneath the refinery,
movement of the contamination to wells in the shallow aquifers in the surrounding area, susceptibility
of ground water to contamination by land use practices, and ground water contamination in general.
Response 1: Ground water quality could be affected by septic discharge, effluent discharges, and
spills or leaks from the refinery. Discharges to ground water are not expected to affect nearby offsite
wells due to the low permeability and slow ground water flow velocity of the shallow deposits (0.4 to
2.4 feet per year) (DEIS pages 4-6 and 4-8). There are six shallow ground water wells on the refinery
site; five constructed for the proposed project to monitor ground water and one existing well for the
farmhouse. Over the life of the refinery, some of the shallow wells will be affected by the proposed
August 2009 £-27 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
refinery. In 50 years, the shallow ground water is projected to move approximately 20 to 120 feet.
The closest refinery component to the edge of property line is the transfer station on the north side of
the property with a distance of 300 feet from proposed location to the edge of property line.
Spills and leaks have been identified as the most likely contributor to ground water pollution.
Although spills and leaks will need to be cleaned up promptly, some of the material may enter the soil
and the ground water. The spill analysis section of the DEIS (pages 4-25 to 4-45) indicates that certain
large spills could impact the shallow ground water in the proximity of the refinery, although the low
permeability and associated low ground water flow velocities of the till (see above flow rates) will
retard the movement of contamination. Another factor affecting movement of pollutants in ground
water is the depth to ground water beneath the refinery which is about 10 to 15 feet. The time required
for contaminated spills to migrate vertically to the water table would be dependant on the magnitude
and duration of the spill or leak. Depending on the nature of the leak or spill, the contaminated water
will either move vertically downward to the water table in the till deposits, or in a less common
scenario, will move as interflow (saturated shallow ground water flow following the surface
topography) towards the nearest surface depression. Ground water in the till flows towards the
southwest at a velocity estimated to be between 0.4 and 2.4 feet per year.
Effluent discharges to the wetlands are not expected to have any impact on shallow ground water
quality in the area because the effluent will be treated prior to discharge and the resulting water quality
will exceed that of the aquifer (DEIS page 4-7).
For information regarding potential impacts to shallow ground water wells from refinery operations,
please refer to the DEIS pages 4-4 through 4-11. Also see the draft NPDES permit (Appendix C) for
the proposed effluent water quality criteria.
Comment 2 - Probability of Ground Water Contamination: Comment stated the use of the word
"probably" with respect to ground water contamination was not accurate and the EIS should state if
there are any impacts to ground water.
Response 2: Based on environmental conditions at historic and existing refineries, EPA believes that
the shallow ground water in the till immediately underneath the refinery will eventually become
contaminated by leaks and spills. Other ground water resources are not expected to be affected by
contamination. See page 4-7 of the DEIS, Water Quality Impacts to Ground Water Resources,
Accidental Spills and Leaks which states: "Normal refinery operations during the life of the refinery
would result in some contamination of ground water and soils beneath the refinery. Ground water
contamination could extend off-site if leaks and spills are not properly addressed or if a catastrophic
spill occurred. Modern refinery design, construction and operation practices would be more protective
of ground water then "historic practices."
The Tribe proposes to implement ground water monitoring that will detect leaks prior to migration
from the refinery site. In an April 26, 2007, letter to the MHA Nation, EPA outlined a recommended
ground water monitoring program for the proposed refinery. The letter and attachments are available
in Appendix D of the FEIS.
Comment 3 - Existing Contamination: Comments stated that the aquifers in the area are already
contaminated from activities, including chemicals from farming, and expressed concern about adding
additional contaminants to already polluted ground water.
Response 3: The Tribes have evaluated ground water quality at the proposed refinery site by
installing a series of monitoring wells and analyzing samples from these wells for water quality. The
August 2009 £-28 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
data from the report shows no indication that ground water in the vicinity of the refinery is
contaminated by agricultural chemicals.
Comment 4 - White Shield Aquifers: Comment expressed concern regarding contamination of
aquifers in the White Shield area and asked where the refinery was going to dump its waste.
Response 4: As discussed above in comments 1, 2, and 3, the aquifers near White Shield will not be
impacted by the proposed refinery. Please also refer to the DEIS at pages 2-19 and 2-20 for a
discussion of the types of wastewater that would be generated at the refinery. The locations where
treated wastewater may be discharge are discussed on page 2-45, 2-58 through 2-60, and 2-68 through
2-70. Disposal of other wastes generated at the refinery is discussed on pages 2-52 through 2-57.
Comment 5: Comment stated that the aquifer extends from here to Texas and that if the ground water
becomes contaminated, the water will purify itself as it moves through the subsurface.
Response 5: Potential impacts from the refinery to ground water would be very localized. In 50
years, the shallow ground water is projected to move approximately 20 to 120 feet.
D.2.(b). Underground Injection Control
Comment 1: Comment stated lack of concern about wastewater from the refinery being injected into
ground water because the wastewater will be injected well below the zones that people are using for
water supply and that the regulators will monitor the wastewater injection. Comment stated generally
that injection will not have an impact on drinking water aquifers.
Response 1: For wastewater discharge Alternative C, refinery wastewater would be injected well
below aquifers used for public drinking water supply (this means that the wastewater would be
injected below the Fox Hills aquifer). Prior to injecting any wastewater, the owner of the refinery
would need to obtain an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit from EPA.
Comment 2: Comments expressed concern regarding injecting pollutants into the ground water and
that injection of treated refinery wastewater into ground water will contaminate the Fox Hills-Hell
Creek aquifer that underlies the reservation. Comment stated the DEIS should evaluate the actual
depth of the injection zone rather than merely stating the injection zone will be located below the
"lowest potential underground sources of drinking water."
Response 2: The underground injection well would be a Class I, non-hazardous underground
injection well that would be used to dispose of treated wastewater. The well would be completed into
an isolated formation or formations beneath and hydrologically isolated from the lowermost existing
or potential future underground source of drinking water (USDW). At a minimum, the injection well
would inject into a formation below and hydrologically isolated from the Fox Hills aquifer. The UIC
regulations under which a permit would be issued require injection wells to be sited, constructed,
operated, and plugged and abandoned in a manner that is protective of USDWs. Therefore, there
would be very little chance that any potential drinking water aquifers could be adversely affected. The
quality of the fluids injected, and the design and maintenance of the well, would be regulated by EPA
under its UIC regulations (DEIS, page 2-70).
D.2.(c). Uses of the Ground Water and Water Supply
Comment 1 - Agricultural Use: Comment expressed concern about impacts to farmers and ranchers
if their ground water wells could no longer be used for watering cattle and asked who would provide
clean water to the users and at what cost.
August 2009 £-29 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 1: The refinery could affect ground water wells in two ways: by dropping the water level
in the aquifer and by contaminating the ground water. Ground water contamination is discussed
above. It is unlikely that pumping the water supply wells for the refinery will impact water levels in
ground water wells near the refinery, as the refinery water supply will be extracted from wells in the
Fox Hills aquifer which is a separate, much deeper aquifer than the wells in the area which are used for
agriculture. The Fox Hills is also an extensive aquifer with a substantial amount of water (DEIS page
4-4). The closest wells in the Fox Hills aquifer are four to five miles from the refinery. If Alternatives
1, 3 or 4 is selected and the refinery operator chooses not to recycle water; wells in the Fox Hills may
experience some additional drawdown of water levels. Shallow wells in the till deposits which are
generally used by farmers in the area (less than 150 feet deep) and the buried valley aquifers would not
be affected by pumping in the Fox Hills aquifer because the shallow aquifers are isolated from the Fox
Hills.
Comment 2: Several comments stated that the area is in its tenth year of drought and there are cities
in North Dakota and Minnesota seeking to obtain water from Lake Sakakawea, expressing concern
about the increasing demands on water on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Response 2: As discussed in the DEIS at page 4-4, the proposed refinery plans to use a combination
of ground water from the Fox Hills aquifer and runoff collected from the site. The estimated yearly
water use at the proposed facility, without recycling wastewater, would be 64.5 acre-feet per year
(page 4-4 of the DEIS) while Garrison Dam (Lake Sakakawea) has a storage capacity of 23.8 million
acre-feet. The refinery will be a relatively minor water consumer compared to cities and more water
intensive industries.
Comment 3: Comments requested information regarding the water supply, where the water for the
refinery will come from, and whether it will deplete Tribal resources.
Response 3: The water supply for the refinery will be supplied by four wells completed into the Fox
Hills-Hell Creek aquifer and/or recycled water. Please see Response 1 above and page 4-4 "Water
Supply for the Project" of the DEIS for more details.
Comment 4: Comment stated that people on the Reservation currently cannot drink ground water and
they do not have the money to provide quality drinking water. The commenter also requested
information regarding how the developers of the refinery propose to maintain the quality of
Reservation aquifers.
Response 4: The development of the refinery is not likely to change the current situation for
individual well users. As discussed in the ground water contamination section, D.2.(a) above, only the
shallow wells in the immediate vicinity of the refinery may be affected by contamination from leaks
and spills.
Comment 5: Comment expressed concern that the ground water to be used for the potable water
supply is of poor aesthetic quality and may require treatment to ensure compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SOWA). The commenter recommended evaluation of an alternative source of
drinking water, such as an existing public water system.
Response 5: The proposed refinery will include treatment of ground water prior to use in the potable
water system, see page 2-19 of the DEIS. The water quality of the Fox Hills aquifer proposed for
water supply is discussed on page 3-23 and 3-24 of the DEIS. The Fox Hills aquifer is relatively salty,
therefore treatment will be needed prior to use in the boilers and the potable water system. In the
future, the refinery could be a potential customer of the regional drinking water system being
August 2009 E-30 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
developed in this area of North Dakota. Currently the regional drinking water system does not serve
this area.
Comment 6: Comment stated that the proposed refinery will qualify as a non-transient, non-
community public water system under the SDWA. The comment stated that because the water supply
for the refinery will come from wells in the Fox Hills-Hell Creek bedrock aquifer, the DEIS should be
revised to reflect the fact that the ground water supply would be classified as "not under the direct
influence of surface water." In addition, the comment requested that a discussion concerning
monitoring and reporting requirements under SDWA be included in the FEIS.
Response 6: Information has been added to the FEIS (page 2-19) to clearly document the absence of
interconnection between the proposed potable water system and the process water system.
Comment 7: Comment stated that the projected sources of water for the facility are ground water
wells, but the facility anticipates using recycled water and stormwater runoff during operations after
facility startup. The commenter recommended that the FEIS include a statement that there will be no
interconnection between the proposed potable water system and the process water portion of the
facility. This will ensure that the potable water supply would not be classified as surface water and
subject to additional and stricter monitoring requirements under SDWA.
Response 7: Information has been added to the FEIS on page 2-19 to clearly document the absence of
interconnection between the proposed potable water system and the process water system.
D.2.(d). Ground Water Monitoring
Comment 1: Several comments expressed concerns about ground water monitoring and the measures
that would be taken to protect ground water resources and stated the DEIS should be revised to include
a requirement for ground water monitoring and protection measures.
Response 1: A ground water monitoring plan has been recommended as mitigation by BIA and EPA
for the proposed refinery. The monitoring program would be designed to detect any changes in
ground water quality before it leaves the property and trigger cleanup activities when needed. The
Tribes, as the refinery owner, could agree to develop a ground water monitoring program for the
refinery. The Tribes also have the option of developing a Reservation-wide ground water protection
program. In a May 14, 2007 letter, the Tribes have agreed to development and implement a ground
water protection program for the proposed refinery and the Reservation.
All alternatives except 4 and A would require a RCRA TSD permit which requires a ground water
monitoring plan as part of the permit. Without a RCRA TSD permit, there would not be a federal
requirement for the refinery to develop and implement a ground water monitoring plan. Under a
RCRA TSD permit, EPA can require an owner or operator of any facility that has a release of
hazardous wastes to clean up the release [42 U.S.C. sec. 6924(u)]. Therefore, under alternatives
requiring a TSD permit, it is likely that the refinery would be responsible for either cleaning up the
contamination in the ground water or providing an alternative water supply to the residents with
contaminated wells. For Alternative 4 and A, there would be limited cleanup actions that could be
required under RCRA.
D.2.(e). Ground Water Mitigation
Comment 1: Comments expressed concern regarding the proposed mitigation for refinery
construction and operation impacts, including ground water monitoring and reporting requirements
August 2009 £-37 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
may not be required, the list of best management practices (BMP) for ground water protection may not
be complete, and the DEIS does not define "effective irrigation farm management plan."
Response 1: Recommendations for ground water monitoring and reporting have been conveyed to the
Tribes. If an construction alternative other than Alternatives 4 and A is selected, additional ground
water monitoring requirements will be developed as part of the RCRA TSD permit for the refinery.
The list of potential ground water protection BMPs that could apply to the refinery site is very large; it
is typical to provide a list of only the BMPs most likely to be used at the site. If these do not prove to
be effective, other BMPs would be evaluated and implemented. The irrigation farm management plan
would be developed to identify waste water application rates and practices for the crops being grown,
and to meet the requirements for solid waste disposal. [Under the RCRA regulations, land applied,
treated wastewater would be considered a "solid waste".]
D.3. SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
D.3.(a). Surface Water Impacts
Comment 1: Several comments expressed concern about discharges from the refinery to Shell Creek
and Lake Sakakawea and whether the treated water will be safe.
Response 1: The proposed location for discharges from the proposed refinery will be to the wetland
swale located in the NW1/4 of Section 19, Township 152N, Range 87W. The wetland is tributary to
the East Fork of Shell Creek. The East Fork of Shell Creek flows generally in a westerly direction
towards Lake Sakakawea before entering the Van Hook Arm of the Lake at Parshall Bay, near
Parshall, ND. EPA evaluated both the acute and chronic effects of the proposed discharges from the
refinery. In general the acute effects are associated with the near time effects where as the chronic
effects are associate with long term effects. EPA evaluated inorganic, organic, and other (e.g. pH)
potential pollutants to minimize effects on the waters impacted by the potential discharge. EPA
reviewed standards and criteria for these waters including EPA criteria, Tribal criteria as well as the
criteria of the State of North Dakota. EPA has placed in the permit for discharge the most appropriate
effluent limits. For additional details, please see Appendix C of the EIS, which describes, in much
greater detail, the NPDES permit that will control the quality of surface water discharges leaving the
refinery.
Comment 2: A comment stated that the DEIS minimizes the severity of the cumulative impacts to
surface water by offering seemingly simple guidelines, which in reality are not that simple at all.
Response 2: There are no additional construction activities proposed in the foreseeable future that
would contribute to cumulative impacts on the surface water. Therefore, the impacts from the refinery
were the only ones analyzed in the EIS.
Comment 3 - Mercury: The existing mercury in the water is coming from the fishing boats (oils) and
from tourism dollars, not from the industrial plant.
Response 3: Mercury pollution in lakes typically comes from atmospheric deposition. Petroleum
refineries including the proposed facility have not been identified as significant sources of mercury.
For more information about mercury in the environment, please see EPA's web page at:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/.
Comment 4: Comments expressed concern about the cumulative effects of the Red River Valley
Water Project and the Northwest Area Water Supply project.
August 2009 £-32 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 4: The proposed Red River Valley Water project (RRVWP) and the Northwest Area Water
Supply (NAWSP) project both would divert water from the Missouri River Basin to the Red River
Basin via pumps placed in Lake Sakakawea. The proposed refinery would obtain water from ground
water aquifers and the refinery discharge would be to the Missouri River basin. While the volumes
being considered for all three projects are very small [RRVWP =122 cfs (average), NAWSP = 40 cfs
(average), proposed refinery = 0.25 cfs (maximum)] when compared to the Missouri River flows
[20,000 cfs (average)], the RRVWP and NAWSP would result in minor depletion to the Missouri
River and the proposed refinery would result in a minor addition to the Missouri River Basin.
D.3.(b). NPDES Permit
Comment 1: Some comments were related to the time table for final issuance of the NPDES permit.
In addition to inquiries about the existing timetable, a comment was made suggesting that a new
timeline for a new draft NPDES permit should be established.
Response 1: The FEIS, including the response to comments on the DEIS, and draft NPDES permit
will be issued for a 30 day review or "wait" period. Following the FEIS wait period, EPA will make
its decision on the NPDES permit. EPA will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) explaining its
NPDES decision and publish the ROD after the wait period has ended. EPA will also notify the
NPDES applicant (the Tribes) and each person who has submitted written comments or requested
notice of the final permit decision. Following that notification, if an NPDES permit is to be issued,
EPA would issue the NPDES permit with an effective date 30 days after issuance. The EPA
regulations at 40 C.F.R. 124.19 provide that within 30 days after the final decision on the NPDES
permit is noticed to the public, any person who filed comments on the draft permit or participated in
the public hearings may petition the Environmental Appeals Board to review a condition of the permit
decision which was raised during the public comment period. Any person who failed to file comments
or failed to participate in the public hearings on the draft permit may petition for administrative review
only to the extent of the changes from the draft to the final permit decision.
Comment 2: Some comments raised concerns regarding the environmental effects of the NPDES
discharges and the science supporting the effluent limitations in the NPDES permit. One comment
questioned whether the NPDES permit would adequately regulate a hazardous discharge into the
environment and the long-term impacts of the discharges from the facility, which is expected to
discharge up to 5 million gallons per year.
Response 2: The environmental analysis of discharges under the NPDES discharge permit are
described on page 4-18 of the DEIS, which discloses that there will be some minor changes in water
quality from the existing conditions. Water quality will change from agricultural runoff to a
combination of treated wastewater from the refinery and uncontaminated runoff. The environmental
impacts that are typically analyzed for projects that affect water quality have already been analyzed in
the development of the NPDES permit. Please see the "Statement of Basis" for the permit discharge
limits included as Appendix C of the EIS. For example, the wastewater discharged under the NPDES
permit will be required to meet water quality standards which are protective of aquatic life, wildlife,
and drinking water use.
Water quality scientists have been studying the environmental and human health effects of aquatic
pollutants for many years. For each parameter in the NPDES permit, a series of research efforts and
experiments were conducted to evaluate the effects of the pollutant on the environment. The process
to establish or change EPA's water quality criteria is a rigorous process, requiring public and scientific
input from many sources. Information on water quality criteria can be found on EPA's web page at:
http: //www. epa. gov/ebtpage s /water .html.
August 2009 £-33 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
The discharge limitations and monitoring requirements in the NPDES permit have been developed to
be protective of both human health and aquatic life (e.g., fish, insects). The permit limits are based on
the water quality criteria and standards and are consistent with EPA regulations, policy and guidance.
The permit application anticipated an average discharge of 10 gpm for Alternatives 1 and A, 3 and A,
and 20 gpm for Alternative 4 and A, some or all of which may be recycled at any given time. The
process wastewater from the refinery, the potentially contaminated stormwater, and the sanitary waste
will only be discharged following treatment to assure compliance with the NPDES permit limits. See
the NPDES Permit Fact Sheet for more information about the discharges, Appendix C of the EIS.
There are four sources of wastewater associated with the operation of the proposed refinery, all of
which are covered by the NPDES discharge permit:
Process wastewater from refinery operations, following treatment in the wastewater treatment
facility, can either be recycled into the process water system or discharged through outfall 002.
Potentially contaminated (oily) stormwater will be collected in segregated drains. This
wastewater will be tested and if further treatment is required it will be routed to the wastewater
treatment facility. Depending on the alternative selected this flow may be discharged through
outfalls 002 or 002a, or recycled.
Uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater will be collected from areas outside the process
operations of the refinery. The site configuration is designed so that uncontaminated (non-
oily) stormwater flow by gravity to be collected for the large holding pond or discharge. The
uncontaminated (non-oily) stormwater can be used as make-up water for the firewater system,
recycled, or discharged through outfall 001 as necessary.
Sanitary wastewater (potential). If any the sanitary wastewater is collected it would be treated
in a package wastewater treatment plant and discharged through outfall 003, if necessary.
Comment 3 - Ground Water and NPDES A few comments expressed concern that the DEIS states
that treated discharge from outfalls will have to meet the effluent discharge criteria and therefore
would likely be of higher quality than the ground water, thus implying that as a result it will not affect
the water quality. The comments noted that simply because the water will meet NPDES standards
does not mean that the water will be clean, and that adding contaminated water to an already
contaminated water source increases the contamination.
Response 3: As described on pages 4-6 and 4-7 of the DEIS, surface water discharges from the
facility are unlikely to increase water levels in the shallow aquifers due to the relatively small rate of
discharge and the low hydraulic conductivity of the shallow material. Wastewater discharges from the
facility will tend to stay at the surface, flowing slowly towards the East Fork of Shell Creek instead of
entering the ground water. Ground water in the area tends to be salty; the discharge from the refinery
will tend to be less salty because the water source will be from either runoff or from ground water that
has been treated to remove salinity.
Comment 4: Outfall Locations: One comment expressed uncertainty about the location of the
discharge and expressed concern that EPA could not evaluate the impacts without knowing the
location.
Response 4: As explained in the DEIS, the exact location of the discharge pipe or outfall has not been
designed at this time. The location of the outfalls will be in the northwest corner of the site in or near
the wetland complex. The range of potential outfall locations is relatively small; all outfalls will
discharge into the wetland that flows north under Highway 23 through a culvert as a tributary of the
August 2009 E-34 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
East Fork of Shell Creek. The environmental analysis in the wetlands and surface water sections
(Chapter 4) of the DEIS also discusses these potential impacts. For mitigation, the refinery will be
encouraged to recycle as much water as possible, particularly during dry months of the year. For
example the refinery could construct a wetland pond on site to ameliorate flow rates when the refinery
is unable to recycle water.
D.3.(c). Water Quality Standards
Comment 1: Several comments expressed concern and sought clarification about why federal water
quality standards were being used rather than the more stringent water quality standards adopted by
the Tribes.
Response 1: EPA's Office of Science and Technology publishes water quality criteria
recommendations (CWA 304(a) Criteria) as guidance for use by States and/or Tribes in adopting
numeric criteria protective of designated uses. EPA's 304(a) Criteria are updated periodically with the
latest major revision published in November 2002, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria:
2002, EPA-822-R-02-047. Revisions to the aquatic life criteria for cadmium, mercury, and ammonia;
and human health criteria for benzene and mercury were included in the 2002 revisions. In addition,
the calculations of some of the hardness-dependant metals criteria were updated. EPA also published
a CWA 304(a) criteria update in December 2003, EPA-822-F-03-012, for 15 human health water
quality criteria including ethylbenzene and toluene. The MHA Nation adopted WQS for surface
waters within the external boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation on May 11, 2000. The
Tribally-adopted WQS did not include some or part of the 2002 and 2003 updates as Tribally-adopted
WQS were developed prior to publication. Tribes regularly review and modify their WQS, and it is
anticipated that the Tribes will adopt the new CWA 304(a) criteria during their next update. Normally,
a review is every three years. Where the EPA's updated criteria are different than the Tribally-adopted
WQS, the EPA criteria have been designated as the applicable values. EPA criteria are appropriately
designated as the applicable values, because the EPA criteria are updated as needed to reflect new
information and data.
Comment 2: One comment expressed the concern that the Tribal dissolved oxygen (DO) criterion was
not consistent with the State criterion.
Response 2: The DO criteria, in milligrams per liter (mg/L), as proposed in the Permit are:
April 1 - Sept 30 Oct 1- March 31
8.0 (1-day min.) 4.0 (1-day min.)
9.5 (7-day mean) 5.0 (7-day mean)
6.5 (30-day mean) 6.5 (30-day mean)
The State criterion is 5.0 mg/L as a minimum. Since surface water discharges for the proposed project
could flow through both Tribal and State waters, permit limits must remain protective of both Tribal
and State waters. EPA believes that using the Tribal WQS meets the intent of the States standards.
During the summer months, the Tribal criteria are more stringent (i.e., the required DO is higher than
the 5.0 mg/L minimum). During the colder months, all but the one-day minimums were greater than
or equal to the 5.0 mg/L minimum criterion.
Comment 3: A few commenters were concerned that the benzene criteria in the Tribally-adopted
water quality standards (WQS) and EPA's National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002,
EPA-822-R-02-047 differed.
August 2009 £-35 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 3: The Tribes' Water Quality Standards (WQS) for benzene and other pollutants were based
on EPA's water quality criteria at the time the standards were adopted. The MHA Nation adopted
water quality standards for surface waters within the external boundaries of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation on May 11, 2000. The Tribally-adopted WQS predate, and did not include, a recently
published updated criterion for benzene. The latest major revision was published in November 2002,
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002, EPA-822-R-02-047. Revisions to the human
health criteria for benzene were included in the 2002 revisions. In addition, the equations for some of
the hardness-dependant metals criteria were updated. EPA also updated its criteria in December 2003,
EPA-822-F-03-012, for 15 human health water quality criteria including ethylbenzene and toluene.
EPA anticipates that the Tribes will adopt the updated EPA Criteria, including benzene, as well as
other parameters, within the term of the permit. The human health-based criterion for benzene was
changed to a maximum value of 2.2 micrograms per liter ((ig/L) for water consumption and 51 (ig/L
for water plus fish consumption. Therefore, EPA's permit will continue to use the human health-based
criterion of 2.2 (ig/L for the average daily concentration in the NPDES permit.
D.3.(d). Surface Water Quantity
Comment 1: One comment raised concerns about the range of flows from the facility. Another
commenter observed that the volume of water projected to be discharged from the refinery is 20 gpm,
which is roughly the equivalent of two garden hoses.
Response 1: Flows will vary from the facility, depending on rainfall, snow melt, and the amount of
water recycling. Natural conditions in the area also generate a wide variety of flows. In this region of
North Dakota it is quite common to have large spring flows and little to no flows during droughts and
dry parts of the year. There will be some hydraulic adjustments in the wetlands and the unnamed
tributary in the immediate area of the refinery, due to higher peak flows from precipitation events and
a more continuous discharge throughout the year depending upon the selected alternative. Plants and
riparian life populations will shift towards species that prefer more continuous water flow, such as
those currently found in the lower portion of the East Fork of Shell Creek. Most prairie pothole
wetlands do not naturally receive water on a continuous basis. They normally have significant dry
periods throughout the year.
Comment 2: One comment raised concerns about discharge during the winter or under ice and the
potential for discharges to form ice dams. The comment noted that typically the State of North Dakota
requires 180 days of storage to avoid discharge during the winter months.
Response 2: The discharge of treated wastewater during the winter months would be allowed and
storage would not be required. One way to minimize formation of ice dams is to increase storage and
recycling of wastewater during the colder winter months. EPA is unable regulate the quantity of water
discharged directly or the timing of the discharge. The 180 day storage requirement is a State of North
Dakota requirement and is for domestic wastewater treatment plants that use a lagoon for treatment,
not for storage. North Dakota has many facilities that discharge year around. The North Dakota
lagoon regulations would not apply to this facility because the facility is industrial, will utilize
mechanical wastewater treatment, and is sited within the boundaries of the Reservation.
Comment 3: A comment expressed concerns about the potential for ponding of water in a field
downstream of the proposed refinery. (Additional discussions with the commenter identified concerns
about the potential for ponding of a field near the wetland under FWS easement approximately a mile
downstream of the proposed refinery.)
August 2009 £-36 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 3: The hydraulics of the channel discharging north from the refinery site will change as a
result of the proposed refinery. The flow will be more continuous throughout the year, especially for
Alternative 4 and A. Peak runoff flows from the site will also increase due to the gravel and
impermeable surfaces at the proposed refinery. Water from the site will flow north, under Highway
23, across a small field and under a railroad eventually reaching the East Fork of Shell Creek. After
discharges from the refinery begin, it is likely there will be a wider band of wetland type vegetation,
increased runoff flows from storm events will cause the channel to adjust (widen, deepen) to
accommodate higher flows and, depending on the topography and the inlet elevation of the culvert
under the railroad, there may be additional ponding upstream of the railroad culvert.
The refinery site is about 2% of the overall drainage for an unnamed tributary. This unnamed tributary
is approximately 11% of the drainage at the location approximately one mile downstream. It is
unlikely that there would be any discernable impacts to this area from the refinery. A review of area
topography, indicates that there is a natural constriction in this area. This was confirmed by FWS in
that there are no man-made impounding features on the easement.
D.3.(e). Surface Water Monitoring
Comment 1: A few comments addressed the water effluent monitoring that would be conducted by
the refinery staff to ensure that the permit water quality limits were met. Water quality would also be
monitored further downstream and a contingency plan would be prepared and corrective action taken
if downstream water quality was impaired by the refinery.
Response 1: Comment noted. Thank you for participating in the NEPA process.
Comment 2: One comment on tribal sovereignty stated that Tribal monitoring is similar to that of the
State and Federal governments.
Response 2: The Tribe as a sovereign entity has the authority to promulgate regulations on monitoring
similar to State and Federal governments. Under certain conditions and Federal regulations, the Tribe
may assume responsibility for monitoring and permitting under certain Federal environmental laws.
Comment 3: The North Dakota Department of Health requested to be involved with the monitoring of
the East Fork of Shell Creek.
Response 3: Water quality of the tributary to East Fork of Shell Creek would be monitored as
explained in the NPDES permit found in Appendix C to the EIS. This monitoring data would be
available to the North Dakota Department of Health on request.
D.3.(f). Surface Water Mitigation
Comment 1: Several comments pertained to mitigation related to erosion and sediment control during
refinery construction and operation. The issues raised were as follows:
"Effective irrigation farm management plan" under Erosion and Sediment Control is not defined
in the DEIS.
How can a best management practice be improved as discussed in the last bullet under Erosion
and Sediment Control in the DEIS.
Under Streams and Ponds, the DEIS states that "all reasonable precautions" will be taken to
minimize turbidity; this is too vague.
August 2009 £-37 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Under Roads, the DEIS states that the length and grade of roadbeds will be restricted, but does
not say how, and that the roads will be surfaced with durable material, but does not state what
that is.
Response 1: As stated in the DEIS (page 4-15, 4-24, section 4.17 in FEIS), mitigation measures will
be defined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) prepared as part of the NPDES
construction and industrial stormwater permits. These mitigation measures are all defined as "best
management practices" or BMPs. The term BMP does not imply that any one specific activity, such
as installation of silt fence at a construction site to reduce sediment and turbidity of stormwater leaving
the site, is the best management practice for all sites. The goal of a BMP is to reduce erosion, improve
revegetation, and/or improve stormwater runoff quality. Sometimes a BMP that worked at one site
does not work as well at another site. The NPDES permit requires the permit holder to assess the
adequacy of all the BMPs at the site and replace any BMPs that are not adequately controlling erosion
or improving the stormwater quality discharging to the receiving water body. The details related to the
soil erosion BMPs for roads would be defined in the SWPPP once the NPDES permit is issued and
before refinery construction begins. Details related to the irrigation farm management plan would also
be developed for the SWPPP. The NPDES permit for the refinery (Appendix C of the EIS) does not
have a specific effluent limit for turbidity; therefore, "all reasonable precautions" to minimize turbidity
would comply with the proposed permit. The permit does, however, establish a limit for total
suspended solids.
D.4. HAZARDOUS WASTE AND RCRA
Comment 1: There were numerous comments expressing concerns that potential releases of
hazardous or toxic substances from the proposed refinery will harm the surrounding environment and
communities.
Response 1: The majority of potential environmental impacts associated with the refinery are
expected from spills and leaks that are not contained or cleaned up promptly. Spills and leaks are
inherent risks in operating a refinery, and could impact the ground water and soils beneath and
immediately surrounding the proposed refinery. Areas used for transporting, handling, and storing, of
chemicals and hazardous materials will be engineered to maximize containment, thereby minimizing
impacts. As discussed in the EIS, numerous regulatory programs, including emergency response
planning, oil spill response planning and containment measures, NPDES permits, and RCRA and
OSHA requirements, would be implemented at the proposed facility to prevent or control potential
releases. With proper construction and operation of the refinery, potential impacts to the health of the
general public are anticipated to be negligible. Pollutants or materials which would be of concern to
public health would be contained within the refinery, treated to nontoxic levels, or disposed of at
approved hazardous waste facilities.
Comment 2: Comment expressed concern about the amount of hazardous waste generated each year.
Response 2: As discussed in Section 2, Page 2-70 and 2-71 of the DEIS, under all other alternatives
except Alternative 4 and A, the refinery would be designed as a RCRA Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal (TSD) facility requiring the refinery to obtain a RCRA TSD permit. A TSD permit would
significantly increase the regulatory requirements for the proposed refinery project as outlined in 40
CFR Part 264. A RCRA TSD permit would also contain a number of specific requirements, including:
ground water monitoring, corrective action, financial assurance, training, inspections, emergency
response plans, closure, and reporting requirements. No hazardous wastes are planned to be disposed
onsite. The permitting process would also place additional construction (e.g., double liners for surface
impoundments) and management (e.g., treatment, storage, and disposal requirements; limits for wastes
stored in storage areas) requirements on hazardous wastes treated, and stored at the proposed refinery,
August 2009 £-38 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
which will minimize the potential for human receptors to contact the waste or for release of hazardous
chemicals to the environment.
Under Alternative 4 and A, no RCRA TSD permit would be required, as the facility would be
classified as a RCRA generator under 40 CFR Part 262. As a generator, there would be much less
regulatory oversight. For example, there would be no requirements for ground water monitoring,
corrective action, or financial assurance for closure. As a generator under RCRA, the refinery would
be required to prepare and implement contingency plans for releases from hazardous waste
management units. However, as stated above, generators are not subject to full corrective action
requirements. That could impede or preclude adequate cleanup at the facility if significant releases to
soils and ground water occur. If the facility does not comply with the RCRA generator requirements,
EPA has enforcement authority to require the facility to correct violations and complete clean closure
for hazardous waste management units. If the hazardous waste management units are not clean closed,
the facility becomes a subject to subject to RCRA TSD permitting requirements.
The amount of hazardous waste expected to be generated at the proposed refinery annually
(approximately 20,000 pounds) is significant and must be properly managed onsite to prevent releases.
All hazardous waste must also be properly transported and disposed offsite at an approved disposal
facility.
Comment 3: Comment stated if the facility is located on trust land, then it would not be subject to
RCRA.
Response 3: This comment is incorrect. The facility would still be subject to RCRA if it is sited on
land held in trust status by the U.S. Government for the Tribes or individual Indians.
Comment 4: The comment states the DEIS incorrectly explains that spills are not expected refinery
events.
Response 4: Please see the section on spills in Chapter 4 starting on page 4-25 of the DEIS which
discusses different kinds of spills, the magnitude of potential spills and the relative probability of the
spills occurring.
D.5. VEGETATION
D.5.(a). Agricultural Impacts
Comment 1: Comments expressed concerns that the proposed forage producing area would be
irrigated with contaminated water and/or that chemical fallout will be absorbed by those forage plants
that will ultimately be fed to Reservation buffalo.
Response 1: Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the MHA nation proposes to use 279 acres of the project site
to grow forage for the 650 head of buffalo that they raise elsewhere on the Reservation. Currently,
bales of forage must be purchased from outside sources to sufficiently feed the herd during the winter
months. The acreage would initially be seeded with oats and crested wheatgrass, and then changed to
alfalfa and a mixture of grasses. Crops would be swathed, baled, and hauled to lands where the Tribal
herd is managed. Buffalo would not be grazing within the proposed refinery property. Under
Alternative 2, no refinery would be constructed, so the entire 469-acre project site would continue to
be used for the agricultural uses that have historically been present thereintensive dry land farming
(e.g., cereal row crops like barley and wheat). Under this same alternative, the MHA Nation could
decide to use this entire project site for growing buffalo forage crops.
August 2009 £-39 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Only effluent discharge Alternative B allows surplus treated wastewater to be disposed of through both
NPDES permitted outfalls and irrigation. The irrigation management plan would establish treated
wastewater application rates thereby limiting the volume applied. As stated in Section 4.8.3.1 of the
FEIS, a risk assessment should be performed to establish treatment levels for any wastewaters used to
irrigate forage or other crops that may be potentially consumed by livestock or wildlife. Such a risk
assessment would also consider potential risks from human consumption of livestock or wildlife that
have eaten forage crops irrigated with treated wastewater. See also page 4-60 of the DEIS (Section
4.17 FEIS), which lists standard mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of
effluents on soil and vegetation resources.
EPA evaluated other exposure pathways in addition to direct inhalation of emissions. EPA has added
text to Chapter 4 of the FEIS, which provides a qualitative comparison of modeled emitted
concentrations of contaminants from the proposed refinery with actual emitted concentrations of
similar contaminants from existing refineries that are processing synthetic crude or the precursor
material to synthetic crude, bitumen, or a combination of these feedstocks. These refineries include:
Petro-Canada, Scotford, Heartland, and North West refineries located in Alberta, Canada. Canadian
environmental studies conducted for these refineries included an evaluation of the effects of air
emissions on the surrounding environment. Bioaccumulative effects of the potentially emitted HAPs,
as well as other contaminants that may adversely effect the environment, such as benzene, PAHs, and
formaldehyde, were considered to be insignificant for each of the refineries, which are many times
larger than the proposed refinery. Finally, EPA conducted a quantitative analysis of emissions for the
proposed refinery, which included an evaluation of toxic air emissions potentially entering the food
chain through various pathways including plants, wildlife, and bison. The results of this analysis
indicate that there would be no adverse impacts to humans consuming the foods grown or raised in
proximity to the refinery. This information is available in Section 4.16 of the FEIS and the technical
report - Qualitative and Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment: TAT Refinery EIS, December
2007.
Comment 2: Comment expressing concern for impacts to soils and specifically, the impact the
proposed refinery will have on crops grown in the area. Comment concerned about the impacts the
wastewater discharge could have on locally-grown crops.
Response 2: See response to Comment 1 above.
Comment 3: Comment that the DEIS presents the impacts of possible greater amounts of vegetation
in an overly optimistic light, providing as an example, the DEIS statement that "there may be a
perception of greater lushness." Comment uses this example to indicate a concern about the neutrality
and reliability of the DEIS analysis.
Response 3: The level and type of environmental analysis varies depending on the resource, the
type(s) of impacts, and the degree of impact. Each NEPA analysis should focus on the important
issues and resources for that project. The same type of project may have very different environmental
analysis depending upon the specific resources that are affected. The impact analysis regarding more
continuous flow to the wetlands which concluded there would be "a perception of greater lushness" is
consistent with the type of impacts anticipated from more year-round flow. Currently, the wetland
system dries out or reduces in size during the dry season. With more continuous flows, the vegetation
would stay greener and is less likely to go dormant during dry periods, hence the term "greater
lushness."
August 2009 E-40 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
D.5.(b). Wetlands
Comment 1: A comment requested that a complete analysis regarding threat to the many wetlands
found within North Dakota be performed.
Response 1: The DEIS presents a complete inventory (types, distribution and areal extent) of the
wetlands on the project site (pages 3-56 and 3-57). Analysis of the environmental consequences by
each of the alternatives to the site's wetland and riparian areas is discussed in Chapter 4 of the DEIS,
pages 4-64 to 4-71, including a brief narrative on cumulative impacts. A complete analysis of threats
to many of North Dakota's wetlands is beyond the scope of this EIS. The technical reports to the FEIS
also include a summary of the water quality sampling of wetland PEMF-2 conducted in April 2006.
Comment 2: A comment stated that the "Waterfowl" narrative on page 4-76 and 4-77 of the DEIS
minimizes the effects of destruction of wetlands to waterfowl habitat by stating that the amount of
wetlands that will be lost is "relatively small compared with the areal extent of these habitats that
would not be affected." A related comment disagreed that holding ponds would compensate for those
losses.
Response 2: Depending on the alternative selected, the range of potential loss of wetlands would be
0.8 acres (Alts. 1, 3) to 0.4 acres (Alt. 4). This is a relatively small amount compared to the areal
extent of wetland habitat available in the area. The wetlands have historically been impacted by
agricultural activities thereby affording limited habitat value to waterfowl. While the various utility
line impacts remain constant for Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, those impacts will be transient and reduced
further through avoidance and minimization practices during construction. The FEIS also discusses
the wetland mitigation to compensate for the loss of wetlands. {FEIS changes in Section 4.17.}
The comment on the holding ponds compensating for losses is correct. The use of the holding ponds
by bird species would be discouraged by using cobbles as stated in the species of concern section.
Comment 3: Comments expressed concern that the proposed refinery's run-off will alter the historic
flows to wetlands and that it will likely contain contaminants which could be harmful to wetlands.
Response 3: The operation of the proposed refinery would change the hydrology of the watershed,
increasing flow rates and changing the system to a more continuous flow regime. Over time, it is
expected that the wetlands and tributaries would adapt to these changes in hydrologic conditions. All
wastewater discharges would be treated to meet the limits in the NPDES permit. Because all
discharges will be treated and the peak discharge is designed to be low (about 0.25cfs), the
downstream changes should be slow and minimal.
Comment 4: A comment stated that land application of contaminated wastewater should take into
account vulnerability of wetlands.
Response 4: If Alternative B is selected, an irrigation management plan would be developed to
identify application rates and wastewater treatment levels, in accordance with Land Disposal
regulations under RCRA. Application rates would be set such that runoff and erosion potential is
minimized.
Comment 5: A comment stated that changes in the flow of water from wetlands could disrupt the
recharge of the shallow aquifer, which is accessed by area residents.
Response 5: The operation of the proposed refinery would change the hydrology of the watershed,
increasing flow rates to wetland PEMF#2 and then downstream. The increase in permanent water
August 2009 E-41 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
level should be exhibited as an increase in the area inundated by water in wetland PEMF#2. The water
released to the local surface drainage, will provide little to no recharge of the shallow aquifers, because
of the low permeability of the till, presence of the clay layer underlying the site, and the low average
flow of the refinery discharge of about 10 gallons per minute (gpm) for Alternatives 1 and A and 3 and
A with recycling, and 20 gpm for Alternative 4 and A.
Comment 6: A comment expressed concerned that a nearby slough, which does not have very good
drainage, would get bigger due to the runoff going into the slough.
Response 6: The average discharge for the refinery is estimated to be 10 gpm, for Alternative 1 and A
and 3 and A with recycling, and 20 gpm for Alternative 4 and A (about 30 acre feet per year).
Wetland PEMF #2 is about 11.7 acres in size. PEMF#2 will become a more consistently wet, wetland,
but its outer margin should not increase significantly. Because the peak discharges are designed to be
low (about 0.25cfs), the downstream changes should be slow and minimal.
Comment 7: A comment expressed concern that in Alternatives 1, 3 and 4, a jurisdictional wetland
would be impacted. The comment noted that wetlands provide habitat for many species of plants and
animals and provide recharge to the shallow aquifers, which are accessed by area residents. Changes
in flow of water could disrupt the recharge of the shallow aquifer.
Response 7: The comment is correct. All of the construction alternatives will impact a jurisdictional
wetland, PEMF#2. Alternatives 1 and 3 have the greatest impact of 0.5 acres through fill and
redirection of the drainage swale. Alternative 4 reduces the direct impacts to the jurisdictional wetland
on the project area to less than 0.1 acres for culverted crossings over the drainage swale associated
with wetland, PEMF#2. The alterations in flow have been discussed previously under Comment 6.
Comment 8: A comment stated that the suggested measures for minimizing impacts on wetlands are
unclear because the DEIS does not define the terms "necessary" and "non-essential" equipment and
does not identify who decides what is "necessary" and "non-essential" equipment.
Response 8: Only a minimal amount of disturbance to aquatic resources may occur under the CWA
404 programs. The necessary and essential equipment is that needed to accomplish the permitted tasks
with minimal impact. For example, the construction process will avoid the use of large equipment
which is necessary at one site but may be oversized at another site. The wetlands mitigation measure
has been changed in the FEIS (Section 4.17) to "All equipment should use upland access roads to the
maximum extent practicable.
Comment 9: A comment expressed a general concern over the numerous wetlands in the vicinity of
the proposed refinery.
Response 9: As described in the DEIS, the Missouri Coteau is characterized as a rolling, hilly area
with numerous prairie potholes and lakes. The Tribes initial review for the selection of sites for this
proposed facility considered impacts to wetlands, as described in Appendix B of the DEIS. In
Alternatives 1 and 3, there will be a loss of 0.5 acres of jurisdictional wetlands and 0.3 acres of
isolated wetlands. In Alternative 4, there would be a loss of 0.1 acres of jurisdictional wetland, and a
loss of 0.3 acres of isolated wetland. A site-specific wetlands mitigation plan would need to be
developed and approved by the USAGE for any wetlands impacts as specified in a CWA 404 permit.
The mitigation plan would include the specific location, acres of wetlands and uplands that would
mitigate wetland impacts.
Comment 10: A comment expressed concern that routes of the proposed pipeline "have not been
surveyed for wetlands..." DEIS at 4-64, and that instead of analyzing the effects based on the actual
August 2009 E-42 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
wetland acreage, the DEIS uses an estimate to determine the impacts. The comment further stated that
this approach is inadequate and that additional information must be included in the analysis. Simply
concluding that numerous wetlands may potentially be impacted is not a satisfactory analysis.
Response 10: Potential wetland impacts of several approaches were considered for the linear
infrastructure (transmission lines and pipelines) needed to support the project. While selection of the
final pipeline route will be determined when the refinery selects its supply carrier, the wetland impacts
presented in the DEIS were estimated using the standard width of the construction corridor through the
wetlands without any consideration for minimization. Through route selection, final design criteria
and avoidance of all possible impacts during construction, the final impacts should be much less than
those presented in the FEIS in accordance with an applicable CWA 404 permit.
D.6. WILDLIFE
Comment 1: Comments asked how the discharged wastewater will affect the buffalo that will
consume the forage grown at the site and on fish species, including the pallid sturgeon.
Response 1: Only effluent discharge Alternative B allows surplus treated wastewater to be disposed
of through both NPDES permitted outfalls and irrigation. The irrigation management plan would
establish treated wastewater application rates and practices for the crops being grown, and to meet the
requirements for solid waste disposal. [Under the RCRA regulations, land applied, treated wastewater
would be considered a "solid waste".] As stated in Section 4.8.3.1 of the FEIS, a risk assessment
should be performed to establish treatment levels for any wastewaters used to irrigate forage or other
crops that may be potentially consumed by livestock or wildlife. Such a risk assessment would also
consider potential risks from human consumption of livestock or wildlife that have eaten forage crops
irrigated with treated wastewater. Page 4-60 of the DEIS (Section 4.17 FEIS) recommends standard
mitigation measures to reduce the potential adverse effects of effluents on vegetation and soil
resources.
For wastewater discharges to the wetland complex and the tributary to the East Fork of Shell Creek,
discharge limitations in the NPDES permit will require that wastewater discharges be protective of
aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture, and wildlife uses. Please see the "Statement of Basis" for the
proposed discharge limits, which is in Appendix C of the DEIS and FEIS. For example, the
wastewater discharged under the NPDES permit will be required to meet water quality standards
which are protective of aquatic life, wildlife and drinking water use. The proposed refinery site is
more than 20 miles from the Missouri River; neither the discharge quality nor quantity is anticipated to
be discernable by the time the discharge reaches the Missouri River. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated on pallid sturgeon that may reside in the Missouri River.
Comment 2: Comment stated that with regard to the effect that stream flows and water temperatures
have on aquatic life, the DEIS compares changes in stream flows to flood and drought periods, which
is an invalid comparison because flood and drought are seasonal and somewhat cyclic, whereas a
change in flows as a result of discharge is not cyclic.
Response 2: The potential impacts from changes in flow are discussed on pages 4-68, 4-69 and 4-79
in the DEIS. The analysis includes impacts to fish in the East Fork of Shell Creek which under
existing conditions experience both drought and flood. Existing fish species can survive some
fluctuating flow conditions, and dry and wet conditions in the riparian zone. With extensive recycling
of water under Alternatives 1 and A and 3 and A, the seasonal fluctuations will be largely unchanged
by the proposed refinery. For Alternative 4 and A, and 1 and A, and 3 and A without recycling, more
continuous flow conditions would cause a shift in fish and macro-invertebrates species to those species
August 2009 E-43 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
that prefer continuous flow. Discharge Alternatives B and C would further reduce average discharge
flows.
Comment 3: Comment stated that while the DEIS mentions that artificial increase to the stream flow
could have both positive and negative effects on aquatic life, the DEIS only discussed one positive
effect and no negative effects are mentioned.
Response 3: In the DEIS (page 4-80), most of the impacts caused by changes in flow conditions are a
mix of adverse and beneficial impacts with the exception of changes in the wetlands system
downstream of the refinery. The alternatives and operational options (discussed in the above
comment) with continuous discharge or nearly continuous discharge would change the downstream
wetlands from a prairie pothole type habitat to a more permanently ponded wetland.
Comment 4: Comment stated that the last sentence of the "Species Diversity" narrative on page 4-81
of the DEIS should say. . . "therefore, have the greatest adverse impact on aquatic ecosystems" to be
factually more clear in its meaning.
Response 4: The language on Page 4-81 of the DEIS (FEIS Section 4.8.1.3) has been revised to
"Potential changes in species diversity would be the greatest under Alternative 4 because this
alternative would have the most continuous flow of all the Alternatives."
Comment 5: Comment stated that the "Aquatic Species" narrative on pages 4-78 to
4-80 should include a real water quality analysis so that the effect of wastewater discharges on aquatic
organisms can be more accurately depicted.
Response 5: The refinery is in preliminary design, so it is not possible to have water quality data from
this refinery. However, EPA has analyzed effluent quality from many existing refineries and that
information was used in developing the NPDES permit. The discharge limits in the proposed NPDES
permit have been developed to be protective of aquatic life. The permit also includes monitoring and
reporting to ensure that aquatic life, wildlife, birds, agriculture and drinking water are protected.
These limits are presented on page 4-19 of the DEIS. Appendix C to the EIS provides additional
information.
Comment 6: Comment stated that the DEIS fails to consider the cumulative impacts of an overall
loss in available land for the whooping crane to use during migration.
Response 6: The loss of 190 acres of agricultural land will not have an impact on whooping cranes.
The collision risk with transmission lines were identified as potential impacts to whooping cranes and
the conservation measures to minimize this risk are documented on page 4-84 of the DEIS (FEIS
Section 4).
Comment 7: Comment stated that the bald eagle would be threatened by this proposal to build the
refinery and that the DEIS fails to consider the cumulative effects of altering forage areas for bald
eagles within the project site.
Response 7: Based on its unique habitat needs and affinity for fish as a primary food source, the
occurrence of a bald eagle in proximity to the project area would be a rare and random incident. No
suitable roosting/nesting habitat or concentrated prey/carrion foraging sources are present on the
proposed project site. The use of low voltage power lines, designed to avoid electrocution of raptors,
would also be installed during construction of the refinery. The proposed NPDES-permitted discharge
of effluent from the refinery would result in tributary and mainstream water quality that would have no
effect on any bald eagle that might ingest the water, or on prey species residing in the discharged
August 2009 E-44 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
water. In addition, the location of this discharge is not within the general habitat of the bald eagle.
There would be no effect to this species or its habitat from the construction or operation of the
proposed refinery, or from the implementation of any of the discharge alternatives.
Comment 8: Comment stated that an analysis to assess impacts of failing to net oily ponds and
maintaining them should be conducted.
Response 8: Netting of contaminated water ponds is a mitigation measure that has been well-proven
to effectively decrease wildlife use of bodies of water. Maintenance requirements are not typically
significant for these barriers. The potential health impacts to an animal coming in contact with oily
contaminants floating on water is already understood, particularly in the context of petroleum industry
oil spills and oily pits or oil-covered surface impoundments.
Comment 9: Comment stated the DEIS minimizes the true effect of habitat loss for birds by saying
birds are highly mobile and it is important to analyze habitat alternatives before making this claim.
The document does not analyze the cumulative effects of habitat loss with respect to waterfowl habitat
and loss of wetlands. Comment stated the DEIS lists and analyzes birds individually which minimizes
the true synergistic relationship the effects have with one another and the impacts caused by these
effects as a whole.
Response 9: The refinery is proposed to be sited on agricultural land which presently provides limited
wildlife habitat value, and the reduction in wetland habitat is considered inconsequential relative to
abundant similar habitat in the area surrounding the proposed refinery location. It is beyond the scope
of this project to analyze overall waterfowl habitat loss in North Dakota. This area has not had
substantial development and there are no other large construction projects proposed in the vicinity of
the project in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Comment 10: Comment stated there is only one specific measure for reducing the number of raptor
collisions with power lines, which is to avoid areas of high avian use and according to the DEIS, these
measures will only be implemented where feasible and there is no way of enforcing them.
Response 10: There are no known areas of high raptor use where transmission lines are proposed nor
are there ravines were raptors would use thermals. The electrocution of raptors is an impact that can
be minimized through the use of perching devices on transmission lines and other measures described
in the FEIS.
Comment 11: Comment stated that with respect to the effects of vehicle collisions on birds, the
DEIS mentions the use of speed limits as a mitigation measure on project roads but there is nothing
regarding the enforcement of such limits so this measure may be ineffective.
Response 11: As discussed on page 4-74 of the DEIS, the majority of bird/vehicle collisions will be
on highways and non-project roads. Therefore, lowering the highway speed limit in the area of the
refinery to reduce impacts to birds was not suggested to mitigate impacts to birds. Also the vehicle
traffic increase of 30% will not have a significant increase in bird-vehicle collisions.
Comment 12: Comment stated that the use of the term "big game mammals" is insufficiently specific
and overly broad and that species should be analyzed individually.
Response 12: The term "big game mammals" is described in the Wildlife section of Chapter 3 of the
FEIS. The overall impact to these species is predicted to be minor resulting from displacement of
common species occurring on agricultural land. As these species encounter disturbances from
agricultural activities presently occurring on the property, additional impacts are not predicted to be
August 2009 E-45 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
more than minor. The analysis of individual species is unnecessary for the decision making process
due to the minor impacts predicted and the similarity of anticipated impacts.
Comment 13: Comment stated the DEIS fails to consider how the project will contribute to the
continuous destruction of the gray wolfs habitat and make it harder for the gray wolf population to
return to safe numbers.
Response 13: The Wildlife section of Chapter 4 discusses the lack of anticipated impacts to the gray
wolf and its prey relative to the proposed project. It is beyond the scope of this FEIS to analyze
overall habitat loss for gray wolves.
D.7. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Comment 1: Comments stated concern about the cultural change that comes with relying on industry
for their well-being and that life is based on protection of resources. Polluting the environment, as the
refinery will do, is inconsistent with traditional Tribal values.
Response 1: The MHA Nation replied that tribal cultures have adapted from time immemorial to
changes without impairing their cultural values. The evidence to support this statement is the current
language, practices and legends that are passed on to new generations. Tribal traditions continue
through the Tribe's medicine, burial, naming and other traditional ceremonies.
Comment 2: Comment questioned the adequacy of analysis of impacts to areas of Tribal cultural and
spiritual significance.
Response 2: The proposed refinery will be located on land that has been farmed and worked since
1910. As explained in the Cultural Resources section 4.9 of the EIS, the Three Affiliated Tribes
Cultural Preservation Office (CPO) and the North Dakota State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
were consulted regarding potential cultural impacts from the proposed refinery. The CPO made a "No
Historic Properties Effected" determination for the proposed refinery site. The CPO further indicated
that no sites or previously-identified cultural resources were located during the course of its
evaluation. The SHPO reported that there were no recorded historic or cultural sites. While the SHPO
noted that there has not been a cultural resource inventory of the proposed refinery site, the SHPO
indicated that the location appeared to have a low probability for cultural resources. The SHPO
concluded that it would recommend a no historic properties affected determination for the refinery
site. The Agencies also consulted directly with Tribal leadership regarding whether the refinery site
had any known cultural or spiritual significance to Tribal members. The Tribes represented that the
refinery site held no cultural or historical significance for Tribal members.
D.8. AIR QUALITY
D.8.(a). Air Quality Impacts
Comment 1: Several comments stated that the DEIS did not explain the statement that there would be
negligible environmental impacts from the proposed refinery. Comments also requested review of
toxic air pollutants.
Response 1 - NAAQS: Existing ambient air monitoring data was used to establish current levels of
exposure to "criteria pollutants" for which there are a national ambient air quality standard or NAAQS.
[NAAQS are the federal health based standards for: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO),
particulate matter (dust, soot) (PM2 5 and PMi0) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).] These standards were
August 2009 E-46 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
developed to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety. The NAAQS
pollutants are measured based on various time frames in order to address impacts from short-term and
long-term exposures: NO2 is measured annually; CO is measured over 1 hour and 8 hour periods;
PM2.5 is measured at 24 hours and annually; PMi0 is measured at 24 hours; SO2 is measured at 3 hours,
24 hours and annually. The monitoring location where existing ambient monitoring data was gathered
would include any emissions that may have drifted from power plant sources.
The criteria pollutant emissions from the proposed refinery were modeled together with the monitored
current background levels to estimate total pollutant exposures for Tribal members and the public.
(Air Quality Technical Reports, May 2006 and December 2007). The modeled results are detailed in
the DEIS (Table 4-15) and show that the potential emissions of criteria pollutants from the proposed
refinery, together with existing background levels of the pollutants, which include emissions that may
have drifted from power plant sources, are below all NAAQS. The term "negligible" was used in the
DEIS to disclose that the proposed air emissions from the refinery would not cause exceedances of the
NAAQS. The FEIS and Air Quality Technical Report have been revised to clarify this. {FEIS
changes in Section 4.13}
HAPS: The DEIS describes hazardous air pollutant (HAP) ambient concentrations in the project area
for 1 hour, 24 hour and annual periods (DEIS in Table 4-16). The document also describes the site-
specific hazardous emissions modeling for the proposed refinery to determine human health impacts
for the following HAP parameters: benzene, cyclohexane, formaldehyde, hexane, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, toluene, and xylene (DEIS on page 4-132). The hazardous emissions are correlated to
chronic health effects (i.e., long-term exposure). The analysis is related to lifetime exposure to a
hazardous emission; thus, assessing a one-year average concentration against the criteria is a
conservative estimate of exposure over a lifetime. The DEIS describes that the estimated ambient
impacts from the proposed refinery are below the federal risk based concentrations and that the
proposed refinery would not have measurable adverse effects on the human health of the local area
communities (DEIS pages 4-125 through 4-135 and in the FEIS in section 4.16.1.3).
While power plants are large emitters of many criteria pollutants and mercury, HAPS concentrations
from these facilities at the project area would be expected to be very low given the amount of dilution
that would occur in the distance between these facilities and the MHA Nation.
Comment 2: There were several comments stating that the proposed site for the refinery is only two
miles upwind from the Town of Makoti and that the impacts to Makoti were not fully analyzed.
Response 2: The modeling analysis used four full years of hourly surface meteorology data from
Minot, North Dakota observed during 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1988. Minot, located about 30 miles
northeast of the project site, is the nearest location with multiple years of processed meteorological
data suitable for modeling. The data is considered representative of the project site given the relatively
flat terrain in the area. The model calculates concentrations for a network of locations (receptors),
including Makoti, in the area around the refinery for each of the 35,000 hours of meteorology data.
The model then reports the highest concentrations predicted anywhere on the array of receptors. This
methodology assures that the impacts associated with the prevailing northwest winds and impacts in
Makoti were fully considered in the modeling analysis.
Comment 3: Comments requested information on air emissions dispersion distance for worse case
emergency scenarios.
Response 3: The safe setback distance in any emergency scenario depends on the nature and quantity
of emissions and the meteorological conditions at the time of the emergency. These conditions cannot
be predicted in advance of such an event. However, emergency response personnel are trained to
August 2009 E-47 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
consider these factors in establishing safe setback distances. For more information, see Section E. -
Emergencies, Spills and Safety, of the Response to Comments.
Comment 4: Several comments stated the DEIS analysis of air impacts was not clear or easily
understood by the public at large.
Response 4: This RTC and the FEIS includes clarification of DEIS air impacts analysis. In addition,
EPA has summarized relevant portions of the revised Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007)
and included the summary in the Air Quality section of Chapter 4 in the FEIS. {FEIS changes in
Section 4.13}
D.8.(b). Cumulative Air Impacts
Comment 1: Several comments stated concerns that the DEIS failed to address cumulative impacts to
air quality and disregarded potential new sources of air pollution, including an ethanol plant and a new
power plant. Comment stated that there is a conflict between stating that no other projects are planned
in the area yet the refinery will stimulate local development.
Response 1: The analysis in the DEIS considered the cumulative impacts of the project. The most
recent available ambient air quality monitoring data was used to establish baseline conditions in the
Class II project area. This data reflects the impacts from existing regional sources such as power
plants and mobile sources as well as transported pollutants from neighboring States. The modeled
incremental impact from the proposed project was added to these monitored values to estimate total
cumulative air quality impacts in the project area, for comparison with the NAAQS. Use of these
monitored data to establish existing baseline conditions in the project area may, in fact overestimate
future concentrations because several of the largest power plants in the region are subject to EPA
regulations that will require them to install Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) over the next
five years. These mitigations are projected to reduce SO2 and NO2 emissions from the affected
facilities by up to 95 percent. Cumulative impacts for the types of emissions from power plants will
decrease in the area over time even with the new proposed power plant.
The cumulative impact analysis did not specifically include the proposed ethanol plant, because
emissions from the ethanol plant combined with the refinery and other sources are not expected to be
significant in the airshed surrounding the proposed site. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are the
main air emissions of concern from ethanol plants.
Potential air emissions from future, local developments in the area are very minor. Increases in
vehicle and rail traffic and new commercial/residential air emissions induced by the proposed refinery
are too minor to cumulatively affect air quality.
Comment 2: Comments raised concern about lack of analysis of long-term air impacts on Regional air
quality, as the refinery ages.
Response 2: The analysis of potential air quality impacts were based on conservative estimates
(maximum potential) of the proposed refinery's emissions. Emissions are not expected to increase as
the project ages. Any significant increase in the proposed refinery's emissions due to modifications
made at the refinery would trigger additional permitting reviews of both the additional impacts to air
quality due to the modification and a technical review of emission control equipment (to minimize
emissions) applicable to the modification.
Comment 3: Comment questioned why 1990-1994 meteorology data was used in the modeling
analysis and not more recent data.
August 2009 E-48 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 3: The 1990-1994 meteorology data were used because they were the most complete data
sets available at the time of EPA's PSD increment analyses. The 1990-1994 data is sufficiently long
and contains enough observations that it is still considered representative of conditions in the project
area and is acceptable for use in regulatory modeling analyses.
Comment 4: Several comments expressed concern that the current controversy between EPA and
North Dakota over SO2 increment levels, which are established in the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permitting program, in Class I areas in North Dakota has not been resolved.
Comments stated that the EIS should assess cumulative impacts from the proposed refinery in
conjunction with existing emissions from North Dakota power plants on the Class I airsheds.
Comment also indicated concern that the DEIS did not provide the same impact data for both the
Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) and Lostwood Wilderness (LW) Class I areas.
Response 4: The DEIS includes an air quality analysis of impacts from the proposed project at two
Class I areas: Theodore Roosevelt National Park (TRNP) and Lostwood Wilderness (LW). It is not
necessary to address or resolve issues regarding EPA and North Dakota modeling protocols in the EIS,
because the modeling demonstrated that the refinery would have a minimal impact on the Class I SO2,
NO2and PMi0 increments for the Class I areas. As described on page 4-107 of the DEIS, the Class I
SO2 increment consumption analysis was evaluated using the same methods as were used in the EPA
Region 8 North Dakota increment modeling analysis (U.S. EPA 2003).
The DEIS shows in Table 4-18 the potential impacts from the proposed refinery project on the SO2
increment at TRNP are minimal, as demonstrated by the 3-hour project impact of 0.0000 to 0.0060
ug/m3; 24-hour impact of .0000 to .0050 ug/m3; and annual impact of 0.0005 to 0.0024 ug/m3. In
addition, the DEIS presents in Table 4-19 the maximum estimated increment consumption from the
project's emissions and concludes that the project would consume a minimal amount of the NO2
(0.10% to 0.14%) and PM10 24-Hour (0.21% to 0.47%) increments. The estimated maximum visual
range extinctions resulting from the project emissions are below the 5% threshold that EPA's BART
guideline establishes as a threshold for defining a "contribution" to visibility impairment. The
maximum estimated visual range extinctions are also well below the 10% or 1.0 deciview general level
of concern for Federal Land Managers.
The impact of the proposed project emissions on the increment consumption in the TRNP and LW is
minimal for two primary reasons. First, the refinery SO2 and NO2 emissions are small as compared to
existing sources in the Class I airshed. For example, the refinery is projected to emit 51.2 tons per
year of sulfur dioxide, as compared to the existing power plant 2004 SO2 emissions of 148,726 tons
per year. The refinery is projected to emit 35.7 tons per year of NO2, as compared to the existing
power plant 2004 NO2 emissions of 77,589 tons per year. Second, the proposed facility is located 73
miles from the TRNP and 55 miles from LW. The DEIS modeling shows the air emissions from the
proposed plant would disperse to minimal amounts by the time they reach the Class I airsheds.
Consequently, the relatively low emissions of SO2, NO2 and PM10 from the proposed project,
combined with the dispersion of those emissions, would result in minimal impacts from this project on
the Class I airsheds. The proposed project's contribution to cumulative air impacts at the Class I areas
would likewise be minimal.
Comment 5: Comment requested that information be added on the criteria used to decide that
refinery impacts on the Class I SO2 increment for Teddy Roosevelt National Park (TRNP), suggested
that significant impact levels (SILs) defined in the ND State Implementation Plan (SIP) be used as
criteria, and concluded that impacts would be minimal if this were done. Comment questioned the
dates of the data used and noted that comparable information is not provided on TRNP and Lostwood
Wilderness (LW), making the DEIS incomplete
August 2009 E-49 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 5: Information has been added to the FEIS to further explain and support the conclusion
that impacts on TRNP SO2 levels would be minimal. {FEIS changes in Section 4.13.1.4}
Comment 6: Comment stated that in 2004, over 140,000 tons of SO2, 75 tons of NOX, and over 2,200
tons of mercury were emitted by the 7 power plants in North Dakota and that the October 2004 Dakota
Resource Council publication, Dakota Council, stated that the North Dakota power plants emitted over
3 tons of arsenic and 3 tons of lead and over 4 million pounds of chromium were released on or near
Fort Berthold.
Response 6: The emissions data referenced for North Dakota power plants are not consistent with
EPA data. EPA's acid rain database shows 2004 North Dakota power plant emissions of 148,726 tons
of sulfur dioxide and 77,589 tons of nitrogen dioxide. Similarly, our records also show that air
emissions of mercury and chromium from ND power plants were 1.24 tons and 3.00 tons, respectively,
in 1999.
Comment 7: Comment stated concern that Table 3-21 in the DEIS shows an increase in the Standard
Visual Range (SRV) for years 2001 -2004 for the Lostwood Wilderness and Teddy Roosevelt National
Park, but does not show the impacts that the refinery emissions would have on these two Class I areas
when the refinery is operating for its twenty year lifetime at 10,000 or 15,000 barrels per day.
Response 7: The estimated change in Class I visibility from the operation of the refinery was
modeled using five years of historical meteorology data. The highest impacts occurred at the
Lostwood Wilderness area with visual range reductions of between 1.59 percent and 4.14 percent
depending on the weather data used in the modeling. Similar impacts on visibility would be expected
over the 20 year lifetime of the facility while operating at its 10,000 barrel per day capacity. These
impacts are below the 5 percent threshold (0.5 deciview) considered to be perceptible and well below
the 10% or 1.0 deciview general that is the general level of concern for Federal Land Managers.
Potential impacts to visibility were not analyzed at higher operating capacities in the DEIS, because
the refinery that was proposed by the MHA Nation would process 10,000 barrels per stream day
(BPSD) of synthetic crude oil, not 15,000 BPSD or more.
Comment 8: Comment stated that the EIS does not address broad environmental impacts of the
refinery, specifically climate change concerns.
Response 8: Climate change sections have been added to Chapters 3 and 4 of the FEIS describing the
environmental consequences of climate change and estimating greenhouse gas emissions from the
proposed refinery.
D.8.(c). Permitting and Emissions
Comment 1: There were several comments raising a concern about the lack of federally enforceable
Clean Air Act (CAA) permits for the proposed oil refinery and stating that lack of any air permit
would allow unlimited and unmonitored air emissions. Comments questioned why there are no CAA
permits, stated the facility is a major source requiring permits and Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) and requested that EPA initiate the PSD process, set detailed and enforceable BACT limits
and monitoring requirement for all refinery sources.
Response 1: In an April 2005 letter to the MHA Nation, EPA made a non-applicability determination
for federal air permits for the proposed refinery. Based on the proposed equipment, emissions
projections, and feedstocks, EPA determined that the proposed refinery was not subject to the
permitting requirements of a pre-construction Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit or
a Title V (40 CFR part 71) operating permit. The "potential to emit" or potential maximum emissions
August 2009 E-50 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
estimated for the refinery were based on the refinery operating 24 hours per day, 365 days a year.
Since the estimated "potential to emit" is below 100 tons per year (TPY) of any regulated pollutant
and below 10 TPY of any one hazardous air pollutant or 25 TPY of a combination of hazardous
pollutants, the proposed refinery would not be considered a major stationary source as defined in the
PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(l)(i) and in the Title V operating permit regulations at 40 CFR
71.2. The proposed refinery is not a major source subject to the PSD permitting requirements, so the
facility is also not subject to Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which is a requirement
under the PSD regulations.
EPA is promulgating new regulations to establish a preconstruction air permitting program for minor
stationary sources throughout Indian country. The rule was proposed in the August 21, 2006 Federal
Register. The effective date for implementing the new regulations is anticipated to be at least 60 days
after the final regulations are published. These regulations may apply to the refinery depending upon
when construction on the refinery commences relative to the effective date of these regulations.
The proposed refinery will be subject to several Clean Air Act New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) (40 CFR part 60), which will impose emission limits, fuel gas specifications, or design
requirements and require testing, monitoring, recording keeping, and reporting of emissions for many
units. However, not all emissions will be monitored under these regulations. Applicable NSPS
requirements are explained in more detail in Response 5 in this section.
On November 7, 2006, EPA proposed new regulations under a New Source Performance Standard for
equipment leaks of VOC in petroleum refineries and promulgated the proposal on November 16, 2007.
These revised standards are codified at 40 CFR, part 60, subpart GGGa and were effective on the date
of promulgation. NSPS subpart GGGa is applicable to the proposed refinery since construction of the
regulated refinery units will commence after November 7, 2006 [see 72 FR 64896, November 16,
2007] Finalization of NSPS, subpart GGGa triggered the requirement for the refinery to apply for a
40 CFR Part 71 operating permit within 12 months of commencing operation.
On May 14, 2007, EPA proposed New Source Performance Standards for new, modified, or
reconstructed process units at petroleum refineries. Once finalized, these standards will be codified at
40 CFR part 60, subpart Ja and will be effective as of the date of proposal. [See 72 FR 27177, May
14, 2007.] These proposed standards include emissions limits and associated testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the process heaters, other fuel gas combustion devices, and the sulfur
recovery unit, which the proposed refinery is not currently subject to under the existing applicable
New Source Performance Standard (40 CFR part 60, subpart J). Finalization of NSPS, subpart J will
also trigger the requirement for the refinery to apply for a 40 CFR part 71 operating permit within 12
months of commencing operation.
EPA has authority under Clean Air Act sections 301 (a) and 301(d)(4) to promulgate "Federal
Implementation Plans" (FIPs) as necessary or appropriate to protect air quality (40 CFR 49.11). EPA
may develop a FIP for the refinery which could include additional monitoring, testing, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the refinery units as needed to ensure protection of air quality.
Comment 2: Comment stated that without enforceable air permit limits; the project proponent could
use highly sulfurous crude inputs, which would greatly increase SO2 emissions.
Response 2: EPA's initial determination that the proposed refinery will not need a PSD or Title V
operating permit is based on the refinery feedstock being a synthetic crude oil from Canada that is low
in sulfur. The commenter is correct that if the refinery were to process highly sulfurous crude, then the
SO2 emissions would greatly increase. However, if the project proponent decides to use a feedstock
different than the low sulfur synthetic Canadian crude oil, then EPA's determination that the refinery
August 2009 £-57 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
is not a "major source" would need to be revisited. EPA would have to reevaluate refinery emissions
information based on the new feedstock. The use of highly sulfurous crude as a refinery feedstock
would most likely trigger PSD permitting requirements for at least SO2 emissions. As noted in
Response 1 above, promulgation of NSPS subpart GGGa triggered the requirement for the refinery to
apply for a federal operating permit within 12 months of commencing operation.
Comment 3: Comment questioned whether a statement on page 1-2 of the DEIS meant that EPA had
incomplete information on the proposed refinery, because the statement was prefaced by saying
"However, at this time EPA has determined that the facility does not require a CAA PSD permit for
construction of a new major source . . ."
Response 3: The emissions information provided to EPA was not incomplete. EPA's determination
that the proposed refinery does not need a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction
permit was based on the most recent emissions information and projections submitted by the project
proponent. The phrase "[HJowever, at this time" indicates that if potential emissions estimates
increase or if actual emissions exceed the current emissions, EPA will, at that time, reevaluate the need
for a PSD construction permit.
Comment 4: Comments expressed concern about possible emissions from the new refinery.
Response 4: DEIS Chapter 4, Human Health - Air Analysis Conclusions (pages 4-133 and 4-134)
contains a discussion of potential air impacts from the proposed refinery and Mitigation of Impacts,
beginning on page 4-135 in the DEIS and Section 4.16 in the FEIS. See also responses to comments
in the Air and Human Health sections of this document.
Comment 5: Comment that there are no air permit conditions limiting emissions from heaters,
boilers, flares, and devised the flares are purported to control (such as the wastewater system, loading
operations, pressure relief devices, storage tanks, or some fugitive sources), nor for the Sulfur
Recovery Unit, Emergency Generator, Fire Pumps, Storage Tanks, or Soybean Oil extrusion or
refinery processes. Consequently, the emissions and controls above are effectively allowed to be
unlimited. Additional comments regarding no permit conditions include: ensuring tank seals have no
gaps, that there would be no tears or holes in seal fabric, that floating roof tanks rest on liquid surfaces,
that approved emission control systems be gas tight or meet a specific control efficiency, that fittings
and sampling or gauging wells have tight, engineered fittings, that pressure-vacuum valves be kept
leak tight and inspected, that vapor pressure of materials in tanks be tested or that any conditions at all
are set. Comment that without a permit, there are no limitations for the project such as those required
in the San Francisco, California area for sulfur recovery plants, sour water strippers and other activities
generating SOX emissions, including requirements for measuring sulfur content in crude inputs,
requirements for ground level monitors of deadly H2S gas generated by such processes, limits on
sulfur content in particular gas streams, etc.
Response 5: The proposed refinery will be subject to several Clean Air Act NSPS (40 CFR part 60)
requirements, which will impose emission limits, fuel gas specifications, or design requirements and
require testing, monitoring, recording keeping, and reporting for many units. Therefore, not all
emissions will be unmonitored. Appendix A in the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) for the
DEIS does list the refinery units that are subject to a NSPS requirement. This list has been updated in
Appendix A (Table A-l) of the revised Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) for the FEIS
and Table A-2 has been added to listing the specific NSPS requirement for each applicable refinery
unit.
Storage tanks with fixed roofs in combination with an internal floating roof will have to meet specific
design requirements, such as primary and secondary seals, vents equipped with gaskets, openings
August 2009 E-52 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
equipped with covers, etc. under NSPS, subpart Kb. Storage tanks with fixed roofs will be equipped
with a closed vent system for capturing VOCs, with no detectable emissions greater than 500 ppm
above background. The VOC emissions will be vented back to the processes and sometimes sent to
the flare. Tanks will have to be inspected; and seals, gaskets, etc. repaired as needed.
To reduce fugitive VOC emissions, leakless valves will be used for valves in gas, light liquid, and
heavy liquid service, double seals will be used for the pump seals, open ended valves will be plugged,
the compressed seals will be recycled to the process units, and the sample connections will be
enclosed. NSPS subpart GGGa, requires a leak detection and repair program for valves, flanges, pump
seals, etc. for the refinery. Subpart GGGa defines a leak as 500 ppm or more for valves in gas/vapor
service or light liquid service and as 2,000 ppm or more for pumps in light liquid service.
Promulgation of NSPS subpart GGGa on November 16, 2007 triggered the requirement for the
refinery to apply for a 40 CFR part 71 operating permit within 12 months of commencing operations.
NSPS, subpart QQQ also requires that the closed vent system and flare be operated at all times when
emissions may be vented to units. The closed vent system is also subject to the leak detection and
repair program. A leak is indicated by an instrument reading greater than 500 ppm above background.
The flare must be designed and operated with no visible emissions.
Subpart Ja would require that the sulfur recovery unit meet a 99% sulfur removal efficiency, a
hydrogen sulfide (H2S) limit of less than 10 ppm determined on a 12-hour rolling average, and
continuously monitor for compliance. Process heaters with a capacity greater than 20,000,000 Btu/hr
would have to meet a NOx limit of 80 ppm on a 24-hour rolling average and continuously monitor for
compliance. All process heaters and fuel gas combustion devices would have to comply with an SO2
limit of 20 ppm on a 3-hour rolling average, an SO2 limit of 8 ppm determined daily on a 365
successive day rolling average, and monitor continuously. The refinery combustion units will all have
"Low NOx" burners. Finalization of NSPS subpart Ja will also trigger the requirement for the refinery
to apply for a 40 CFR part 71 federal operating permit within 12 months of commencing operation.
The comment references San Francisco area regulations for sulfur recovery plants, etc. BAAQMD is
the acronym for the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in California. EPA has approved
various air quality regulations for the majority of state and/or local governments throughout the
country. The state and local air quality regulations EPA has approved apply to the sources located in
each respective state or local district. The BAAQMD regulations would not apply to the proposed
refinery. Since the refinery is in Indian country, it is subject to federal air regulations, not state
regulations.
Comment 6: Comment that the proposed refinery is not being required to meet regulatory limits that
old refineries are meeting, let alone meeting BACT limits required for new sources.
Response 6: The proposed refinery will be required to meet limits for many units under the NSPS
regulations as stated in Response 1 in this section, which will be much more stringent than "old
refineries" are meeting. As stated in Response 2 in this section, the proposed refinery is not subject to
BACT requirements because it is not subject to PSD permitting requirements.
Comment 7: Comment that without CAA permits requiring BACT and proper equipment
maintenance, there is nothing within project requirements stopping refinery proponents from
purchasing old equipment phased out from use at other refineries which could be old and rusted.
Response 7: For more information about project equipment see Comment 5 in section C. 1 .(c). Many
of the refinery units will be required to meet NSPS requirements. Old and rusted equipment would not
be able to meet these requirements, as the requirements are technology based or design requirements
August 2009 £-53 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
(i.e. seal requirements for fixed or floating roof tanks). In addition, EPA's determination that the
refinery will not need a PSD permit is based on the equipment proposed for the refining process. If
different equipment is used than what was proposed (i.e. old heaters without low NOX burners), then
EPA's determination that no PSD air permit is required would be revisited. Refinery emissions would
have to be reevaluated to determine if the potential emissions would exceed major source thresholds
and thus trigger PSD permitting requirements.
Comment 8: Comments requested that the DEIS provide a more in depth, accurate analysis of the
refinery emission projections, and list the technologies that the projections are based upon. Comments
claimed that the DEIS underestimated all emissions from the proposed refinery and requested that all
the potential polluting emission sources posed by the proposed refinery be reevaluated. Comments
also stated there are inconsistencies in whether the refinery would include a fluidized catalytic
cracking unit.
Response 8: The control equipment by unit is listed in Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical
Report (May 2006). EPA has included in the Air Quality section of Chapter 4 in the FEIS a summary
of the technologies proposed for the refinery to limit emissions and references to tables in the revised
Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) that show the air pollutant emissions from each
refinery unit. {FEIS changes in Section 4.13.1.1}
The only emissions that were underestimated for the proposed refinery were VOC emissions due to
equipment leaks. Fugitive VOC emissions have been calculated and are included in the revised Air
Quality Technical Report (December 2007) and in the overall VOC emissions reported in the FEIS.
{FEIS changes in Section 4.13}
The design for the proposed refinery does not include a fluidized catalytic cracking unit, which nearly
all existing refineries utilize to process crude oils into gasoline, diesel, and other fuels. A fluidized
catalytic cracking unit is one of the most significant sources of air pollutants at a refinery, because of
regeneration of the catalyst. The proposed refinery is designed to use several Hydrocracker Units to
accomplish the same refining as the fluidized catalytic cracking unit. Air emissions are much lower
using the hydrocracking technology as compared to the fluidized catalytic cracking technology
because regeneration of the catalysts are done off site.
Comment 9: Comment that the DEIS neglects to consider and calculate variability in the rate of air
emissions and assumes the facility would operate perfectly, which paints an inaccurate picture and
fails to take into account any resulting adverse environmental impacts.
Response 9: The air emissions listed in Table 4-14 of the DEIS represent the "potential to emit" of
the proposed refinery based on the project proponent's proposed equipment and feedstocks. "Potential
to emit" is defined in the PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21(b) as the maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. This maximum capacity is based
on a source operating for 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Maximum environmental impacts were
accounted for based on maximum or potential emissions.
Comment 10: Comment stated that the DEIS has no basis for implying that because of the relatively
smaller feedstock capacity of the refinery, that the emissions would be lower.
Response 10: The feedstock capacity of a refinery is related to the amount of air pollution that will be
emitted from the refinery. The smaller amount of feedstock into a refinery the lower the emissions out
of the refinery. The amount of feedstock (synthetic crude oil) that is processed in the Crude
Processing Unit determines the amount of heavy hydrocarbons and light hydrocarbons that are sent on
as feed streams to other refinery units for processing into the final products of diesel fuel, gasoline,
August 2009 E-54 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
propane, etc. However, there are sources of emissions from a refinery not related to the feedstock
capacity. One example would be the type of fuel burned in the boilers, heaters, etc. If natural gas or
fuel gas were burned, then air emissions for several pollutants would be lower than if fuel oil was
burned.
Comment 11: Comments stated that since the composition of hydrocarbons and impurities of crude
oil can vary substantially (as detailed in the Air Quality Technical Report), this can lead to uncertainty
and variability in estimating annual emissions.
Response 11: The intent of the discussion about the variability in the composition of hydrocarbons
and impurities of crude oil in the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006, page 3-2) was to clarify
that the equipment and operations of a refinery are designed and operated to process specific crude oils
and produce specific products. Therefore, no two refineries are operated exactly the same because of
the different compositions of crude oil used as feedstocks. The proposed refinery was designed to
process the synthetic crude oil from Canada. The composition of the synthetic crude was accounted
for in calculating potential annual air emissions for the refinery.
Comment 12: Several comments stated there is a lack of emissions data for startup, shutdown, and
equipment malfunctions at the proposed refinery in the DEIS; that PSD regulations require that these
emissions be included in the total project emissions and this data should be included in the DEIS.
Comments stated when processing units are shutdown in smaller refineries with no redundant
equipment, either unexpectedly or as planned, there may be nowhere to route excess gases, causing
increased air pollution during refinery equipment shutdown, which occurs frequently at refineries.
Comment requested that the EIS include an assessment of the average frequency of shutdowns,
startups, maintenance and malfunctions at oil refineries, based on actual data from facilities around the
country.
Response 12: As described in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, the proposed refinery would have a detailed
maintenance plan in place for commencement of operation. The plan would include defining the
requirements for equipment inspections, shutdowns, and startups. Scheduled turnarounds (shutdowns
and startups) for individual process units would occur approximately every three to five years to allow
for cleaning out accumulated undesirable residues, replacing catalysts, replacing absorbents,
conducting repairs, etc. The plan would include a shutdown of a portion of the plant each year on a
rotational basis utilizing tankage to store intermediate products, so there would not be a total outage
for any of the individual units every year and flaring of emissions would be minimized. Unscheduled
shutdowns result from upset plant conditions usually related to power failure, loss of cooling water, or
a fire. To minimize unscheduled shutdowns and startups and associated flaring emissions, the refinery
design includes two independent sources of supply to mitigate the risk of power failure, an Emergency
Generator, and a UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) for critical equipment. In addition, the
proposed refinery does not have a Cooling Tower and the process units have liberal spacing for
isolation and segregation in the event of a fire.
As detailed in the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) on page 4-1, normal operation for the flare
was designed for a loading rate of 15 Ibs/hour (65.7 tons/year). However, to account for potential
process upsets and startup/shutdown activities that could increase emissions releases a loading rate of
500 Ibs/hour (2,190 tons/year) was used to calculate potential air emissions from the flare. The
loading rate of 500 Ibs/hour is over 30 times the normal operation loading rate of 15 Ibs/hour. The
potential flare emissions were also calculated based on operating the flare 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year [See Flare Example NOX calculation in Appendix C of the Air Quality Technical Report (May
2006)]. Therefore, potential emissions from startups, shutdowns and equipment malfunctions, were
conservatively estimated for the proposed refinery.
August 2009 £-55 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
The Air section in Chapter 4 of the FEIS includes a discussion and table of actual emissions from
upsets (including malfunctions, startups, shutdowns and maintenance) from several large refineries
operating in Texas and Louisiana.
Comment 13: Comments stated that fugitive VOC emissions were not accounted for in the emissions
calculations. The comments stated the Air Quality Technical Report referenced information in the
EPA document Protocol for Equipment Leak Emissions Estimates (U.S. EPA, 1995) in which various
listed control measures should provide 100 percent control of fugitive VOC emissions. Comments
stated that 100 percent control of fugitive emissions was unrealistic and that even subparts GGG and
QQQ of 40 CFR 60 allow leakage rates of VOCs of 500 to 10,000 parts per million (ppm) above
background levels. Comments requested that fugitive VOC emissions from all potential sources be
estimated using a more realistic approach.
Response 13: Fugitive VOC emissions have been calculated and are now included in the revised Air
Quality Technical Report (December 2007) and in the overall VOC emissions reported in the FEIS.
{FEIS changes in Section 4.13.1.6}
Comment 14: Comments stated the DEIS incorrectly assumes that fugitive air emissions would be
zero and were concerned that fugitive emissions were not calculated in the Air Quality Technical
Report for other pollutants, such as NOX, CO, SO2, PM10 and PM2 5.
Response 14: Fugitive particulate matter (PMi0 and PM2 5) emissions for a refinery would be
primarily generated by truck traffic. Fugitive emissions for PMio/ PM2 5 were calculated for the
proposed refinery and included in the total potential PM10 and PM2 5 annual emissions. [See Appendix
C of the May 2006 Air Quality Technical Report for calculations and 4-6 for discussion.] The only
other fugitive air emissions from a refinery would be VOCs that would leak from valves, flanges, and
other operating equipment. A refinery does not emit fugitive emissions of NOX, CO, or SO2 as
evidenced by the lack of emission factors for NOX, CO, and SO2 fugitives in AP-42. (See, EPA
publication Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Vol. I: Stationary Point and Area Sources).
Comment 15: Comment stated that the flare emissions were grossly underestimated and the proposed
refinery flare system is designed for routine/daily flaring, which would cause the SO2 and VOC
emissions to be in the hundreds of tons per year.
Response 15: As detailed in the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) on page 4-1, normal
operation for the flare was designed for a loading rate of 15 pounds/hour (65.7 tons/year). However,
to account for potential process upsets and other activities that could increase emissions releases, a
loading rate of 500 pounds/hour (2,190 tons/year) was used to calculate potential air emissions from
the flare. Potential flare emissions were calculated based on operating the flare 24 hours a day, 365
days a year [See Flare Example NOX calculation in Appendix C of the Air Quality Technical Report
(May 2006).] Therefore, calculated potential flare emissions were conservatively estimated for the
proposed refinery.
Comment 16: Comment that the DEIS fails to identify the methods and equipment discussed by
EPA such as flaring prevention investigations and methods, sufficient sulfur gas treatment capacity to
meet the 230 mg/dscm hydrogen sulfide limit within the flare (which limits SOx emissions from the
flare) and other NSPS requirements for flares. Additional comments that the DEIS must be corrected
to reflect large emissions from flaring currently designed into the proposed refinery, require an air
permit for large emissions from flaring, require that BACT and NSPS standards be applied to flares,
including sufficient compressor and treatment capacity to prevent routing flaring, with sufficient
monitoring.
August 2009 £-56 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 16: Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) listed the refinery flare as
not subject to NSPS. This determination was incorrect. The flare for the proposed refinery will be
subject to NSPS, subparts A and Ja. The Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) has been
revised and now includes the specific NSPS requirements for the flare, as well as, the other refinery
units.
Comment 17: Comment that the emissions from the storage tanks were underestimated, because an
inspection program for tank seals and vents was not required and evaporation of VOCs caused by tank
cleaning was also omitted.
Response 17: Most of the storage tanks will have to meet specific design requirements or have a
closed vent system for recovering volatile organic compounds under NSPS, subpart Kb. These tanks
will have to be inspected and seals repaired as needed. Leak detection and repair for valves, flanges,
pump seals, etc. is a requirement for the proposed refinery under NSPS, subpart GGGa.
As stated on page 2-56 of the DEIS, it was estimated that tank cleanings would be required every 6-9
years. Emissions of VOCs from degassing and cleaning of tanks are minimal (i.e., less than 1.0 tons
per tank cleaning event for all tanks combined).
Comment 18: Comment stated that releases from refinery accidents and malfunctions can be huge,
can dwarf emissions from regular operations and must be assessed in the EIS.
Response 18: Refinery accidents and major malfunctions are rare events. There is a potential for
ruptures, fires, etc., at the proposed refinery just like any industrial facility. As noted on page 2-50 of
the DEIS, the operation of equipment and the various processes would be closely monitored with an
extensive, computerized plant information network to provide early warnings of developing problems,
such as a unit failure. This system will help prevent accidents and malfunctions and minimize
emissions. A leak detection and repair program is required under NSPS for the proposed refinery, to
minimize and eliminate leaks. In addition, as described in the DEIS (page 2-51), the refinery will be
required to prepare several types of emergency response plans and prepare for spills. These plans will
require planning, coordination, facility design, and training that will need to be implemented at the
proposed refinery to address emergency situations, such as spills, leaks, and in the rare event a fire or
explosion. [See Response 1 under section E. Emergencies, Spills and Safety of this Response to
Comments document for more specifics on the required plans and FEIS Table "Selected
Environmental Permits, Plans and Mitigation Measures."
Comment 19: Comments stated additional emissions would result from expansion of the refinery and
asked how these additional emissions would be handled by the air permit. One commenter requested
that the EIS be amended to include a re-evaluation of air emissions in light of the maximum capacity
of the refinery and then reissued as draft. If this is not done, the commenter stated that the capacity of
the refinery should be limited to the permitted capacity. Comment asked if refinery expands in the
future and increases emissions, what permits will be required.
Response 19: The need for a PSD was evaluated by EPA based on the maximum proposed capacity
of the refinery and the potential emissions based on this capacity. Therefore, a re-evaluation of all air
emissions is not necessary (some additional VOC emissions were calculated as discussed above). If
the project proponent proposes to expand the refinery, then EPA's determination that no "major
source" PSD air permit is needed would be revisited. The project proponent would have to resubmit a
new air analysis (emissions and air quality impact) for EPA's evaluation and determination of
applicability of a PSD permit.
August 2009 £-57 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Comment 20: Comment asked what facilities are using this same state-of-the-art technology. DEIS
refers to the Turbo refinery but it was shut down in 1992. Since the DEIS compares this refinery to
the Turbo refinery, is there any data about the actual emissions from Turbo?
Response 20: The FEIS has been revised to reflect closure of the Turbo refinery. Emissions data
from the Turbo refinery were not used to calculate potential or maximum emissions from the proposed
refinery. Potential emissions from the proposed refinery were calculated using manufacturer's data
and EPA's publication Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors. Volume I: Stationary Point and
Area Sources, (commonly known as "AP-42"). The design of the proposed refinery will be
comparable to other refineries that are retrofitted to refine the synthetic crude or other refineries that
have added on units to refine the synthetic crude.
D.8.(d). Air Quality Monitoring
Comment 1: Comments expressed concern about the location of the White Shield ambient air
monitoring station, stated the monitoring stations are not in the correct locations to provide accurate
data for facility emissions given that the prevailing winds blow away from MHA Nation air
monitoring stations, and questioned the integrity of the ambient air quality data being monitored and
retrieved by the environmental staff from the Three Affiliated Tribes from the Tribal air monitoring
stations.
Response 1: The intent of siting Ambient Air monitoring stations is not to characterize individual
sources of pollutants, but rather to get a general idea of the concentrations of pollutants for a
representative parcel of air surrounding the placed monitor. For purposes of determining existing air
quality for the project area, it is appropriate to rely on both the White Shield and Beulah monitors
because they provide a conservative assessment of existing ambient conditions for the project area.
While prevailing winds will generally not transport facility emissions directly toward the White Shield
and Beulah monitors, winds from the appropriate transport direction (north) are not unusual in western
North Dakota. In addition, EPA provided comments to the MHA Nation Environmental Division on
September 11, 2006 concerning the current location of the White Shield monitor and the parameters
being monitored. EPA's comments suggested that the monitor be moved to a new location to better
characterize the ambient air in populated areas, one being near the Town of White Shield. Additional
changes to the monitoring network that EPA suggested are the re-siting of the Dragswolf monitor to
better characterize the air in New Town, changing the pollutant parameters being monitored at both
sites (shut down PMi0, and the commencement of PM2 5 monitoring), adding monitoring near the
proposed refinery location (near Makoti), and the addition of one more monitoring station near the
town of Twin Buttes. The Tribes' Environmental Division is currently in the process of locating and
commencing operation of a monitoring station near the proposed refinery site to monitor for SO2, NO2,
andPM25.
EPA Region 8 has annually granted the MHA Nation a Clean Air Act § 105 grant for monitoring and
other air program activities. Stipulations within the MHA Nation workplan require Quality Assurance
and oversight of the MHA Nation monitoring network, and adherence to EPA monitoring
requirements and guidelines. Within these guidelines are certain measures which ensure the validity
and integrity of the data gathered by MHA Nation such as comparing monitoring methods to reference
standards, and having external audits of monitoring equipment conducted by independent
organizations (contracted and EPA). EPA Region 8 also conducts audits on all of its air monitoring
grantees every 3 years to meet a requirement of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR Part 58
Appendix A). Based on EPA's monitoring data requirements, there is no compelling reason to distrust
the data that have historically been gathered at MHA Nation monitoring locations.
August 2009 £-58 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Comment 2: Comments stated concerns of inadequate information on air emission controls and/or
monitoring. Comment that inspection and maintenance programs are essential for ensuring that
fugitive source emissions are minimized, and are not discussed in the DEIS.
Response 2: Appendix A of the Air Quality Technical Report (May 2006) lists the emission controls
for each proposed refinery unit. As stated in several responses in Section D.8(c) of this Response to
Comments document, the proposed refinery will be subject to several NSPS (40 CFR part 60)
requirements, which will impose emission limits, fuel gas specifications, or design requirements and
require testing, monitoring, recording keeping, and reporting for many units. Tanks will have to be
inspected and seals repaired as needed. Leak detection and repair for valves, flanges, pump seals, etc.
is a requirement for the proposed refinery under NSPS, subpart GGGa. The fuel gas burned will have
to be monitored for sulfur dioxide content.
The Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) has been revised and now includes the specific
NSPS requirements for each applicable refinery unit. The Air section in Chapter 4 of the FEIS has
been revised and summarizes emission controls and the applicable NSPS requirements. {FEIS
changes in Section 4.13.1.1}
Comment 3: Comment asked how the refinery will monitor hydrogen sulfide gas.
Response 3: The refinery will monitor for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from the sulfur recovery plant under
NSPS subpart Ja through the use of a continuous monitor. The sulfur recovery plant must not
discharge any gases containing H2S in excess of 10 parts per million by volume (ppmv) determined
hourly on a 12-hour rolling average. The refinery will also monitor indirectly for hydrogen sulfide by
monitoring continuously for sulfur dioxide (SO2) from the refinery combustion units. NSPS subpart Ja
requires that the fuel gas burned in the refinery combustion units (i.e. crude heater, reformer heaters,
boilers, hydrocrackers, flare, etc.) meet a SO2 limit of 20 ppmv on a 3-hour rolling average and a limit
of 8 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling average.
Comment 4: Comment stated the Tribes are proposing to establish an air monitoring station near
Makoti to obtain PSD data and baseline data, before the start up of the refinery.
Response 4: In 2007, EPA worked with the MHA Nation Environmental Division on revisions to
their Annual Network Review, which is a review of the Tribes' current monitoring network to
determine if monitoring needs for the Reservation are being met. As detailed in Response 1 in this
section, one of EPA's initial comments on the Annual Network Review suggested siting an air
monitoring station near Makoti and the proposed refinery location prior to construction of the refinery.
This monitoring station would be used to monitor for compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and for determining preconstruction ambient pollutant concentrations
(baseline data). EPA will not require the project proponent to conduct PSD monitoring prior to
construction, since the proposed refinery does not require a PSD permit.
Comment 5: Comment asked how many real time air pollution monitoring systems the refinery will
install to monitor on a real time, instantaneous basis, the air emissions from all process units and
stacks.
Response 5: NSPS, subpart Ja requires that the fuel gas burned in the refinery combustion units (i.e.
crude heater, reformer heaters, boilers, hydrocrackers, flare, etc.) meet an SO2 limit of 20 ppmv on a 3-
hour rolling average and a limit of 8 ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling average.
Compliance with these limits must be determined using a continuous monitoring system. NOX
emissions from the process heaters will require continuous monitoring, as well as, H2S emissions from
the sulfur recovery plant.
August 2009 E-59 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Comment 6: Comment asked if the refinery's flares and pollution rates will be monitored, if so, by
what means, what the expected combustion efficiency rate or percentage is, and whether flare gases
vented into each flare will be continuously monitored and by whom.
Response 6: The proposed refinery is designed with only one flare. The flare systems operations are
described in Section 2 of the EIS as described in Response 5 above, subpart Ja requires that the fuel
gas burned in the flare not exceed an SO2 limit of 20 ppmv on a 3-hour rolling average and a limit of 8
ppmv determined daily on a 365 successive day rolling average. Compliance with this concentration
limit will be continuously monitored.
The proposed refinery's VOC emissions will be controlled with both a vapor recovery system and a
flare. Under NSPS, subpart QQQ the vapor recovery system must meet an efficiency of at least 95
percent. The general provisions of the NSPS, subpart A (40 CFR 60.18) and subpart QQQ require that
the flare be designed and operated: 1) with no visible emissions, except for periods not to exceed a
total of 5 minutes during any two consecutive hours; 2) with a flame present at all times; and 3) to
meet a specific exit velocity, depending on the flare type. The presence of a flame shall be monitored
using a thermocouple, visible emissions shall be monitored with opacity readings done by a certified
observer, and the exit velocity will be calculated using the measured volumetric flowrate and the area
of the flare tip. Performance tests and data for the flare must be submitted to EPA for review.
D.8.(e). Climate Change
Comment 1 - Refinery Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Several comments expressed concern that
emissions from the refinery would contribute to climate change.
Response 1: In response to comments on the DEIS, EPA has collected additional information
regarding estimated emissions of greenhouse gases from the refinery and the potential for those
emissions to contribute to climate change. This information is available in Section 4.13 of the FEIS.
Comment 2: One comment stated that carbon dioxide emissions from the proposed refinery could
exceed limits set by the North Dakota Health Department.
Response 2: The State of North Dakota has not set any limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Comment 3: Several comments expressed concern that the DEIS did not address the contribution of
the proposed refinery to the cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions globally and locally.
Response 3: In response to comments on the DEIS, the Agencies have collected additional
information regarding the contribution of the proposed refinery to the cumulative effects of
greenhouse gas emissions. This information is available in Section 4.13 of the FEIS.
Comment 4: Several comments objecting to the proposed refinery stated that climate change and
global warming have a severe and disproportionate effect on indigenous peoples, including American
Indians and Alaska Natives. One commenter noted that unpredictable weather patterns within the
homelands of the MHA Nation have created drought conditions, crop and livestock loss, creating
economic hardships.
Response 4: While it is possible that indigenous and local communities could bear a greater portion
of the impacts from global climate change because of their close association with their traditional
lands and water, attempting to make linkages of specific climatological changes or other
environmental effects to a single emissions source is not useful because such linkages are difficult to
isolate and understand. Information included in Section 4.13 of the FEIS addresses the magnitude of
August 2009 E-60 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
the proposed refinery's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions compared with other emission sources, the
proposed refinery's GHG emissions in the context of total GHG emissions at a national and global
scale, and the impacts of climate change generally.
Comment 5 : One comment stated the emissions of greenhouse gases within the United States was
the subject of international court action related to the United State's obligations pursuant to
international environmental and human rights laws. The comment further stated that these obligations
were not consistent with development of the proposed refinery because global climate change would
be exacerbated by emissions from the refinery.
Response 5: Regarding the commenter's statement that the United States is in violation of
international human rights law as set forth in the Inuit Circumpolar Commission's petition brought
before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, having reviewed the petition, the
Commission, in January 2007, determined it to be "inadmissible". This means that the Commission
considered that the petition filed against the United States failed to meet the basic requirements for a
human rights case to be considered in the Inter-American human rights system.
Any related international law assertions with regard to this proposed project are beyond the purview of
this NEPA analysis. The Final EIS appropriately analyzes and describes the proposed refinery
project's potential environmental impacts. Section 4.13 of the Final EIS estimates the GHG emissions
from the proposed refinery, evaluates the proposed refinery's greenhouse gas emissions in the context
of total annual U.S. and global CO2-equivalent emissions, provides information on the magnitude of
the refinery's greenhouse gas emissions as compared to other emission sources, and describes the
impacts of climate change generally, including impacts within the United States.
Comment 6: Several comments expressed concern about the potential for global climate change to
adversely impact the State of North Dakota, including temperature increases, water shortages and
drought.
Response 6: A complete analysis of the impacts of global climate change on North Dakota is beyond
the scope of this EIS. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions relative to this project has been
discussed in Section 4.13 of the FEIS.
D.9. SOCIOECONOMICS
Comment 1: Several comments expressed concern about the Tribes' financial status and past Tribal
enterprises, including comments expressing concern for the financing of the construction and
operation of the refinery when the Tribes are experiencing financial difficulties presently and concern
with paying land taxes and inability to get land back for economic development as a Tribal member.
Response 1: 25 CFR Part 151 does not require BIA to conduct an analysis of the Tribes' financial
status for acquisitions of land in trust that are on-reservation. It is possible that the Tribes may enter
into business lease arrangements under which the BIA might review certain aspects of the Tribes'
financial status.
Comment 2: Several comments expressed concern about the economic viability of the project and
wondered why it would go forward when it is not cost-effective. Comment questions how this small
refinery could compete with the current market and be a viable economic investment.
Response 2: The economic viability for the project is not part of the Federal Agency decision making
process. The BIA reviews business plans for economic benefits associated with the proposed business
August 2009 £-67 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
purpose for Off-Reservation acquisitions or business lease agreements. This is part of the well
established Federal policy of respect for tribal self government.
Comment 3: Comments stated that the Tribes intend to sell the refinery to investors instead of
owning and operating the facility as proposed.
Response 3: The Federal Agencies have not received any indication from the Tribes that the project
will not be owned and operated by them. The EIS analysis assumes that the Tribes will be owner and
operator of the facility.
If there is to be an outside investor for the operation of the refinery on land held in trust status, a
business lease pursuant to 25 CFR Part 162 will be required. Additional compliance with NEPA and
other Federal regulations will be required prior to the BIA's action on a business lease.
Comment 4: Various comments were made about the economic benefits of the proposed refinery and
how the refinery supports Tribal sovereignty and the Reservation economy. Several comments asked
about the use of profits from the refinery, including whether Tribal members would receive dividends
from the project and concern that the Tribes would only make a small fraction of the income made by
the refinery.
Response 4: These comments have been referred to the Tribes for consideration as the issues are not
part of the Federal Agency decision making process.
Comment 5: Several comments concerned employment of Tribal members at the facility stating a
variety of concerns, including: the numbers of jobs that will be available at the refinery, the refinery
will only create technical jobs, past projects promised employment to Native Americans but never
came through, lack of technical jobs in the area so Tribal members need to go to other states, the need
for employment to combat illness and health complications, only employment available is at the casino
which has health hazards, as well as statements that surrounding area power plants and coal mines pay
the same as the refinery and there is no need for the additional job opportunities the refinery may
bring, newly unemployed people could find employment at the refinery, the project could have a
positive impact on the Reservation economy and increase Reservation jobs so members will not have
to move off the Reservation to find work.
Response 5: Please refer to the DEIS, page 4-111, Economy and Employment. According to the
DEIS (page 4-111), the majority of the construction and operation workforce would be local hires.
The labor pool is anticipated to be hired through the MHA Nation and through private contractors.
The MHA Nation has a set hiring practice in accordance with the Tribal Employment Rights Office
(TERO). Therefore, qualified Tribal members will have a hiring preference.
The statements on employment opportunities or lack thereof have been noted.
Comment 6: Several comments discussed local oil usage and mineral revenues for landowners.
Response 6: The project as presented to the Federal Agencies by the Tribes is to use synthetic crude
oil from Alberta Canada. The facility is designed to process synthetic crude oil only. It is not
designed to process local crude oils which would require additional desalting and other refining
outside the capacity of this facility. Therefore, there would be no benefits for mineral owners.
Comment 7: Comments stated concern about a decrease in property values around the refinery, asked
whether there would be negotiated buyouts or other compensation if property values decrease, and
stated that property value impacts are not discussed in EIS.
August 2009 £-62 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Response 7: The construction and operation of the refinery is not anticipated to cause changes in
adjacent agricultural land values. Changes in residential land values may occur from employees
moving closer to the refinery instead of commuting 60 miles or more. However, this is entirely
speculative as an analysis of the potential work force conducted as part of the feasibility for the project
indicated that most individuals were willing to commute 60 miles to their workplace. In fact, many
Tribal employees currently commute more than 60 miles to work in New Town, ND.
Comment 8: Comments expressed concern regarding increased demand on surrounding infrastructure
including roads, water, health services, fire protection, and ambulance services, including the
increased costs of covering these services.
Response 8: During construction and operation of the refinery, there is the potential to affect
community facilities and infrastructure. There will be increased road use and demands on emergency
services. The Agencies are unaware of any plans to improve or pay for improvements of roads
between Makoti and the refinery or other surrounding communities. There will be a new turnout on
Highway 23 into the refinery.
Fire protection, emergency health care services, ambulance service, and site security would be
provided by the refinery as construction begins and operations continue. The details of fire and other
emergency services will be developed as the emergency response plans are developed. The refinery
will have its own fire response team and equipment on site. Emergency planning will need to be
coordinated with other emergency services in the surrounding areas in accordance with Local
Emergency Response Planning.
Comment 9: Comments discussed the adequacy of consideration given to cumulative impacts,
including an increase in environmental impacts as the refinery ages and stating that there is a conflict
between noting that no other projects are planned in the area yet the refinery will stimulate local
development.
Response 9: The environmental impacts from the facility projected throughout the life of the refinery
have been analyzed under the direct and indirect impacts sections for each resource in the EIS. For
example see the information in Chapter 4 regarding Ground Water, Spills and potential impacts during
reclamation and closure of the refinery in the Solid and Hazardous Waste Section.
The cumulative impacts analyses included existing activities and reasonably foreseeable development
in the area which could affect the same resources as the refinery. For most resources, the majority of
impacts were from historic and existing agricultural activities. The cumulative impacts analysis
anticipated that the area surrounding the refinery would continue to be used for agriculture. See the
cumulative impacts discussion in Chapter 4 in the Land Use and other sections. The minor
development that could occur in order to provide services to the refinery or refinery workers is not
anticipated to be significant (e.g. small in scale and likely to occur in the surrounding small towns
which have unused capacity). Transportation (an increase in traffic) is the main resource that would
be affected by growth induced by the refinery (indirect impact). For more information about the
cumulative impacts of specific resources, please see that section in the response to comments. For
example the air cumulative effects comments are discussed in section E.8(b) of this Response to
Comments.
Comment 10: Comment stated concern that if the land becomes contaminated, relocation is not an
option for Tribal members who are not welcome off the Reservation.
Response 10: Adverse impacts to properties or residences immediately adjacent to the project site are
not anticipated. The existing farm house on the refinery site would not be suitable for habitation while
August 2009 £-63 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
the refinery is operating. There are no other residences in the immediate area. The closest home,
other than the existing farm house, is about 500 yards from the edge of the site. It is not anticipated
that any of the residences within the 1-mile radius would become contaminated.
Comment 11: Comment asked if there are any grants available from the Tribes or whether the
refinery will qualify for State funds from North Dakota to support the Town of Makoti's water, roads
and other infrastructure needs.
Response 11: The MHA Nation does not anticipate having funds available to help pay for
infrastructure improvement projects in the surrounding communities. The State of North Dakota,
Energy Development Impact Office does have some funding available to local governments to cope
with increased populations and infrastructure needs associated with energy projects. We do not know
if Makoti and other communities would qualify for state funding. More information is available on the
internet at: http://www.land.state.nd.us/.
D.10. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Comment 1: Several comments expressed concerned about putting the refinery in an EJ community.
Response 1: EPA evaluated the potential for adverse human health or environmental effects on
communities with EJ indicators surrounding the reservation as part of the NEPA process. EPA
concluded that there would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on these communities.
These results are described in the Environmental Justice Tier One Analysis, which is appended to the
FEIS.
Comment 2: Comments stated that the DEIS is not in compliance with Executive Order 12898,
"Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations." (EO 12898)
Response 2: The purpose of EO 12898 is to define the approaches by which EPA will ensure that
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects to minority communities
and low-income communities are identified and addressed. The EJ analysis in the EIS evaluates
whether there are any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on
any communities, including minority and low-income communities. It is EPA's policy that no group
of people, including a racial, ethnic, or a socioeconomic group, should bear a disproportionate share of
the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial
operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.
Both the Draft and Final EISs have analyzed potential impacts to human health (pages 4-116 through
4-138 DEIS and Section 4.16 FEIS), economic and social effects of this action, including the effects
on minority and low-income populations (pages 4-110 through 4-116 in the DEIS and Sections 4.14
and 4.15 in the FEIS). Further, as part of its NPDES permitting process, EPA prepared an
Environmental Justice Tier 1 Analysis which evaluated existing data for indicators of Environmental
Justice concerns.
In response to comments on the DEIS, the Environmental Justice analysis was revised to include an
expanded geographic area and improve data availability in the area surrounding the refinery. See
section 4.15 of the FEIS. The Environmental Justice Tier 1 Analysis for the NPDES permit has also
been revised (December 21, 2007) and is available as a technical report. Some modifications have
been made in the FEIS to section 4.14 - Socioeconomics. Additional human health analysis has also
been prepared evaluating the availability of existing health information for the MHA Nation and
potential food chain impacts. The revised information is available in Section 4.16 of the FEIS,
August 2009 E-64 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Appendix D and the technical report - Qualitative and Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment:
TAT Refinery EIS, December 2007.
Comment 3: Several comments stated that the Environmental Justice analysis failed to adequately
address health and environmental impacts.
Response 3: As part of the NEPA process, the Agencies analyzed potential impacts to human health
in the Health and Safety section starting on page 4-116 of the DEIS. Since the DEIS was issued, EPA
collected additional health information, and that information has been incorporated into the FEIS,
Appendix D and the technical report - Qualitative and Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment:
TAT Refinery EIS, December 2007. {FEIS changes in Section 4.16}
Comment 4: Several comments asked how EPA developed the 10-mile "affected area" for analyzing
Environmental Justice impacts and expressed concern that this area was not large enough to
adequately represent the potentially impacted area. It was suggested that the EJ analysis should
consider at least an area that is within a 60-mile radius from the project site, or more accurately, the
entire radius considered within EPA's own risk assessment guidelines. A comment noted the fact that
existing air monitoring is done 15 to 40 miles from pollution sources.
Response 4: Determination of the "affected area" for purposes of environmental justice assessments
is made on a case-by-case basis after assessing the potential impacts of a project. In determining the
affected area for the proposed refinery, EPA's evaluation included the potential extent of impacts to
air, water and the surrounding community. EPA reviewed the air dispersion modeling results for the
project and compared these results to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The
NAAQS are health-based standards, set at a level sufficient to protect public health with an adequate
margin of safety. As discussed in the air impacts section of the EIS and the accompanying air quality
technical report, the predicted air quality impacts from the proposed refinery would occur within a
one-mile radius of the refinery site and that air quality impacts would diminish rapidly with distance
from the refinery site. The air quality impact modeling fully complied with EPA's guidance for
conducting these types of analyses. The NPDES permit limits require discharges from the proposed
refinery to be protective of aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture and wildlife uses at the point of
discharge which is within the refinery site. Thus, no increased area beyond the one-mile radius was
needed to evaluate these impacts from air emissions and wastewater discharges. Regarding
socioeconomic impacts, the nearest communities to the refinery site would be Makoti, located two
miles east of the site, and Plaza, located four miles northwest of the site.
As discussed above in Response 2 of this section, the environmental justice analysis has been revised,
expanding the geographic scope of the analysis. The analysis now includes data from the four zip
code areas which surround the refinery. The switch from a simple 10-mile radius to an area defined by
surrounding zip codes improved the availability of census data and improved the analysis for
communities in the vicinity of the proposed refinery site.
Using EPA's criteria for evaluating environmental justice concerns, the Agencies concluded that there
would be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on the communities within 10 miles of the
proposed refinery and the four zip code areas surrounding the refinery. By ensuring that there would
be no disproportionately high and adverse effects on communities that are located near the proposed
refinery, the Agencies have also ensured that communities located further away from the proposed
refinery would not be subjected to any disparate adverse impact from the refinery.
Comment 5: Several comments expressed concern that refinery emissions, either individually or in
combination with existing sources of air pollution, will increase the amount of pollution within a 30-
August 2009 E-65 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
mile radius of the proposed refinery, causing an increase in disproportionate effects of toxics
(immediate and bio-accumulative) to the community.
Response 5: The Air Quality Technical Reports (May 2006 and December 2007) and EIS provide the
results of air modeling to assess the potential adverse health effects of criteria pollutant emissions and
hazardous air pollutants. The air modeling input parameters consider not only potential refinery
emissions, but also ambient air monitoring data, long-term exposures, and potential chronic adverse
health effects of these pollutants. The results indicate that refinery emissions would have no
significant adverse impacts on the health of local area communities. See also responses under sections
D.8, Air Quality, and E.2., Cumulative Air Impacts for more information. The FEIS Air Quality
analysis, Section 4.13 and Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007) have been rewritten to
include recent and future regulatory changes and address comments on the DEIS. Refinery emissions
are expected to have no measurable adverse impacts on the health of local residents.
Comment 6: A few comments were concerned that the EJ analysis did not address the possibility of
disproportionate impacts on Tribal members resulting from their consumption of fish, buffalo meat,
wildlife and plants.
Response 6: The two primary exposure pathways from refinery operations are from air emissions and
effluent discharges. As stated in the Air Quality Analysis and Human Health sections of the EIS, no
measurable adverse human health effects from refinery air emissions are anticipated. Table 4-21 in the
DEIS shows the results of a comparison of estimated ambient concentrations of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs) resulting from refinery emissions with National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). This comparison showed that HAP concentrations from the proposed refinery would be 18
to 40 times below EPA's health-based levels. As a result, adverse health effects due to inhalation of
HAPs from the refinery by human receptors are not expected. To more completely document the
consideration of other exposure pathways, EPA has added text to Chapter 4 of the FEIS. The
additional text provides a qualitative comparison of modeled emitted concentrations of contaminants
from the proposed refinery with actual emitted concentrations of similar contaminants from existing
refineries that are processing synthetic crude or the precursor material to synthetic crude, bitumen, or a
combination of these feedstocks. These refineries include: Petro-Canada, Scotford, Heartland, and
North West refineries located in Alberta, Canada. Canadian environmental studies conducted for these
refineries included an evaluation of the effects of air emissions on the surrounding environment.
Bioaccumulative effects of the potentially emitted HAPs, as well as other contaminants that may
adversely effect the environment, such as benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and
formaldehyde, were considered to be insignificant for each of the refineries, which are many times
larger than the proposed refinery. Finally, EPA conducted a quantitative analysis of refinery emissions,
which included an evaluation of toxic air emissions potentially entering the food chain through various
pathways including bison, wildlife and plants. The results of this analysis indicate that there would be
no adverse impacts to humans consuming these foods grown or raised in proximity to the refinery.
The NPDES permit would require that wastewater discharges from the proposed refinery are
protective of multiple uses including: aquatic life, drinking water, agriculture and wildlife uses. The
discharge limits take into account indirect pathways of exposure, such as humans eating fish, cattle or
bison and wildlife eating fish or other wildlife. The Agencies expect no direct impacts to fish as a
result of refinery construction and operations, given that no fisheries are located in proximity to the
proposed refinery site. The State of North Dakota Historical Preservation Office and the MHA Nation
Cultural Preservation Office have indicated that there are no known historical or cultural resources at
the site. The MHA Nation Tribal Government has further indicated that there are no cultural or
ceremonial uses of the proposed refinery site and that no hunting of wildlife or gathering of plants
occurs there. Text has been added to Chapter 4 of the FEIS to evaluate and discuss the potential for
bioaccumulation and uptake of refinery emissions and discharges through the food chain. See also the
August 2009 £-66 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
responses to comments regarding impacts to wildlife and human health in section D. {FEIS changes in
Section 4.16.1.2}
Comment 7: A few comments expressed concern that the DEIS did not address potential impacts to
traditional Indigenous lands or communities of the Cree and Dene in Canada.
Response 7: The DEIS identified and analyzed the reasonably foreseeable impacts associated with the
proposed project. Development of the tar sands in Canada is not anticipated to expand as a result of
this project, which is designed to use 10,000 barrels per day of synthetic crude. According to the
Government of Alberta's web site, Alberta exported about 1.34 million barrels per day (mbpd) of crude
oil to the U.S. in 2007. The MHA Nation refinery would be a very small customer of Alberta refinery
feedstock at 0.01 mbpd (<1%). Also as with other commodities, products of the same type are
generally interchangeable, there is no specific mine associated with the synthetic crude that will be
delivered via pipeline from Canada.
D.11. HUMAN HEALTH
Comment 1: Several comments expressed interest in health impacts associated with other refineries.
There was specific interest in epidemiological study results about birth defects and mortality in human
populations living near other refineries and whether health statistics were available for communities
surrounding the Tesoro refinery in Bismarck, North Dakota, in particular.
Response 1: Chapter 4 of the DEIS included epidemiological results from a study of cancer incidence
surrounding a large refinery in Ponca City, Oklahoma performed by the Air Quality Division of the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in 2002 (ODEQ, 2004). As discussed on
page 4-128 of the DEIS, the study concluded that there was no significant increased lifetime cancer
risk from volatile organic air toxics in the Ponca City area. The Ponca City oil refinery has a
production capacity about ten times larger than the proposed refinery. A 20-kilometer square area was
selected for analysis, which included all the major sources of air pollution in the immediate area.
Modeling was conducted as per the Regional Air Impact Modeling Initiative developed by EPA
Region 6. The conclusion of the risk modeling was that there was no significant increased lifetime
cancer risk from the volatile organic air toxics in the Ponca City area. The model predicted increased
lifetime cancer risks in the range of IX10"5 (one in one-hundred-thousand) to IX10"6 (one in one-
million) immediately next to the refinery, which is within the EPA's target risk range.
During preparation of the DEIS, EPA initiated additional studies to evaluate potential human health
impacts of the proposed refinery. These studies included an April 2006 request to the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for assistance in resolving public health concerns
associated with the proposed refinery. ATSDR organized and worked closely with an interagency
team to prepare a report addressing these concerns, which they submitted to EPA on February 28,
2007 (ATSDR, 2007). The report comprises multiple components including a literature review and
summary of studies of health outcomes of residents living near refineries in the United States. Since
the last major refinery built in the United States was completed in 1976, the literature review revealed
that health outcome studies conducted of conventional refineries using old technology did not
adequately represent potential exposures that might result from the proposed refinery using new and
cleaner technological processes. The interagency team contacted experts in air quality and adverse
health outcomes associated with refineries and identified additional relevant industry-specific reports
for refineries built or significantly modified in western Canada during the years 2001-2006. The
health assessments conducted for the Canadian refineries concluded that there were no significant
adverse health effects on nearby populations resulting from refinery operations. The Qualitative and
August 2009 £-67 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Quantitative Human Health Risk Assessment Technical Report, December 2007 included with the
FEIS provides more information on these health assessments.
The refineries evaluated in the epidemiological studies referenced above likely represent a worst case
scenario when compared with the proposed refinery, because their operating capacity is many times
that of the proposed refinery and their primary feedstock materials contain significantly higher
concentrations of contaminants capable of eliciting adverse health impacts than synthetic crude, the
feedstock for the proposed refinery. Given that no significant adverse health risks were determined for
the Ponca City and Canadian refineries, it is very unlikely that emissions from the proposed refinery
will result in a measurable increase in adverse health effects to populations in the surrounding area.
The ATSDR report also examined the issue of cancer incidence (for selected cancers) and asthma
across all North Dakota counties, although the report did not analyze the incidence data relative to the
Tesoro refinery, which is located in Mandan (Morton County). Chapter 4 of the FEIS includes a
summary of the results of this report, and further details are included in responses to other comments
in this section.
Comment 2: Several comments expressed concern about health impacts to people who eat the Tribes'
buffalo, or eat fish, plants and berries collected near the proposed refinery due to the potential for
toxicants from the refinery to bioaccumulate in these plants and animals.
Response 2 See D.10, Response 6.
Comment 3: Several comments expressed concern regarding the adequacy of the assessment of the
health risks posed by the refinery and objected to an allowance for any increased cancer incidence,
asthma, or other health risks. Some comments expressed concern about chronic, lifetime exposures to
contaminants emitted by the proposed refinery and the potential increase in cancer, disease, birth
defects, and genetic mutations that may result in the surrounding population. Many comments
expressed concern about adverse health effects to sensitive receptors such as children, pregnant
women and their unborn children.
Response 3: In Chapter 4 of the DEIS, the evaluation of risks from refinery NAAQS pollutant and
HAP toxic emissions was based on comparisons with health-based screening levels and included
conservative assumptions designed to overestimate risks. EPA performed air modeling to estimate
worst-case concentrations of chemicals in emissions from the proposed refinery. These estimated
concentrations were compared with health-based screening levels including the NAAQS and the PSD
increments. The NAAQS and PSD levels are calculated using conservative exposure assumptions that
are designed to be protective of sensitive sub-populations of human beings such as children, pregnant
women, and the elderly. These health-based screening levels represent concentrations below which
unacceptable increases in cancer are not expected to occur. For example, these health-based screening
levels are derived by assuming that a lifetime exposure (i.e., 70 years) to specific levels of air toxicants
will produce an increased cancer incidence of only one in one million. The current national average of
cancer incidence is one in three; therefore, EPA's benchmark for increased cancer incidence due to
environmental exposures increases this incidence rate to 1.000001 in 3. As shown in Table 4-21 of the
DEIS, the predicted emissions from the proposed refinery are well below (i.e., 18 to 40 times below)
EPA's conservative health-based levels for benzene, formaldehyde and PAHs, which are the primary
cancer causing chemicals in emissions from refineries. Because the predicted concentrations of
chemicals in emissions from the proposed refinery are substantially less than the levels that have
conservatively been established as being protective of human health, adverse health effects for
receptors, even sensitive subpopulations, exposed to emissions from the refinery are unlikely.
August 2009 £-68 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
The ATSDR report (February 2007) included a summary of data on asthma prevalence in adults and
children who reside throughout North Dakota collected by the North Dakota Department of Health's
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The BRFSS is a state-based system of
telephone health surveys of adults that collects timely information primarily related to chronic disease
and injury. Each month throughout the year, telephone calls are made to randomly selected
households, and a single adult respondent is asked if he or she will participate. North Dakota has one
of the highest response rates in the nation for collection of this health data. The BRFSS data will
provide a means to evaluate changes in asthma incidence in the populations in the area potentially
impacted by the refinery relative to baseline (i.e., pre-refmery) conditions.
Similarly, the ATSDR report included a summary of cancer incidence for selected cancers in North
Dakota. All cancers are reportable in North Dakota. All medical diagnostic laboratories, physicians,
and other health care providers who administer screening, diagnostic or therapeutic services are
required to report cancer to the state. Hospitals and other health care facilities that provide inpatient
and/or outpatient services and mobile units that provide screening, diagnostic or therapeutic services
also are required to report newly diagnosed (incident) cancer cases. Since 2001, the North Dakota
Department of Health's Cancer Registry has received the Gold Standard Certification award from the
North American Association of Central Cancer Registries (NAACCR). These data will provide a
means to evaluate changes in cancer incidence in the populations in the area potentially impacted by
the refinery relative to baseline (i.e., pre-refmery) conditions.
Comment 4: A few comments stated that the toxicology used in the DEIS looks at pollution effects
one chemical at a time and this is not accurate because exposure will be to a mixture of chemicals.
Response 4: EPA's risk assessment methodology allows for evaluation of mixtures of environmental
contaminants. Specifically, the Agency calculates risk estimates for cancer causing chemicals using
an additive approach, and systemic toxicants (i.e., non-cancer disease causing chemicals) are often
evaluated in aggregate based on the target organ or system affected. When developing air emission,
wastewater, and other types of discharge limits, EPA considers the nature and complexity of the
contaminant mixture in order to establish levels protective of human health and the environment.
Comment 5: Several comments stated that additional data should be collected to allow for a complete
analysis of health effects and to perform a baseline health study as part of the NEPA process.
Response 5: ATSDR has researched the status of adverse health effects in communities near
refineries and conducted a baseline health assessment for residents of the Fort Berthold Indian
Reservation, with an emphasis on asthma and cancer (ATSDR report February 2007). The report
summarized information from a number of sources including the Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service
(AAIHS), which provides healthcare to American Indian residents on or near the Fort Berthold, North
Dakota reservation. ATSDR used the data from the study of potential adverse health effects associated
with refineries to focus the baseline health assessment of cancer and asthma in North Dakota and in
the three counties surrounding the proposed refinery site in particular. The results of this assessment
indicate that currently there is no known increased incidence of specific cancers (i.e., kidney and non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma) in North Dakota, nor in McLean, Mountrail, and Ward counties. Similarly, the
prevalence rates of lifetime asthma in adults in North Dakota were similar to the U.S. and American
Indian prevalence rates during the reporting period studied. Because these data have been collected in
the past and are expected to be collected in the future, they provide a baseline of the current health
status of the population and provide a possible mechanism for monitoring the actual effects of the
proposed refinery on cancer incidence and asthma prevalence in the future.
The health effects associated with potential air emissions from the proposed refinery were carefully
evaluated in the EIS, and adverse health effects caused by exposures to emissions via the inhalation
August 2009 £-69 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
and food chain pathways were specifically considered in the risk analyses performed. While there
may be potential uncertainties associated with these analyses of impacts to human health and the
environment due to a lack of specific data, the conservative assumptions built into the process of
evaluating impacts to human health and the environment typically result in an overestimation of
adverse effects and should more than account for these uncertainties and ensure protectiveness of
human health and the environment.
Comment 6: Several comments expressed concern that the proposed refinery would add to the burden
on the existing healthcare system, which currently cannot meet their healthcare needs. Many
expressed concern that there is already too much cancer and other health problems in the surrounding
communities.
Response 6: The health impacts of all chemicals released as emissions from the proposed refinery,
including those chemicals that cause cancer, asthma and other chronic adverse health outcomes, have
been evaluated based on a comparison with conservative health-based screening levels. The results of
this evaluation indicate that no adverse health effects are likely to occur as a result of the emissions
from the proposed refinery. Because adverse health risks associated with the proposed refinery are
expected to be negligible, no additional burden should be placed on the local health care system.
The baseline health assessment data compiled in the ATSDR report do not support the conclusion that
there are elevated incidence rates of cancer or asthma in the communities surrounding the site of the
proposed refinery, although the small populations somewhat limit the statistical analysis of the data.
Comment 7: A few comments expressed concern about potential adverse affects to workers exposed
to hazardous substances while working at the refinery.
Response 7: The maximum 1-hour, 8-hour, and 24-hour modeled ambient air impacts for the
proposed refinery were compared with health-based screening levels including the NAAQS and the
PSD increments. These shorter duration air concentrations are designed to estimate worst-case
exposures for refinery workers. In addition, the NAAQS and PSD levels are calculated using
conservative exposure assumptions. These levels represent concentrations of chemicals below which
adverse health effects are highly unlikely if exposure were to occur.
As shown in Tables 30 and 31 of the Air Quality Technical Report (EPA, 2006) and Tables 31 and 32
of the Air Quality Technical Report (December 2007), the predicted emissions from the proposed
refinery are well below (i.e., 18 to 40 times below) EPA's conservative health based levels for ambient
air contaminants and for various hazardous air pollutants. Because the predicted concentrations of
chemicals in emissions from the proposed refinery are substantially less than the levels that have
conservatively been established as being protective of human health, adverse health effects for workers
exposed to air emissions from the proposed refinery are likely to be insignificant.
The survey of the literature related to occupational exposures of refinery workers, included in the,
ATSDR report, identified an increased incidence of two specific types cancers in this worker
population, cancers of the kidney and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Chapter 4 of the DEIS, Refinery
Employees Health Risk, summarizes six toxicological studies of refinery worker health. As stated on
page 4-129, there are limitations to the use of these studies for a direct comparison to the likely health
effects on workers at the proposed refinery, due to differences in technology, feedstock materials, and
employee population demographics between studied facilities and the proposed refinery.
Comment 8: One comment questioned the conclusion in the DEIS on page 4-138, that no cumulative
impacts were identified for health and safety, noting that many different pathways of exposure may
result from refinery emissions. A related comment noted that refinery air emissions would result in
August 2009 £-70 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
deposition of contaminants into surface water, which could be used for drinking water and could lead
to ill health effects.
Response 8: The analysis of cumulative impacts that is included in the Air Quality section of Chapter
4 of the DEIS evaluated the potential effects of refinery emissions on local and regional air quality.
The conclusions of the analyses were that the refinery emissions would have negligible impacts on
local and regional air quality. The Air Quality Technical Reports (May 2006 and December 2007)
provide a detailed discussion of the analysis, including the basis for modeling inputs and
corresponding outputs.
Consideration of other exposure pathways was added to Chapter 4 of the FEIS. The additional text
provides a comparison of modeled emitted concentrations of contaminants from the proposed refinery
with actual emitted concentrations of similar contaminants from existing refineries that are processing
synthetic crude or the precursor material to synthetic crude, bitumen, or a combination of these
feedstocks. These refineries include: Petro-Canada, Scotford, Heartland, and North West refineries
located in Alberta, Canada.
The scale of operation of the individual Canadian refineries is approximately ten times greater than the
proposed refinery; and the feedstock material, bitumen, contains much higher levels of contaminants
than synthetic crude. Consequently the Canadian refineries would be expected to yield higher
concentrations of contaminants in refinery emissions. Canadian environmental studies conducted for
the Petro-Canada, Scotford, Heartland, and North West refineries included an evaluation of the effects
of air emissions on the surrounding environment. Bioaccumulative effects of the potentially emitted
HAPs, as well as other contaminants that may adversely effect the environment, such as benzene,
PAHs, and formaldehyde, were considered to be insignificant for each of the refineries. These results
further support the conclusion that it is reasonable to assume that the proposed refinery emissions will
pose no significant human health impacts, because the scale of operation is substantially smaller than
the comparison refineries, it will utilize a cleaner feedstock material, and it will incorporate the latest
available pollution control technology. {FEIS changes in Section 4.16.1}
Finally, EPA conducted a quantitative analysis of refinery emissions, which included an evaluation of
projected refinery toxic air emissions entering the human food chain through various pathways
including ingestion of potentially contaminated soil, drinking water, livestock, and plants. The results
of this analysis indicate that there would be no adverse impacts to humans consuming the drinking
water or these foods grown or raised in proximity to the refinery.
Comment 9: One comment asked if random biological monitoring would be conducted on wildlife,
livestock, aquatic life, Tribal buffalo, and humans to assess potential effects of pollution.
Response 9: EPA's statutory and regulatory requirements will require testing and monitoring of
wastewater and some air emissions from the refinery, but do not include biological monitoring of
humans, wildlife, livestock, aquatic life or buffalo. The Tribal Environmental Division may consider
this on a voluntary basis. In addition, as stated elsewhere in the responses to these Human Health
comments, ATSDR has collected baseline health data on cancer and asthma that may be used for
comparison to future health data that the Tribe may collect.
Comment 10: A comment noted that the DEIS makes the disclaimer that "limited data are available"
when discussing potential impacts to human health. The comment was that this limitation resulted in
an incomplete analysis.
Response 10: Although there is somewhat limited information available regarding the potential
adverse health impacts resulting from refinery operations, particularly clean-fuels refineries, there are
August 2009 £-77 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
ongoing studies of health impacts from petroleum handling and processing activities. EPA, with
support from ATSDR, has researched and evaluated all available data including reports from clean
fuels refineries currently operating in Canada (ATSDR 2007). This analysis of refinery health impact
data is adequate for purposes of this EIS.
E. EMERGENCIES. SPILLS AND SAFETY
Comment 1 - Major Accident at Refinery: Several comments expressed concerns regarding
impacts from a major accident, fire, upset, explosion or chemical release at the refinery. Comments
included the following questions: how many people in the area surrounding refinery could be killed or
injured if there was a large chemical spill, accident, fire, or explosion; what is the worst-case chemical
spill assessed under the refinery's Risk Management Plan; has the potential for a combination of
catastrophic events been considered; what chemicals are involved, and what is the radius of death or
injury from this spill; and how long will it take for a toxic cloud to reach neighboring houses, schools
and health clinics; How long will it take toxic gases to filter into the places where people shelter in
place; and how big is the zone where neither sheltering or evacuation will work?
Response 1: As described in the DEIS, the refinery will be required to prepare for spills and other
emergency events. There will be specific requirements for planning, coordination, facility design (e.g.
containment around tanks), and training that will need to be implemented at the proposed refinery to
address emergency situations such as spills and leaks and in the rare event a fire or explosion. There
are three main areas of regulation for emergencies and spills.
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan and Facility Response Plan (FRP),
Planning and design requirements to contain and respond to spills of oily substances such as
synthetic crude, distillates, soybean oil, oily sludges, gasoline, and diesel.
OSHA Process Safety Management Plan (PSM) and EPA Risk Management Plan (RMP)
Covers facilities with highly hazardous chemicals and establishes a comprehensive management
program that integrates technologies, procedures, and management practices. For the refinery,
the emphasis will be on flammable materials. For more information about health and safety
concerns at petroleum refinery see the OSF£A Technical Manual, Section IV: Chapter 2,
Petroleum Refining Processes at http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm iv/otmiv 2.html.
Fire prevention and fire suppression Includes: the design of refinery systems and
infrastructure reduce the chance of fire and limit the impacts of potential fires; fire control and
extinguishing systems for this refinery; fire protection practices that will be followed in
operating and maintaining the refinery. The facility will also have to develop a fire response
team for the refinery in coordination with the local fire departments, the Tribes' fire department,
and county and state emergency planning committees to coordinate responses and develop
mutual aid agreements.
These emergency response and safety plans have not been developed yet. The plans must be in place
prior to operation of the refinery. There are several other plans which will also need to be developed
and followed during emergency situations such as release reporting requirements. See page 4-33 of
the DEIS, for more information.
Details regarding the potential severity of a hypothetical incident, information regarding the speed of
response expected by various personnel and agencies under emergency circumstances and specific
procedures for notifying people in the area surrounding the refinery about a spill, fire, or explosion
will be provided in the documents identified above.
August 2009 £-72 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
EPA's Risk Management Plan (RMP) program requires that a worst-case scenario be developed for
highly flammable or toxic chemicals. Based on preliminary design information in the EIS, the most
likely worst-case scenario that would be examined in the RMP would the rupture of one of the propane
tanks. Explosions of this type are extremely rare and are unlikely to occur during the life of the
refinery. Assuming the tank was full and the contents vaporized, the areal extent of the explosion has
been estimated to be one kilometer (km) or .6 miles from the refinery. Currently, there are no
residences within 1 km (.6 mile) of the proposed location of the propane tanks. The farmhouse on the
site would not be occupied as a residence during refinery operations.
There were also concerns regarding whether residents would be asked to shelter in place. The
emergency response planning efforts will identify of the types of responses appropriate for different
situations. In most cases the recommendations for area residents will be to avoid the area, allowing
emergency response personnel to address the situation. There may be a few rare situations, such as the
propane explosion mentioned above, where it could be recommended for residents in the immediate
area to shelter in place.
Comment 2: Comments asked questions related to the amount and type of chemicals to be used and
stored on site (particularly chlorine), and the toxic chemicals that could be released during processing
crude oil (particularly hydrogen sulfide gas).
Response 2: Based on the preliminary design of the refinery and chemicals typical found at petroleum
refineries, chlorine is the only highly toxic chemical under the Risk Management Plan (RMP)
regulations which is likely to be present on-site in sufficient quantities to be of concern. Chlorine
could be used at the proposed refinery site for water and wastewater treatment. Depending on the
amount of chlorine and chemical state of the chlorine, the OSHA Process Safety Management Plan
(PMS) and EPA RMP plans may need to include processes associated with chlorine. The procedures
would be the same as those developed for drinking and wastewater treatment plants that use chlorine
for disinfection. Any chlorine gas would be transported to the refinery under Department of
Transportation regulations.
Hydrogen sulfide is not anticipated to be present at the refinery in significant quantities. The proposed
refinery would have a closed process containing hydrogen sulfide, however the system would be
closed to the atmosphere and quantities of hydrogen sulfide gas would not accumulate as the process
would be used to remove sulfur from the synthetic crude and convert the sulfur to elemental form. In
addition, the refinery will not be refining any sour crude which has higher levels of sulfur.
Comment 3: Several comments asked what steps were being taken to prevent terrorism and other
sabotage. The comments also asked how many victims can the local fire fighters, emergency medical
services, and hospitals accommodate if a worst-case scenario occurred.
Response 3: These issues will be addressed in the refinery's emergency response plans and the
Emergency Response Plans (ERP) for the Tribes, State, and other responders as required under the
Homeland Security Act. The refinery will have on site emergency response and will coordinate with
additional emergency management systems along with specialized emergency responders as part of its
ERP. The refinery will also have security present on site.
August 2009 £-73 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
Comment 4: Several comments were received that asked questions regarding refinery operations and
power failures or power surges. Specifically, the comments wanted to know the following:
What equipment would shut down during a power failure or power surge?
Would the air pollution control and monitoring equipment continue to function during a power
surge/upset?
Were higher emission rates resulting from power failures, power surges, or other upsets
considered in the DEIS?
How long will it take the refinery to return to routine operations after a power failure?
How long will any backup power systems run the refinery systems?
How long will it take the refinery equipment to freeze up during winter power failures?
What types of upsets, other than power failures, can occur at a refinery?
Response 4: Power failures are discussed in general on page 2-17 (Plant 45, Emergency Power) and
page 2-18 (Plant 47, Power Supply) of the DEIS. An emergency generator will be used to supply
power during a power outage. The other questions regarding specific details of refinery operations
during a power failure cannot be answered at the preliminary design phase. The answers would be
dependent on the type and duration of the power failure, the backup power capacity, etc. The OSHA
regulations and safety codes include provisions for emergency shutdowns including power failure.
These measures will be included as part of the safety systems and planning for the refinery. For more
information on other potential upsets at refineries see the OSHA Technical Manual, Section IV:
Chapter 2, Petroleum Refining Processes at http://www.osha.gov/dts/osta/otm/otm iv/otmiv 2.html.
Comment 5: Comments asked what type of safety features will be in place at the proposed refinery
and also recommended various safety features.
Response 5: All tanks storing petroleum or oily material such as the synthetic crude, gasoline and
diesel fuels are required to have containment for the entire contents of the tank plus precipitation. The
refinery site process areas will be paved and curbed to the refinery wastewater plant preventing almost
all spills from leaving the site.
During the environmental review of a project such as this EIS, the design is in the preliminary design
phase. Specific design details would not be developed until after the federal agencies have made their
decisions about the project. The information in the EIS has been developed to follow standard refinery
practices and regulations. There are many fire and safety codes that will need to be implemented at
the proposed refinery including the OSHA regulations and other codes which are incorporated into the
OSHA regulations at 29 CFR 1910.6 including the American Petroleum Institute (API), American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA).
Comment 6: Comment addressed the discussion of the average annual number of spills reported
between 1984 and 1996, as described on page 4-27 in the DEIS. The commenter does not understand
why a spill of less than ten gallons is attributed to human error or mechanical failure and what other
causes for a spill are likely, if not human error or mechanical failure.
Response 6: Spills can also occur as a result of an act of nature (e.g., tornado, hail) damaging refinery
equipment or tanks, a train derailment at the refinery, or a failure of a large tank caused by a
manufacturing defect. This information was included in the DEIS to illustrate that that most spills are
quite small (70 percent involved less than 10 gallons) and are the result of a minor error, such as not
tightening a hose, or a mechanical failure.
August 2009 E-74 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
F. CLOSURE
F.1. CLEANUP
Comment 1: Several comments raised concerns regarding cleanup of the refinery once operations
cease. Specifically, commenters wanted to know how contamination would be cleaned up, how much
the cleanup would cost, who would pay for the cleanup, and what office would regulate the cleanup.
Comments inquired as to whether a cleanup bond could be required and whether BIA would assume
liability for cleanup costs.
Response 1: Generally, all owners and operators would share liability for a cleanup. Since the Tribes
propose to own and operate this facility, they would be responsible for all clean-up. There are certain
regulatory requirements for clean-up and closure plans.
Under Alternatives 1 and 3 with Alternative A, B, or C, and Alternative 4 with Alternative B or C,
(All refinery construction alternatives except Alternative 4 and A), the proposed refinery would be
required to obtain a RCRA Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) permit under 40 CFR Part 264.
EPA would issue and maintain regulatory authority over a TSD permit at the facility. A TSD permit
would require the facility to conduct adequate corrective action, closure, and post-closure activities for
all hazardous waste management units. It would not address other portions of the refinery not covered
by the TSD permit, except for corrective action, as appropriate. The Tribes would be responsible for
all of the cleanup costs as owner and operator of the facility. Page 4-48 of the DEIS describes the
types of activities that would be conducted during RCRA closure and cleanup, including certification
by the owner/operator that the requirements of the approved plan were met, and appropriate
remediation of all contaminated soil and ground water. A post-closure RCRA TSD permit could be
required for all remaining hazardous waste management units that are not clean-closed.
Under Alternative 4 and A, where the facility would be a RCRA generator under 40 CFR Part 262, the
refinery is not required to obtain a RCRA TSD permit. However, EPA would maintain regulatory
authority over the facility. Generators must meet closure performance standards contained in 40 CFR
265.111, and 265.114. Those requirements include steps to remove contamination from units and
equipment to prevent releases and mitigate impacts. A RCRA TSD permit could be required if RCRA
generator requirements are violated. That could include storing hazardous wastes onsite for greater
than 90-days or routine and systematic releases of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to
the environment. It could also include failure to clean-close a hazardous waste management unit(s) at
the time of closure. In that case, a post-closure RCRA TSD permit could be required for all remaining
hazardous waste management units.
If a RCRA TSD permit is needed, EPA will require financial assurance for corrective action. If the
facility is a RCRA generator only and does not require a RCRA permit, there are no formal
requirements for financial assurance for corrective action. However, EPA and BIA have
recommended to the Tribes that they establish a special fund to cover potential cleanup costs. The
Tribes have committed to providing financial assurance, as evidenced by their letter provided in
Appendix D.
A number of comments expressed concern about potential cleanup costs of contaminated soil and
ground water at the proposed facility. Cleanup costs could be significant if monitoring and corrective
action plans are not followed.
August 2009 £-75 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
-------
Appendix E Response to Comments
F.2. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
Comment 1: Comment that steps should be taken to ensure that the public would not have to pay for
clean up.
Response 1: If a RCRA permit is needed, EPA will require financial assurance for cleanup. If the
facility is a RCRA generator only (Alternative 4 and A) and does not obtain a RCRA permit, there are
no formal requirements to provide financial assurance to pay for cleanup/ corrective action. However,
EPA and BIA have recommended to the Tribes that they establish a special fund to cover potential
cleanup costs. For more information, see the Tribes' April 19, 2007, letter to EPA Region 8 regarding
the Tribes commitment to develop some type of financial assurance for cleanup costs (in Appendix D
of the FEIS).
A number of comments expressed concern about potential cleanup costs of contaminated soil and
ground water at the proposed facility. Cleanup costs could be significant if the facility is not operated
correctly, and if monitoring and follow-up actions are not implemented promptly.
Comment 2: Comment stated if a RCRA permit is not required, cleanup could be delayed at the time
of final refinery closure.
Response 2: EPA agrees that adequate cleanup could be delayed if a RCRA permit is not required.
However, this could be mitigated if the project proponents agree to establish a clean up fund.
August 2009 £-76 Proposed Clean Fuels Refinery FEIS
------- |