MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCYImpact Statement for the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility is adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY Industrial Division

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility - Request for Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order,

and Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement

May 20, 2008

ISSUE STATEMENT Xcel Energy has proposed to construct and operate an industrial landfill for the disposal of fly ash produced by the Allen S. King Electric Generating Plant (King Plant) in Oak Park Heights. A voluntary Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared on the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility project (Project) by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff. Having complied with all prescribed requirements regarding EIS preparation, noticing, and public meetings, staff requests that the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) adopt the attached Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, thereby finding the EIS to be adequate pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2800. I. BACKGROUND:

The EIS process is intended by law to provide an analysis, with extensive public involvement, of a

proposed project, so that decision makers have readily available information about the potential

environmental impacts of a project, and how those impacts may be avoided or minimized. The EIS does

not approve or deny a project in itself, and it is not a generic permit application, but rather provides

pertinent information to decision makers who have regulatory responsibilities over the project, such as

permits or zoning approvals, and ongoing oversight if the project is ultimately built.

Xcel Energy proposes to construct and operate a new disposal facility for fly ash and stack gas

scrubber wastes produced by the King Plant in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The new ash disposal

facility (ADF) would be located in T29N, R20W, SE¼ of Section 33, West Lakeland Township, within a

275-acre gravel mine owned by Tiller Corp, a 46-acre portion of which would be purchased from Tiller

Corp. for that purpose.

The King Plant has been in operation for approximately 40 years, and has recently been rebuilt as

part of the Metropolitan Emission Reduction Project, which has the goal of reducing power plant

emissions in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. This will give the plant an additional 25-30 years of

2

operational life, which in turn makes a new ADF necessary since the current King Plant ADF in Oak Park

Heights will reach permitted capacity in 2010. The Project is described in more detail in the attached

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, and in other documents in the Project record.

The staff prepared an EIS on this Project. This EIS was voluntary on the part of Xcel Energy;

environmental review is not mandatory for industrial landfills. The public comment period for the Draft

EIS began on December 31, 2007, and ended on February 14, 2008. The public comment period for the

Final EIS began on April 21, 2008, and ended on May 5, 2008. The attached Findings of Fact,

Conclusions of Law, and Order contains a detailed presentation of the Project’s procedural history.

II. DISCUSSION:

The criteria for the determination of adequacy of the EIS are presented in Minn. R. 4410.2800,

subp. 4. This rule states that the EIS is adequate if it:

A. Addresses the issues raised in scoping so that all issues for which information can be

reasonably obtained have been analyzed.

B. Provides responses to the substantive comments received during the Draft EIS review

concerning issues raised in scoping.

C. Was prepared in compliance with the procedures of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act

and Minn. R. 4410.0200 to 4410.6500.

In reviewing the above criteria for adequacy of the EIS, it is useful to note the purpose of the

environmental review process in Minn. R. 4410.0300, subp. 3, which states, in part:

Environmental documents shall contain information that addresses the significant environmental issues of a proposed action. This information shall be available to governmental units and citizens early in the decision making process. Environmental documents shall not be used to justify a decision, nor shall indications of adverse environmental effects necessarily require that a project be disapproved. Environmental documents shall be used as guides in issuing, amending, and denying permits, and carrying out other responsibilities of governmental units to avoid or minimize adverse environmental effects and to restore and enhance environmental quality.

3

It is also appropriate to review Minn. R. 4410.2000, subp. 1, which states:

Subp. 1. Purpose of EIS. The purpose of an EIS is to provide information for governmental units, the proposer of the project, and other persons to evaluate proposed projects which have the potential for significant environmental effects, to consider alternatives to the proposed projects, and to explore methods for reducing adverse environmental effects.

As can be seen, an EIS must include information on the proposed project, a consideration of

alternatives, and a discussion of mitigative measures. It is not intended to be all-inclusive, nor is it

intended to develop definitive answers to legal or technical questions. Rather, the EIS must use

information that is reasonably available to provide an accurate analysis of the environmental impacts as

they relate to the issues and alternatives identified in the scoping decision (Appendix A). The EIS

contains, as specified in the scoping decision:

1. A description of the existing facility as well as its size, scope, environmental setting, location, and anticipated phases of development.

2. A discussion of environmental impacts and mitigation for issues such as ground water and stormwater, noise, dust, traffic, and visibility impacts.

3. A discussion of the Project’s compatibility with land use, and socioeconomic impacts. 4. A discussion of alternatives, including ash disposal and beneficial utilization alternatives,

and the no-build alternative. 5. A list of government permits and approvals required for the Project.

The Final EIS incorporates an evaluation of all issues identified in the scoping decision and

contains responses to comments made on the Draft EIS. All issues raised in the scoping process have been

analyzed to the extent that information could be reasonably obtained.

The comments received during the public comment period raised a number of different concerns.

Some comments questioned the adequacy of the EIS’s evaluation of several issues, including the ground-

water analysis and the property values study. Several commenters expressed opposition to the proposed

Project, alleging the inappropriateness of siting such an ADF in an area such as West Lakeland. Many

commenters suggested alternative locations for disposing of the ash, or ways in which the ash could be

beneficially utilized. A number of commenters objected to the use of surrogate ash chemistry

4

characterization data, and recommended delaying conclusion of the EIS process until ash from the newly

rebuilt King Plant could be obtained for testing. Most commenters indicated some degree of opposition to

the Project, although several remarked on the completeness and accuracy of the EIS analysis.

MPCA staff examined each issue raised by the commenters. In some cases, MPCA staff concluded

that the issue of concern went beyond the approved scope, or was more appropriate to the permitting

phase of the proposed Project. In other cases, MPCA staff concluded that the treatment of the issue in the

EIS was adequate. In still other cases, MPCA staff followed up on the issue and supplemented the EIS

with additional available information. For example, with regard to comments about the adequacy of the

ground-water impact analysis, MPCA staff modified the modeling approach based on consultations with

the commenter, modeled an additional impact scenario, and presented the results in the final EIS. For a

detailed discussion of the MPCA’s conclusions regarding the comments, see the Responses to Comments

document (Appendix B). MPCA staff believes that it has addressed all substantive comments.

The MPCA followed all required procedural steps in preparing the EIS. Public comment was

accepted on the EIS Scope, the Draft EIS, and the Final EIS. Public meetings were held on the EIS Scope

and the Draft EIS, at which information about the Project was provided to interested persons. Notice of

the Board scope approval was provided in accordance with MPCA rules.

III. CONCLUSIONS:

As set forth in the proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order; MPCA staff has met

all the requirements of the Environmental Quality Board rules for EIS preparation. The Final EIS was

prepared in compliance with the procedures in Minn. R. 4410.3000 and meets all the adequacy

requirements of those rules. All issues identified in the scoping decision for which information could be

reasonably obtained have been analyzed and evaluated.

IV. RECOMMENDATION:

The MPCA staff requests that the Board determine that the EIS for the Project is adequate.

5

SUGGESTED STAFF RESOLUTION

BE IT RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency adopts the proposed Findings of

Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order (Attachment 1), and thereby determines that the Environmental

Impact Statement for the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility is adequate.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency authorizes the

Commissioner to publish a notice of this determination.

ATTACHMENT 1

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

IN THE MATTER OF THE DETERMINATION OF ADEQUACY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED XCEL ENERGY WEST LAKELAND ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY WEST LAKELAND TOWNSHIP, MINNESOTA

FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

FINDINGS OF FACT The Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility project (Project) came before the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) for decision on May 20, 2008. After affording all interested persons the opportunity to present written and oral data and statements to the MPCA; after reviewing the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements (EIS); and considering all of the evidence in the records, files, and proceedings herein, the MPCA, being fully advised, hereby makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order.

I. Project Description 1. Xcel Energy proposes to construct and operate a new disposal facility for fly ash and stack gas

scrubber wastes produced by the Allen S. King Electric Generating Plant (King Plant) in Oak Park Heights, Minnesota. The new ash disposal facility (ADF) would be located in T29N, R20W, SE¼ of Section 33, West Lakeland Township, within a 275-acre gravel mine owned by Tiller Corp., a 46-acre reclaimed portion of which would be purchased from Tiller Corp. for that purpose.

2. The King Plant has been in operation for approximately 40 years, and has recently been rebuilt as part

of the Metropolitan Emission Reduction Project, which has the goal of reducing power plant emissions in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. This will give the plant an additional 25-30 years of operational life, which, in turn, makes a new ADF necessary since the current King Plant ADF in Oak Park Heights will reach permitted capacity in 2010.

3. The 46-acre parcel on which the landfill is to be sited has been mined and reclaimed by Tiller Corp.

In order to prepare the site for landfill construction, Xcel Energy plans first to mine and sell remaining gravel resources on the site. A clay/geomembrane liner will then be constructed on the resulting leveled surface to provide an impermeable barrier upon which to collect leachate from within the deposited ash and prevent a release of potential contaminants to the environment. Leachate would be temporarily stored on site before being pumped into tank trucks for transport to the point of treatment, which is proposed to be the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Metropolitan Disposal System, located in St. Paul, Minnesota.

4. The proposed ADF would be equipped with an environmental monitoring system designed to allow

for the earliest possible detection of a release from the ADF to the ground water. A hydrogeologic study for the ADF has been conducted by Xcel Energy and reviewed by MPCA staff.

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility Findings of Fact On the Adequacy of the Environmental Impact Statement Conclusions of Law West Lakeland Township, Minnesota And Order

2

5. Final cover for the ADF would consist of an impermeable cap with vegetated soil layer to control runoff and erosion. The final cover design includes design features for stormwater control and management. Stormwater would be routed to engineered infiltration basins sized to contain the 100-year storm event without overtopping any structures.

6. The following approvals and permits would be required for the proposed Project. a. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Solid Waste Disposal Facility Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Industrial Activity

b. Minnesota Department of Transportation Drainage Permit (Form TP-30795-02) Lease Agreement (if needed)

c. Minnesota Department of Health

Well Permit Well Abandonment Permit

d. Washington County

Text Amendment to Mining Ordinance Amended Conditional Use Permit Solid Waste Facility License Subdivision approval Comprehensive Plan Amendment Building Permit Well Permit Septic System Permit

e. Valley Branch Watershed District Project Permit Subdivision approval Relocation of storm sewer and drainage ditch Wetland Conservation Act Permit

f. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Industrial Discharge Permit for leachate disposal Review and approval of Comprehensive Plan modifications

g. West Lakeland Township Conditional Use Permit Subdivision approval

h. Local Units of Government Building Permit (if needed)

The MPCA notes that the need to obtain some approvals is disputed, and that such disputes must be resolved if the project moves forward to permitting.


3

II. Need for an EIS 7. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Rules do not require environmental review of industrial

landfills. The EIS on this Project is voluntary on the part of Xcel Energy. III. Public Information and Outreach 8. From the outset, the Project team devoted considerable time and effort to create an open and

transparent EIS process for the benefit of the public. This included creation of a dedicated Xcel Energy EIS Web page at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/xcel-eis.html, on which were posted news and information on the EIS process, including milestones, upcoming events, and guidance for productive and constructive engagement in the process. The existence of this Web page was made known to interested parties in a number of mailings, beginning with an initial letter on April 13, 2007, explaining the team’s plans for public information and outreach throughout the process. Postings to the Web page were made available to local government units for posting on their Web pages as well. Other public information efforts included identifying the Project team public information officer as the designated spokesperson for the EIS process, who fielded all direct and referred inquiries about progress, concerns, and related matters, and followed up with additional information when necessary. These efforts were in addition to and supplemented the routine public notifications required by law.

IV. Environmental Impact Scoping Process 9. Pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2100, MPCA staff conducted a public scoping process for the EIS. The

Scoping Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and Draft Scoping Decision Document were mailed to interested parties on August 25, 2006, and placed on public notice by publication of an abstract in the EQB Monitor on August 28, 2006.

10. The MPCA notified the public of the scoping public comment period. A news release was provided to

media outlets in the Washington County area on August 28, 2006. In addition, the Scoping EAW and Draft Scoping Decision Document were made available for review on the MPCA Xcel Energy EIS Web site at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/eaw/xcel-eis.html on August 25, 2006.

11. The public comment period for the scoping documents began on August 28, 2006, was twice

extended at the request of the public, and ended on October 26, 2006. During the resulting 60-day comment period, the MPCA received 13 comment letters from government agencies and 43 comment letters from citizens. A public information meeting on the scoping process was conducted on September 21, 2006, from 7:00-9:00 p.m. at the Oak-Land Junior High School. About 200 people attended.

12. The MPCA prepared responses to all comments received during the 60-day public comment period.

The MPCA responses to comments received are attached as Appendix B to these findings. 13. The Final Scoping Decision Document (Appendix A) was adopted by the MPCA Citizens’ Board on

December 19, 2006. The Final Scoping Decision Document contained an anticipated EIS schedule, a listing of issues to be addressed in the EIS, and the process for selecting alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.


4

14. The Final Scoping Decision Document identified a number of issues that the MPCA organized into the following general impact areas:

a. Ground-water analysis – Using existing hydrogeologic studies conducted by Xcel Energy,

describe soils, geologic conditions, and hydrogeologic conditions; describe the ground-water monitoring system; and discuss the potential for the project to impact ground-water quality.

b. Stormwater runoff – Using existing calculations and design analyses conducted by Xcel, identify

routes of stormwater movement and discharge during construction and operation of the ADF, and describe the proposed management of runoff during 25-year and 100-year storm events to minimize erosion and sedimentation impacts.

c. Visual Impacts – Using photographs from specific key locations, evaluate the potential visual

impact of the Project. d. Compatibility of land use – Assess Project compatibility with current and expected future

surrounding land uses, including potential conflicts with surrounding recreational, commercial, and residential uses in the area.

e. Wildlife and habitat – Assess the potential for wildlife and habitat impacts in the vicinity. f. Vehicular traffic – Evaluate the potential for significant project related additions to traffic on

local roads. g. Noise and dust – Evaluate the potential for significant noise and dust emissions from the Project. h. Infrastructure impacts – Evaluate the need for new or expanded infrastructure to accommodate

the Project. i. Cumulative impacts – Assess the potential for significant cumulative impacts in connection with

the Project.

15. The EQB rules require that an EIS evaluation address the “no build” alternative and at least one alternative from each of several alternative types, or provide a concise explanation of why an alternative from a particular alternative type is not evaluated. The following alternatives were eliminated from the EIS through the scoping process: modified designs or layouts, and modified scale or magnitude of the Project. The reasons for eliminating these alternatives were discussed in the Scoping EAW and in the responses to comments on the Scoping Decision Document. The “no-build” alternative was addressed in the Scoping EAW and EIS. As therein noted, the “no-build” alternative would mean the proposed ADF would not be built, and a different destination would have to be found for the ash.

V. Draft EIS 16. The Draft EIS was prepared in a manner consistent with EQB rules (Minn. R. 4410.2300) and in

accord with the scoping decision. The Draft EIS contained:


5

a. A cover sheet identifying the responsible governmental unit (RGU), the Project title, the Project location, the date of the public meeting on the Draft EIS, and the date for the end of the comment period.

b. An Executive Summary, which addressed the major findings of the EIS analysis.

c. A table of contents.

d. A list of preparers.

e. A project description identifying the purpose of the Project, its size, scope, environmental setting, geographic location, and the anticipated phases of development.

f. A list of all known governmental permits and approvals required by the Project.

g. A discussion of project alternatives.

h. A discussion of the environmental, economic, employment, and sociological impacts generated by the Project.

i. An identification of reasonable mitigation measures proposed to eliminate or minimize any adverse effects of the Project.

j. Appendices containing detailed material that supports the various EIS analyses.

17. A letter was sent to all on the Project mailing list on December 7, 2007, that gave advance notice to interested parties that the MPCA was nearing completion of the Draft EIS, that the Draft EIS would go on public notice on December 31, 2007, and that the public comment period would be 45 days long, ending on February 14, 2008. This letter also provided guidance on how best to comment, and provided a comment form that commenters could use, or not, at their discretion. In addition to being sent to all on the mailing list, this letter was posted on the Xcel Energy EIS Web page.

18. The Draft EIS was distributed to the mailing list contained in EQB Rules, to the Project proposer, the governmental units known to have permitting or approval authority over the Project, and to persons requesting the EIS. A notice of availability of the Draft EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on December 31, 2007, and a press release was issued to news media in the Washington County area on December 31, 2007.

19. The public notice and press release provided a brief description of the Project, information on the

date, time, and location of the public meetings, the date on which the public comment period would end, and the location at which copies of the Draft EIS were available for review.

20. The MPCA and consultant staff hosted a public listening session on the project from 4:00 p.m. to

7:00 p.m. on January 15, 2008, at the Stillwater Public Library. This was an opportunity for interested parties to speak informally about the Project and their concerns with individual Project team members. About 50 people took advantage of this opportunity.


6

21. A public meeting to present the Draft EIS to the public, answer questions, and provide guidance on commenting on the Draft EIS, was held on January 24, 2008, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., at the Oak-Land Junior High School in Lake Elmo, Minnesota. The meeting was attended by the Project proposer, about 130 citizens residing in the area of the Project, Washington County staff, local government officials, and other interested parties. The meeting was recorded via court reporter and a transcript is available.

22. During the comment period for the Draft EIS that ended on February 14, 2008, the MPCA received

36 comment letters. 23. The comments received during the public comment period raised a number of different issues. Some

comments questioned the adequacy of the EIS’s evaluation of several issues, including the ground-water analysis and the property values study. Several commenters expressed opposition to the proposed Project, alleging the inappropriateness of siting such an ADF in an area such as West Lakeland. Many commenters suggested alternative locations for disposing of the ash, or ways in which the ash could be beneficially utilized. A number of commenters objected to the use of surrogate ash chemistry characterization data and recommended delaying conclusion of the EIS process until ash from the newly rebuilt King Plant could be obtained for testing. Most commenters indicated some degree of opposition to the Project, although several remarked on the completeness and accuracy of the EIS analysis.

24. The MPCA prepared a Response to Comments (RTC) document (Appendix B), which contains the

MPCA staff’s responses to all written comments received. In some cases, the RTC document provided supplemental information to address the alleged inadequacies identified by the commenters. In other cases, the RTC document indicated the MPCA staff’s opinion that the EIS, as drafted, was adequate and satisfied the EQB rules, and met the goals of the Final Scoping Decision Document approved by the MPCA Citizens’ Board in December 2006.

VI. Final EIS 25. MPCA staff prepared a Final EIS pursuant to the requirements in Minn. R. 4410.2700. Following

review of the comments received on the Draft EIS, MPCA staff determined that the bulk of the information in the Draft EIS had not changed. Therefore, a Final EIS including supplemental information, revisions, and responses to timely substantive comments on the DEIS was prepared as provided in Minn. R. 4410.2700, subp. 2.

26. The Final EIS was a packet that contained:

a. A cover sheet identifying the document as the Final EIS. b. A cover letter noting, among other things, that the Draft EIS is to be considered part of

the Final EIS, and was distributed to interested parties on December 28, 2007. c. A section containing timely comment letters on the Draft EIS and responses to those

comments. d. Attachments to the RTC document presenting the results of additional analysis prompted

by public comments on the Draft EIS.


7

27. The MPCA distributed copies of the Final EIS on April 21, 2008, in a manner consistent with Minn. R. 4410.2300, subp 3. Copies were provided to all persons receiving copies of the Draft EIS, all parties who submitted comments on the Draft EIS and to the extent possible, all persons requesting copies of the Final EIS.

28. A notice of availability of the Final EIS was published in the EQB Monitor on April 21, 2008, and a

press release was issued to newspapers in the Washington County area on the same date. These notices indicated the locations at which copies of the Final EIS were available for review and the date on which the comment period on the Final EIS was to expire (May 5, 2008).

29. The MPCA received six comment letters. The comments received were similar to those received on

the Draft EIS. The comment letters are included as Appendix C to this document. 30. The MPCA finds that the EIS is adequate for the reasons set forth in these Findings of Fact, the RTC

document (Appendix B), and elsewhere in the record for this project. VII. Determination of Adequacy and Conclusions of Law 31. The MPCA, as RGU for the Project, is the appropriate governmental unit for making a determination

of adequacy pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2800. 32. The Final EIS RTC document responds to the timely substantive comments received during the Draft

EIS comment period that extended from December 31, 2007, to February 14, 2008. The Final EIS provided adequate responses to the timely substantive comments received during the Draft EIS review concerning issues raised in scoping (Final Scoping Decision Document – Appendix A).

33. The information presented in the Final EIS adequately addresses the issues identified in the Final

Scoping Decision Document adopted on December 19, 2007. 34. The proposed action is described in adequate detail. 35. The EIS adequately discussed alternatives to the proposed action and their impacts. 36. The EIS adequately presents methods by which potentially significant adverse environmental impacts

can be mitigated. 37. The public has had an adequate opportunity to participate in the environmental review process and to

provide comments. 38. The EIS has been developed in accordance with the procedures specified in Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and

Minn. R. 4410.0200 to Minn. R. 4410.6500.


8

ORDER

Based on the criteria established in Minn. R. 4410.2800 and the requirements of Minn. Stat. ch. 116D, the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility project is adequate. Any findings that are more properly deemed conclusions and any conclusions that are more properly deemed findings are hereby adopted as such.

IT IS SO ORDERED

__________________________________ Commissioner Brad Moore Chair, Citizens’ Board

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Date

APPENDIX A

STATE OF MINNESOTA MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

FINAL SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENT

XCEL ENERGY WEST LAKELAND ASH DISPOSAL FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is being prepared by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on the proposed Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility (Project) in West Lakeland Township, Washington County. The MPCA is the responsible governmental unit (RGU) for this EIS. Under the terms of the Metropolitan Emission Reduction Project (MERP), approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission on December 18, 2003, three Xcel Energy coal fired power plants were redesigned and renovated to reduce coal combustion air emissions in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. One of these, the A.S. King Plant in Oak Park Heights (King Plant) has now been rebuilt to burn low sulfur coal. The reconstruction also included new stack emission control equipment. First placed in service in 1968, the King Plant was nearing the end of its useful life when the MERP was approved. The result of the approval and the subsequent renovation is that the King Plant will continue to operate, and produce coal ash, for up to 30 additional years. Since the landfill the King Plant currently uses for ash disposal will be full in 2010, this means that a new destination for the King Plant’s ash will have to be available at that time. Xcel Energy has volunteered to prepare an EIS on this matter. This Draft Scoping Decision Document, pursuant to Minn. R. 4410.2100, subp. 2, is intended to “facilitate the delineation of issues and analyses to be contained in the EIS.” It was noticed in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor and released for public comment on August 28, 2006, in order to afford interested parties an opportunity to be involved in identifying the issues to be addressed in the EIS. Fifty-six comment letters and e-mails were received by the end of the notice period, which was extended to 60 days at the request of the public. The MPCA staff hosted a public meeting on the scoping process in West Lakeland on September 21, 2006. Now that the public notice period has concluded, the Scoping Decision Document has been revised as appropriate by the MPCA staff. This document, which will serve as the final authority on issues to be addressed in the EIS, is being presented to the MPCA Citizens’ Board (Board) for final approval on December 19, 2006. Any person may appear at that meeting and address the Board. Comments should be focused on identifying the appropriate issues to be analyzed in the EIS. Notice of this meeting and relevant documents have been mailed to all on the Project mailing list. SCOPING PROCESS The EIS is being prepared in accordance with the requirements of the EQB environmental review rules, Minn. R. ch. 4410. Minn. R. 4410.2100 provides that an EIS scoping process must be implemented for any EIS. The purpose of the scoping process is to reduce the scope and bulk of the EIS; identify only those potentially significant issues relevant to the proposed Project; define the form to be used; determine the level of detail needed; define the content of the document; examine the reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project; establish the time table for preparation and the identification of the preparers of the EIS; and determine the permits for which information would be developed concurrently with the EIS. The purpose of the EIS is the evaluation and disclosure of information about the significant environmental effects of a proposed action. The EIS is not intended to justify either a positive or

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility Final Scoping Decision Document West Lakeland Township, Minnesota

2

negative permitting decision on a project, but may be utilized by governmental units as a guide in issuing or denying permits or approvals for the Project and in identifying measures necessary to avoid or mitigate potential adverse environmental effects. PREPARERS The EIS will be prepared by the MPCA staff, with the assistance of one or more consultants retained by the MPCA for the purpose. The consultant(s) will be responsible for: compiling and reviewing the adequacy of data and reports, including those received from the proposer; preparing technical information on expected impacts of the Project; participating in the public meeting(s) for the Draft and Final EIS, including meetings of the Board; assisting the MPCA in responding to public comments on the Draft EIS; and preparing sections of the Draft and Final EIS. Consultants may also generate or collect data relevant to issues in the EIS. Pursuant to applicable rules, all EIS costs, including the MPCA and consultant costs, are borne by the applicant. The names and qualifications of those involved in EIS preparation will be given in the EIS. SCHEDULE An EIS Preparation Notice for the Project is expected to be published in the EQB Monitor in the spring of 2007. According to Minn. R. 4410.2800, subp. 3, within 280 days after the publication of this notice, the MPCA must make a Determination of the Adequacy of the Final EIS. According to the rules, the preparation time may be extended for good cause, and occurrences unforeseen at this time may make this necessary. A tentative schedule for development and review of the Draft and Final EIS is provided below. The schedule is contingent upon a number of factors, and unforeseen circumstances may alter it.

Release of Draft Scoping Document August 28, 2006 Public Scoping Meeting September 2006 Close of Public Comment Period October 2006 Scoping Decision December 2006 EIS Preparation Notice Spring 2007 Release of Draft EIS Fall 2007 Final EIS Adequacy Determination Winter 2008

RECORD OF DECISION Minn. R. 4410.2100, subp. 6.D. requires that the RGU identify any approvals for which a Record of Decision will be necessary. A Record of Decision will be required for all government approvals needed for this Project. PROPOSED CONTENT OF THE EIS This section of the scoping document outlines the items to be contained in the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility EIS. In accordance with Minn. R. 4410.2300, the EIS will include:

Cover Sheet The cover sheet will include: the name of RGU; the title of the proposed Project and Project location; name, address, and telephone number of the contact person at the RGU and of the proposer’s representative; a designation of the statement as a draft, final, or supplement; a one-paragraph abstract of the EIS; the date of the public meeting on the Draft EIS and the date following the meeting by which comments on the Draft EIS must be received by the RGU.


3

Summary The summary will identify the major findings, areas of controversy, and the issues to be resolved. The summary will include a Project description, environmental impacts and mitigation measures; alternatives; a list of governmental approvals; and socio-economic impacts. Direct and indirect impacts will be identified to the extent information is available or can be obtained in a reasonable time at reasonable cost. Preparers This section will identify those involved in preparing the EIS, and their qualifications.

Project Description The EQB rules explicitly direct that a proposed project be described only in sufficient detail to identify its purpose, size, scope, environmental setting, location, and anticipated phases of development. Permits and Approvals The EIS will identify the known governmental permits and/or approvals required for the expansion, along with the unit of government responsible for each decision. Where the requirement to obtain a permit is disputed, the EIS will note the existence of a dispute but will not provide analysis of the positions of the parties to the dispute. While the EIS will provide a variety of information useful for permitting and approval decisions, it is not intended to provide all data and information required for these actions. The function of an EIS is to assess impacts, rather than to provide the encyclopedic information necessary to identify processes, permit terms and conditions and compliance requirements. All required permit applications and related information for the Project will be developed and submitted independent of the EIS. Any disputes regarding permits will be resolved through appropriate administrative and legal proceedings related to the permits. Environmental Impacts and Mitigation

Ground Water The EIS will identify and briefly describe the ground-water regulations applicable to the Project. The EIS will identify and briefly describe the ground-water quality standards applicable to the Project. The analysis of the potential for ground-water impacts will be based on geotechnical information, including existing data collected from hydrogeologic investigations of the proposed Project site and available relevant regional data. The analysis will take into consideration the engineered environmental control systems inherent in the design, as well as the associated environmental performance monitoring programs. This information will be used to address the following issues.

1. The EIS will provide a description of the soils and geologic conditions at the proposed site and alternative sites, to the extent available or reasonably obtainable.

2. The EIS will contain a description of the hydrogeologic conditions in the vicinity of the proposed site and alternative sites, to the extent available or reasonably obtainable.


4

3. The EIS will describe the proposed ground-water monitoring plan for the site and alternative sites, to the extent available or reasonably obtainable. 4. The EIS will evaluate the potential for releases from the proposed Project site and

alternative sites to impact ground water and add to existing ground-water impairment from other sources. This will include an assessment of the potential for contaminants to escape the containment system, as well as a description of known existing ground-water contamination in the vicinity, to the extent information is reasonably available.

Stormwater Runoff The EIS will identify and briefly describe the stormwater regulations applicable to the Project. This section of the EIS will also identify and briefly describe the water quality standards and regulations that apply to affected surface waters with respect to stormwater discharges from the Project site and alternative sites.

The EIS will describe the stormwater management practices to be employed at the proposed site and alternative sites, to the extent available or reasonably obtainable, and compare the quantity, quality, velocity, and destination of surface runoff from the site before development, during initial construction, during operation and development, and after final closure. The EIS will discuss any potential physical impacts from hydraulic loading and any potential changes in sediment loading to surface water bodies located in the vicinity of the proposed Project site due to stormwater discharge. This discussion will include consideration of both a 25-year and 100-year storm event during initial construction as well as during ongoing operation and development of the proposed Project.

Visual Impacts The EIS will illustrate potential visual impacts of the proposed Project by means of photographs from specific key locations Potential mitigation opportunities will be addressed and will include screening of receptors with the use of berms, fences, vegetation, and other landscaping. Compatibility with Land Use The EIS will identify and briefly summarize any local, regional, state, and federal land use plans and regulations that affect the Project. The compatibility of the Project with current and proposed known long-term surrounding land uses will be discussed, including potential conflicts with surrounding recreational, commercial, and residential uses located in the vicinity. This analysis will include an evaluation of the effect of the proposed Project on nearby property values. Wildlife and Habitat The proposed Project site is located entirely within an existing gravel mine, and contains little, if any, habitat suitable for wildlife and vegetation, including special concern species. There may, however, be potential for wildlife and habitat impacts in the vicinity of the proposed site, or in connection with one or more of the alternatives. The EIS will evaluate this possibility.


5

Vehicular Traffic The EIS will evaluate the potential for significant additions to traffic on roads in the vicinity of the proposed and alternative sites, and the impacts such additions may cause. Noise and Dust The EIS will evaluate the potential for significant noise and dust emissions emanating from the proposed and alternative sites. Infrastructure Impacts The EIS will evaluate the potential need for new or expanded infrastructure in connection with the Project. This includes infrastructure needed at alternative disposal sites in order to make an alternative feasible. Cumulative Impacts To the extent not already addressed in connection with other impact assessments in this EIS, the EIS will assess the potential for significant cumulative impacts. Alternatives The EQB rules require that an EIS include at least one alternative of each of the following types, or provide an explanation of why no alternative is included in the EIS: alternative sites, no action, alternative technologies, modified designs or layouts, modified scale or magnitude, and alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures identified through comments received during the EIS scoping and draft EIS comment periods. For any alternative analyzed in the EIS, the analysis will include a succinct discussion of potentially significant direct or indirect, adverse, or beneficial effects associated with that alternative. Alternative Sites The EIS will evaluate the feasibility and utility of disposing of the ash in an alternative location. At least one representative site from each of the following categories will be evaluated: * a new facility at a nearby (less than ten miles) location * a new facility at a distant (more than ten miles) location * an existing privately owned commercial landfill * an existing facility owned by Xcel Energy Alternative Technologies Nationwide, a significant percentage of coal ash from power plants is not discarded as waste but instead beneficially utilized in industrial applications, often as an additive to concrete. The EIS will evaluate information that Xcel Energy has generated with regard to the utilization of its coal ash from this and other locations in the past and present, as well as the potential for King Plant fly ash to be beneficially utilized, as an alternative to disposal in a landfill.


6

Modified Designs or Layouts The design and layout of the proposed Project is expected to be suitable for the Project site and would be intended to meet rule requirements. There is no known alternative design or layout that would provide greater protection from environmental or other impacts. Therefore, analysis of a modified design or layout for the Project will not be carried forward to the EIS, pursuant to screening criterion 1. Modified Scale or Magnitude The scale and magnitude of the proposed Project is the minimum required to fulfill the Project needs (management of all ash produced during life-of-plant). Landfill facilities are sized to provide optimal capacity for the intended purpose and reduce the need to build additional landfills. A project of a smaller scale or magnitude would neither meet the underlying need for the Project nor provide significantly greater environmental benefit than the proposed Project. Therefore, analysis of a modified scale or magnitude for the Project will not be carried forward to the EIS, pursuant to screening criterion 1. Alternatives Incorporating Mitigation Identified via the EIS Process If alternatives incorporating reasonable mitigation measures are identified in the course of the EIS process, such alternatives will be evaluated in the EIS.

No Action Alternative The alternative of no action will be addressed, as required by the rules. The no action alternative would mean that the preferred alternative, which is the development of a landfill in West Lakeland Township, would not be implemented. This would mean that another alternative for coal ash disposition would have to be implemented.

Economic, Employment, and Sociological Impacts The EIS will discuss the potential for the Project and major alternatives to directly and indirectly affect local economic, employment, and sociological conditions.

Inventories will be completed of any nearby existing and planned recreational resources. Any potential impacts resulting from the Project will be described. Historical and archeological resources do not appear to exist at or near the site; however, this could be an issue at an alternative site. The EIS will address this possibility. Mitigation Measures For those instances where the impact analyses identify the potential for adverse effects, the EIS may identify reasonably available measures that could lessen or eliminate the adverse effects.

APPENDIX B

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA or Agency)

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS)

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS

This document contains a summary of timely comments on the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility (Project or Facility) EIS and responses to those comments. The MPCA received 33 timely comment letters and addresses each one below. Four comment letters were received after the comment deadline, and are, therefore, not addressed.

1. Comments by Thomas E. Casey, Attorney at Law, Mound, Minnesota. Letter received

February 14, 2008. Comment 1-1: Commenter disputes the Draft EIS statement that contaminants added to the fly ash by use of petroleum coke as fuel would be controlled by the ash disposal facility (ADF) containment system. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3, 1-6, and 1-43. Comment 1-2: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determination that coal ash is not hazardous is based on certain assumptions regarding chemical makeup, and the Draft EIS is incomplete without a comparison between ash from the rebuilt plant and the EPA assumptions. Response: The Draft EIS does not need sample results to determine if the ash is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations, because coal-fired utility wastes (including fly ash) have been exempted from hazardous waste classification without limits. As noted below in Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4, the MPCA is confident that the assumptions used for the ash chemical makeup and the ability of the proposed Facility to contain any leachate generated from that ash are sound. Comment 1-3: Commenter alleges that the Draft EIS is incomplete without “actual” ash data from the rebuilt plant, and that there is no support for MPCA staff statements that “the ash composition will not change the on-site or off-site environmental consequences.” Response: Ash from the rebuilt plant is not likely to contain higher contaminant concentrations than the numbers in the surrogate data set. As calculated by MPCA staff, the surrogate data is the 95 percent upper confidence limit of data, much of which came from the pre-MERP Allen S. King Plant (King Plant), which had only particulate control on the stack emissions and, therefore, did not dilute its fly ash with large volumes of lime, as the renovated plant will. The pre-Metro Emissions Reduction Project (MERP) plant also burned petroleum coke (pet coke), which is not expected to occur at the current plant. Ash from the pre-MERP King Plant thus was considerably more concentrated and thus more likely to produce a stronger leachate than would be true of the more dilute ash from the rebuilt plant. MPCA staff thus believes the surrogate data to represent several levels of conservatism as compared with the likely output from the rebuilt plant. Support for this position can be found in Draft EIS Appendix A, which contains the surrogate development methodology, as well as the statement that “Because the King Plant’s renovated operations would result in the dilution of these high [pre-MERP] ash contaminant concentrations through the additions of scrubber solids to the ash, it is likely that leachate from the proposed ADF would have much lower concentrations of parameters of concern for the King Plant…and the Sherco Plant….”

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility Responses to Comments on the On the Adequacy of the Draft EIS Draft EIS West Lakeland Township, Minnesota

2

Comment 1-4: Commenter alleges the Draft EIS is deficient in using surrogate ash data, and infers that MPCA is deferring impact analysis to the permitting process. Response: The MPCA disagrees that the Draft EIS is deficient because the analysis of potential impacts was not based on test results from the actual ash that would be generated at the rebuilt King Plant. The MPCA routinely uses surrogate data to perform environmental impact analysis because, in most cases, environmental review is conducted on facilities that are not yet built, much less operating. In the past, the MPCA has used equipment vendor data; Material Safety Data Sheets; data from facilities similar to the proposed Project; data from testing of materials, including fuels; pilot plant data; and scale-up data. Indeed, data from laboratory leach testing of ash, including ash from the rebuilt King Plant, is really nothing more than a surrogate for the true object of concern, which is field leachate from the operating facility, which in turn cannot be obtained until the ADF is built and operating. Further, there is no basis on this record for the MPCA to conclude that use of surrogate data added any significant uncertainty into the results. It is the judgment of MPCA staff that it did not. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has recognized that it is not error for a government to draw conclusions based on methodology that might not be “the best.” Iron Rangers For Responsible Ridge Action v. IRRRB, 531 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995), (neither the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act [MEPA] nor its federal equivalent requires a decision to be based only on the best available scientific methodology). See also In re Heron Lake BioEnergy, LLC, Nos. A05-1162, A05-2405, 2006 WL 1806160 (Minn. Ct. App. Jul. 3, 2006) (MPCA’s decision to issue permit based on scaled data from other facilities supported); In re American Iron and Supply Company’s Proposed Metal Shredding Facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, 604 N.W.2d 140, 145 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000) (not error for the MPCA to use material safety data sheets in its risk analysis). Finally, the MPCA has not deferred analysis of this issue to permitting. The MPCA has identified an issue, identified a data set appropriate in the judgment of technical experts for reasoned analysis of impacts, and analyzed those impacts and how those impacts would be mitigated. It is also true that the MPCA expects the composite liner proposed for the ADF to be effective regardless of the chemical makeup of the ash. In sum, based on its technical experience, the MPCA does not anticipate that field leachate concentrations from the proposed Project would exceed those of the surrogate data set. Further, the MPCA does not anticipate that liner effectiveness would change even if the constituents and concentrations actually present in leachate from the ash vary from the assumed constituents. Similarly, the MPCA does not anticipate that plume behavior would be significantly different if actual constituents vary from the assumed constituents. It is highly unlikely that any such variations would be significant. A revised Table 1 is attached that further clarifies the criteria for choosing surrogate values. See also Response to Comment 1-3. Comment 1-5: Commenter is unclear about the starting date for the 280-day Draft EIS preparation time line that is provided in the rules, and recommends that it be extended as the rules allow. Response: The 280-day time line was started by publication of the Draft EIS preparation notice in the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) EQB Monitor on July 16, 2007. The rule cited by the commenter, Minn. R. 4410.2800, subp. 3, does not provide for automatic approval or disapproval of the Draft EIS if the responsible governmental unit (RGU) does not make an adequacy determination within that time period. As a result, this is a “directory” time line, and it is not unusual for this time line to be exceeded for


3

Draft EISs. Nevertheless, since the time line would expire in late April 2008, and MPCA plans as of this writing to bring the request for a Draft EIS adequacy decision in May, the MPCA and Xcel Energy have agreed to extend the time line. Comment 1-6: The Draft EIS does not indicate whether the surrogate data includes pet coke parameters. Response: As noted in Draft EIS Section 1.2.2, the pre-MERP plant burned pet coke. As noted in Section 1.2.3, the surrogate data set was developed in part from field leachate data collected at the pre-MERP King Plant ADF and laboratory leach tests on pre-MERP King Plant ash. Finally, a footnote on Table 1 indicates that the values to be included in the surrogate data set for molybdenum, nickel, and vanadium are to be the higher King Plant values, in order to account for pet coke combustion at that plant. This was one of the ways in which the MPCA built conservatism into the surrogate data set. See also Responses to Comments 1-1 and 1-3. Comment 1-7: Figure 6 misrepresents the number of residential wells within a three-mile radius. Response: Figures 6 and 7 were mislabeled. Figure 6 should identify residential wells within a one-mile radius of the proposed site. Figure 7 should identify high capacity wells within a three-mile radius of the proposed site. Page 6, paragraph 1 should have stated “Residential wells located within a one (not three) mile radius of the proposed ADF site as listed in the Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) database are shown on Figure 6.” The Minnesota Solid Wastes Rules require all recorded residential wells within one mile and high capacity wells within three miles of the facility be identified when siting a solid waste facility. The previously referenced figures were taken from the Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report and Phase III Monitoring System Work Plan (November 2005) prepared by McCain and Associates, figures B-1 and B-2. Subsequently, the well survey was updated in the Revised Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report and Supplemental Phase II Investigation Work Plan (March 2006), McCain and Associates. These figures correctly label the required distances. The MGS County Well Index version used in the Draft EIS was established in 2004 and has been updated on a quarterly basis since that time. The information was downloaded in April 2008. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Water Appropriation data used was revised in February 2008 and downloaded in April 2008. It should be noted that, as recorded well numbers are subject to change, the information presented in the EIS will again be updated during the permitting process, assuming that the permit is pursued. No significant changes are expected. Comment 1-8: Paragraph 1 on page 8 says “…there is no evidence of karst conditions…” However, there are two filled-in sinkholes within 2.25 miles of the proposed ADF site. Response: The siting standards require the documentation of karst features at a proposed site, and the hydrogeologic investigations performed under MPCA oversight identified no karst features at that location. The presence of karst features elsewhere in the area was noted in the Phase I Report and Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan (McCain Associates, September 2004). Comment 1-9: Section 1.3.4.4 says there appears to be no issue with preferential pathway flow in bedrock at the site, which could be problematic in the event of a contaminant release. This conclusion is not problematic.


4

Response: Comment noted. Comment 1-10: The Draft EIS statement that the proposed ADF would be built and operated pursuant to Minn. R. ch. 7035 is false, because this rule prohibits landfills within 1,000 feet of a public highway. Response: As commenter himself notes in the same comment, the MPCA Commissioner is allowed by the rule to waive this requirement under certain conditions. If the Commissioner declines to waive this requirement, the Facility will not be built as proposed. Either way, the Draft EIS statement is correct. Comment 1-11: The Draft EIS must give and justify the number of years in the postclosure period and list the proposed requirements to show how the environment will be protected in the long term. Response: As commenter notes, the law requires a minimum 20-year postclosure period. The MPCA regards this as sufficient to identify any environmental issues that need correction. If any are found, the MPCA has the authority to extend the postclosure period and impose requirements to resolve whatever issues are identified. After closure, redundant systems including an MPCA-approved landfill cap and liner and ground-water monitoring are expected to effectively protect the environment. Comment 1-12: The Draft EIS is unclear about how long it will take for leachate generation to cease and how this relates to the postclosure period. Response: Draft EIS Section 4.1.1.1 estimates six years as the likely length of time for leachate generation to cease after final closure and also provides the analysis that leads to this conclusion. Six years is well within the required minimum 20-year postclosure period. See also Responses to Comments 1-54 and 1-55. Comment 1-13: The Draft EIS does not address requirements for daily cover to prevent wind exposure. Response: Daily cover is not required, as the working surface would be conditioned with water and the ash tends to harden like concrete after such conditioning. This would minimize wind erosion. Dust management would be required as a condition of permitting. Comment 1-14: The Draft EIS on page 15 says that the sedimentation basins are designed for more than 90 percent removal efficiency, but does not discuss removal of nutrients and heavy metals. Response: All ash contact water would be collected and treated as leachate. The primary goal of sedimentation control is to manage noncontact stormwater by trapping sediments and keeping them from affecting other surface water bodies. The Facility design will accomplish this goal by using prescribed best management practices (BMPs) and by conforming to the requirements of the Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) and the MPCA. Regarding nutrients and heavy metals, the contributing watershed consists mainly of the gravel pit, which is a nutrient-poor environment. Similarly, heavy metal content in stormwater will be quite limited, particularly as stormwater would, by definition, not come into contact with the ash. That said, nutrients and metals tend to adhere to sediment particles and will, therefore, be trapped by the sediment control system. Nitrogen compounds might be an exception, but the vegetation that lines the ditches and basins will tend to take up that particular nutrient. For the above reasons, impacts on ground water would be minimal. The stormwater management system and its


5

maintenance must comply with stormwater permits referenced in Table 2 of the Draft EIS. As a point of reference the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) infiltration basin receives untreated runoff from the I-94 corridor. Comment 1-15: Commenter notes the dispute between Xcel Energy and LGUs regarding permits and related approvals required at the local level, and alleges that the Draft EIS must resolve this dispute and list all required permits. Commenter further believes the Draft EIS to be deficient because it does not contain all the documents from Xcel Energy supporting its views regarding local permitting. Response: Commenter also cites EQB guidance that all known permits are to be listed in the Draft EIS [emphasis added]. Since the MPCA does not know at this time how the dispute in question will be resolved, the nature of the local approvals that ultimately will be required is unknown at this time. All approvals that were known at the time of Draft EIS publication were listed in the document. Also, the MPCA respectfully disagrees with the commenter’s statement that the Draft EIS must include a “determination” on the permits that are required. The MPCA cannot determine what permits are required or not required at the local level because the MPCA lacks judicial authority over local governmental permitting. Only a court can determine whether a permit is or is not required, if the requirement to obtain the permit is disputed. The MPCA has gone beyond the Draft EIS content requirement in Minn. R. 4410.2300, item F by listing “all known governmental permits and approvals required” and, in addition, listing potential government permits or approvals that may be required but which are disputed. Finally, the MPCA has no documents from Xcel Energy supporting its position on this issue, and, based on the above, disagrees that the Draft EIS is deficient for not containing them. Comment 1-16: Permits are required from MNDOT and the VBWD. Response: The MPCA appreciates this information and has updated Table 2 (attached). Comment 1-17: Commenter disagrees with the Draft EIS’s elimination of returning the ash to the originating mine as an alternative to disposal in West Lakeland, and alleges a number of ways in which such an alternative may be made feasible. Response: The Draft EIS is not deficient because it does not examine each and every alternative that any person can devise. The list of such potential alternatives is endless, and the bulk of such a Draft EIS and the time to research and write it would be prohibitive. Scoping is required by law to avoid such a situation. The alternatives to be evaluated in this Draft EIS were chosen by means of a process established in the Final Scoping Decision Document, which was approved by the MPCA Citizens’ Board in December 2006. The staff’s intention to eliminate the “return to the mine” alternative was duly noted at that time and ratified by the MPCA Citizens’ Board as part of overall Draft EIS scope approval. See also Response to Comment 1-23. The “return to the mine” alternative would require infrastructure changes at both the plant site (to provide a location where the ash is stored and loaded onto railcars for return or the fly ash processed into blocks for placement on the flatcars) and at the Power River Basin mine sites, which would have to be permitted to accept the material as part of the mineland reclamation. These activities would involve environmental review, permitting, and construction that go well beyond the Project that is proposed. Theoretical feasibility must be distinguished from actual feasibility. On analysis, even taking into consideration the arguments offered by the commenter with regard to how the rail traffic might be managed, this alternative continues to seem more theoretically available than practically


6

available. For this reason, the MPCA believes that its scoping decision was the correct one in that it concentrates on alternatives that are more likely to be considered by the Project proponent and available in a relevant time scale. Comment 1-18: The Draft EIS is incomplete because it does not adequately address the alternative of barge transport. Commenter gives reasons why barge transport is actually quite feasible. Response: Barge hauling was considered in the Draft EIS analysis, but was eliminated early based on a number of considerations, the most prominent at the time being that Xcel Energy intended to demolish the barge terminal at the King Plant as stated in the Draft EIS Section 3.3.3.2. More to the point, within the context of this Draft EIS, barge transport is not actually an alternative, but a means of transportation to an alternative site. Pursuant to the Final Scoping Decision Document, the Draft EIS evaluated alternative sites in four categories, as well as the most efficacious means of transporting ash to them. None of the alternative sites chosen for evaluation in the Draft EIS are readily amenable to receiving ash by barge. See also Responses to Comments 1-17 and 15-2. Comment 1-19: Commenter alleges that shipping ash in block form is feasible and should have been thoroughly analyzed in the Draft EIS, which is incomplete because this was not done. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-17 and 9-2. Comment 1-20: The final Draft EIS should include all of the alternatives that were sought and evaluated. Commenter requests all documents that pertain to alternatives sought and evaluated that were not included in the Draft EIS. Response: There is no requirement in law that every alternative ever envisioned be addressed in the Draft EIS. Many alternatives are appropriately eliminated before and during the scoping process and are thus never carried forward into the Draft EIS analysis. An example is the suggestion during the Landfill Siting Advisory Committee (Siting Committee) process that the ash be deposited in abandoned iron mines in northern Minnesota. The Draft EIS fully complies with the rule requirements for addressing alternatives and also follows the procedures outlined in the Final Scoping Decision Document for alternative analysis. DEIS Table 3 contains most of the documentation for how alternatives were chosen for analysis, and which sites were screened out. Little other documentation is known to exist, but the staff will produce whatever is found pursuant to the request. See also Responses to Comments 1-17 and 1-23. Comment 1-21: Commenter alleges that Xcel Energy disbanded the Siting Committee, contrary to the Draft EIS’s statement that “The committee…disbanded without making a site recommendation.” Response: Comment noted. Comment 1-22: The Draft EIS is inadequate because the cost estimates for rail and truck transport to the Sherco facility came from Xcel Energy. This information should come from an independent financial analyst.


7

Response: It is not unusual for RGUs to rely on information from permit applicants. In some cases, the applicant is the only available source for needed information, and in others, as here, the applicant is simply the most convenient source. Also, the applicant knows its sites and shipping needs best, so getting this kind of information from Xcel Energy makes sense. A qualified person on the Draft EIS consultant’s staff reviewed the data and found no evidence that it was faulty in any way. Also, any commenter who believes the numbers are incorrect may submit different numbers for the record. Neither this commenter nor any other has done so. Comment 1-23: The Draft EIS should have evaluated “environmentally superior” sites as alternatives and failure to do so violates Minn. Stat. ch. 116D and Minn. Stat. ch. 116B. This should include both suitable public land as well as private land, even if owners are unwilling, because Xcel Energy has condemnation powers. Response: Minn. R. 4410.2300, item G establishes the requirements for discussing alternatives in the Draft EIS. This rule does not require that a Draft EIS include an alternative that is identified as “environmentally superior.” Were this to be required of Draft EISs, the process would of necessity involve an exhaustive search involving untold numbers of potential locations, potentially extending vast distances beyond the state’s borders, in the hope that an alternative could be found that all could agree is “environmentally superior,” a designation that often is quite subjective. Rather, what the rules require is that the EIS include analysis of “other reasonable alternatives” of a variety of types. In the final analysis, it is the privilege of the applicant, in this case Xcel Energy, to decide what site to propose. The task of the RGU is to identify for analysis a variety of “reasonable alternatives” to the proposed site. At scoping, it is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether any “reasonable alternative” will be “environmentally superior.” Evaluation of alternatives in the Draft EIS may reveal which alternative, if any, is environmentally superior, but this cannot be foretold with any real confidence in advance of the analysis. The Draft EIS complies with the requirement that the Draft EIS compare the impacts of the proposal to “other reasonable alternatives” to the proposed project (Minn. R. 4410.2300, item G). The Draft EIS will ensure that the entities that will issue permits for this Project have sufficient information about “appropriate alternatives” to comply with Minn. Stat. § 116D.03 and Minn. Stat. § 116B.04. The manner in which the MPCA would address “other reasonable alternatives” was identified in the scoping process. The Scoping EAW indicated the factors that would be used to identify the potential alternative sites for the proposed Facility. For identification of “nearby sites” for further analysis, the MPCA adopted Xcel Energy’s preference that the Project should be “an existing mining site rather than…a greenfield site in order to avoid the need for new land disturbance.” The MPCA concluded that this screening criterion was reasonable due to the issues associated with permitting a landfill in a “greenfield” site, and the fact that starting an industrial activity in an undeveloped site could be viewed as more environmentally harmful. Others may disagree based on their perception that the impacts associated with siting an ADF on an undisturbed site are of less importance than, for example, the impacts on property values. Such perceptions are often based on opinions and values, and not always amenable to resolution solely by application of technical criteria. In MPCA staff’s judgment, the scoping criteria ultimately adopted were reasonable and environmentally appropriate.


8

Comment 1-24: Commenter alleges that the Draft EIS is incomplete because it does not state whether an ash characterization is required before Sherco could accept King Plant ash. Response: This does not make the Draft EIS incomplete. The containment at Sherco is adequate for a non-hazardous waste. Ash characterization would likely be performed prior to disposal of the new ash in any existing facility as that is a common requirement of industrial waste landfill permits. See also Response to Comment 1-31. Comment 1-25: Commenter alleges that the Draft EIS (Section 3.6.1.1) is incomplete because it fails to describe how internal truck transport at the Sherco facility could significantly increase fugitive dust emissions on the site, particularly since the ash could be hauled to Sherco in block form on railroad flatcars. Response: This issue is not addressed in Section 3.6.1.1, but is clearly explained in Draft EIS Section 3.6.1.2. As noted therein, the issue is dust raised by internal site truck traffic, hauling ash from the [Sherco] receiving station to the [Sherco] disposal area. For this reason, the option of hauling ash blocks to Sherco by rail is irrelevant; that traffic would terminate at the receiving station. There is, of course, existing truck traffic between the receiving station and the disposal area, hauling ash to the Sherco disposal area. As noted in this Draft EIS section, Xcel Energy believes that adding to such traffic by disposing of King Plant ash at Sherco would increase fugitive dust emissions, which are controlled by permit, and could violate that permit if additional traffic unforeseen at the time of permitting were to be added. The MPCA agrees this is a reasonable concern. The section also notes that the working face of the Sherco ADF would increase in size, resulting in the potential for increased dust emissions, and further notes that the increased potential for dust emissions represented by adding King Plant ash disposal at Sherco could make compliance with Sherco’s current air permit more difficult. The MPCA believes this adequately explains how the addition of King Plant ash disposal to the current ash disposal activities at Sherco could increase fugitive dust emissions at that facility. Comment 1-26: Commenter alleges that the Draft EIS is incomplete in analyzing distant sites because it “fails to take into account” which properties “…made it through the…screening process,” and “what factors could not be studied without access to the property.” Response: In the final analysis, the identities of the distant properties that survived the screening process are irrelevant, because the MPCA discovered after contacting their owners that the latter did not want their properties considered as alternatives in the Draft EIS, and MPCA respected their wishes. The MPCA, through the Draft EIS analysis, was not conducting a site selection process on behalf of Xcel Energy, but an analysis on behalf of the public of the feasibility of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action. Such an analysis has the goal, not of selecting an ADF site, but of assessing the likely impacts of siting an ADF outside Xcel Energy’s preferred ten-mile radius. Because the distant site owners objected to having their sites so considered, the MPCA judged that they were unlikely to cooperate in providing the data necessary for such an analysis. The Agency, therefore, decided to analyze a hypothetical distant site, which accomplished the above goal of evaluating the feasibility of siting an ADF outside Xcel Energy’s preferred ten-mile radius. It is not for the MPCA to select an alternative distant site and impose it on Xcel Energy (which, incidentally, makes the “factors [that] could not be studied without access to


9

the property” irrelevant as well); it is for Xcel Energy, if it chooses, to follow up by identifying a suitable distant site, proposing it, and seeking approval. The Draft EIS is not deficient for not performing a function for which it is not intended. See also Responses to Comments 1-17 and 1-27. Comment 1-27: Commenter alleges that analyzing a hypothetical alternative ADF site is not adequate, and that the analysis must include sites that are “more favorable” from an environmental standpoint. Response: As noted above (Responses to Comments 1-17, 1-23, and 1-26), a Draft EIS does not function to select a site for a permit applicant, whether on the basis that it is “more favorable” or for any other reason. A consensus “more favorable” site may not, in fact, even exist. The Agency may deny an approval if it finds that a proposal would cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of natural resources, but even then it cannot require the use of a particular alternative site, nor can a Draft EIS be employed for this purpose. A Draft EIS is instead intended, not to find and select a site for the new King ADF, but to evaluate the feasibility and potential impacts of using an alternative site for the proposed project. This Draft EIS did that, showing as it did that, assuming the willingness of the applicant to deal with the need for increased haul distances, the need to haul the ash dry, and the need to install suitable shipping and receiving infrastructure, a distant site was a feasible option. The distant sites evaluated by the Draft EIS were “hypothetical” only in the sense that the evaluation did not focus on a particular site due to the fact that no property owner was willing to allow the MPCA to use detailed information from their property for purpose of analysis. Sites exist that fit the criteria used for evaluation, and the Draft EIS noted in Section 3.7.2.5.1 that, for example, a site for which suitable access could not be identified would likely be dropped from consideration. The Draft EIS also noted (Section 4.3.2) that a distant site would likely be chosen for its ability to be sited without significant impacts on wetlands. It thus was useful for the Draft EIS to analyze a hypothetical (but not unrealistic or speculative) distant site. It is not error for a Draft EIS to analyze a hypothetical alternative, so long as that alternative is not “speculative” or “unrealistic.” See, for example, Northern Alaska Environmental Center v. Lujan, 961 F.2d 886, 888 (9th Cir. 1992) (park service Draft EIS considers four different hypothetical mining scenarios). Given that reasonable assumptions could be made concerning the “distant site” alternative, the MPCA concluded that it would be useful to include the analysis in the Draft EIS. Comment 1-28: Section 3.7.3 says that rail hauling was assumed to not be feasible for short distances. The Draft EIS should describe what distance would make rail hauling feasible. Response: The economic feasibility of rail transport depends on many factors, only one of which is distance traveled. In this case, the economic feasibility of rail versus truck transport to the SKB facility can be qualitatively inferred from the estimates that were determined for the Sherco facility. Although the Sherco facility is slightly farther than SKB, the cost still favors truck transport versus rail. A significant reason for this is the additional $14.2 million in capital costs and $0.2 million annual operating costs necessary at the King Plant to accommodate rail loading and handling. These costs would also apply for an SKB rail alternative. Since the highway distance to SKB is shorter than Sherco, the cost difference between the rail and truck transport alternatives would be greater (with truck transport being more favorable). An arbitrary distance at which rail transport becomes “feasible,” compared to truck transport was not determined as part of this Draft EIS and was not needed to make the above inference.


10

Comment 1-29: Commenter alleges that the Draft EIS is deficient because it fails to address the economic impact of the imposition of “maximum legal tipping fees” on Xcel Energy. Response: Commenter fails to define the term “maximum legal tipping fees.” Xcel Energy does not pay any such fee at the Moelter Facility. The MPCA is not aware that any such fee exists for the proposed site, but assumes that were one to be imposed, Xcel Energy would pay it as part of the cost of doing business. Comment 1-30: Since SKB requires a Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) screening for hazardous characteristics, that is a further rationale for not issuing the final Draft EIS until ash from the rebuilt plant is available for testing. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3, 1-4, and 1-31. Comment 1-31: Commenter alleges that SKB’s requirement that King Plant ash be tested for hazardous characteristics is inconsistent with the statement in Section 4.1.3 that the addition of King Plant ash to either the SKB or TransLoad America landfills would not result in a substantial change in impacts at either site. Response: There is no inconsistency. TransLoad America’s (and SKB’s) requirement for a characterization would not be imposed because the waste is ash, but because it is a common requirement at commercial waste disposal facilities. Commercial facilities that dispose of waste for a fee get waste from a variety of sources. Such facilities are accountable to regulatory agencies for environmental compliance, and are only being prudent when they require characterization of waste before they will accept it. It requires little imagination to envision the possibility of a waste source consciously or inadvertently including a waste (a) for which the disposal facility is not permitted, (b) that is required to be disposed of in a statutorily specified way that the facility is not configured to accommodate, or (c) that the facility chooses not to accept, for reasons of its own. The required characterization would merely confirm that the waste Xcel Energy is sending is coal ash, which has twice been declared nonhazardous by EPA, with nothing additional included. TransLoad America and SKB have indicated that they would accept such waste for disposal, which indicates their belief that it would not prejudice their permits or create compliance issues for them, indicating, in turn, that sending King Plant ash to either one for disposal would not result in a substantial change in impacts at either site, as the Draft EIS states. Comment 1-32: Section 3.8.2 states that the TransLoad America facility would accept King Plant fly ash but nowhere states that it is a superior site. The Draft EIS is therefore incomplete. Response: See Response to Comment 1-23. Comment 1-33: TransLoad America would, like SKB, require testing prior to accepting the ash. This is further reason for not releasing the final Draft EIS until ash from the rebuilt King Plant is available for testing. Response: The surrogate data set used for ground water and other analyses in the Draft EIS was determined by MPCA staff to be an acceptable substitute for ash produced by the renovated King Plant under normal operating conditions. There is no reason to delay completion of the Draft EIS process on this basis. The fact that a commercial landfill requires characterization of waste it is being asked to accept is a separate issue entirely and not related to the Draft EIS process. See also Response to Comment 1-31.


11

Comment 1-34: Commenter alleges that TransLoad America’s requirement that King Plant ash be tested for hazardous characteristics is inconsistent with the statement in Section 4.1.3 that the addition of King Plant ash to either the SKB or TransLoad America landfills would not result in a substantial change in impacts at either site. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-31 and 1-33. Comment 1-35: The Draft EIS states (Section 3.10.1) that the potential for beneficial utilization of spray dryer absorber (SDA) ash from the rebuilt King Plant is not clear at present because the same metals whose presence was cited by the MPCA as the reason for denial of Xcel Energy’s proposals for beneficial utilization of pre-MERP King Plant ash will be present in the rebuilt plant’s ash in increased concentrations. Commenter believes the final Draft EIS should not be released until ash from the rebuilt plant is available for characterization to resolve the lack of clarity. Response: In actuality, the statement in the Draft EIS was based only in part on the expectation of increased metals concentrations. As noted in Section 3.10.1, scholarly work done on the potential for beneficial utilization of SDA ash has found that pure fly ash seems clearly to be preferred for utilization applications, and SDA ash is accordingly little utilized in the United States. The reasons given in the Draft EIS for this preference is that the presence of scrubber residuals retards concrete setting time, complicates agricultural amendment applications, and has given mixed results in civil engineering applications in Europe. These reasons all support the statement in the Draft EIS that the potential for utilization of King Plant SDA ash is currently unclear, and they are not resolvable by this Draft EIS—instead, resolution must await research on utilization applications for SDA ash, little of which has been done (as also noted in Section 3.10.1). It is also true, as noted elsewhere, that there is considerable uncertainty about when the King Plant will be able to produce an ash sample representative of normal operating conditions, but the rules do not require that the RGU go to extraordinary lengths to answer every question ever asked about a project. Comment 1-36: Since MNDOT specifications must be met by any ash that is utilized in road building, the Draft EIS is deficient if it does not compare the specifications with actual ash characteristics from the rebuilt King Plant. Response: The surrogate data set used for ground water and other analyses in the Draft EIS was determined by MPCA staff to be an acceptable substitute (for Draft EIS impact assessment purposes) for ash produced by the renovated King Plant under normal operating conditions. There is no reason to delay completion of the Draft EIS process on this basis. The Draft EIS analyzed the potential for utilization of the ash (see pages 42 through 55). The issues presenting barriers to utilization would not be removed by having a better set of data with regard to the King Plant ash. As the EIS notes, Xcel Energy remains committed to finding beneficial uses for its ash (EIS Section 3.10.5.1). However, at this time, the fact that some ash may someday be beneficially used (by MNDOT or others) does not appear to avoid the need to site a new landfill. Comparison with MNDOT specifications would take place at the time a particular material is proposed for beneficial use. Comment 1-37: The Draft EIS is incomplete in that it does not adequately explain whether mercury and other potential problematic chemicals (which should have been identified in the Draft EIS) can be separated from the ash to increase utilization potential.


12

Response: See Response to Comment 1-36 above. What the Draft EIS analysis found was that, at the current state of the art, there is little demand for the kind of SDA ash that would be produced by the renovated King Plant, and utilization markets are saturated, even for high quality ash. The Draft EIS notes that there might be some ways to separate ash streams to avoid, at least for a portion of the ash waste stream, some of the less-desirable constituents. Section 3.10.5 discusses how air pollution control scrubber residuals could be separated from the fly ash produced as part coal combustion. (page 48). But, it is not the function of the Draft EIS to perform new research aimed at determining how SDA ash could be beneficiated in order to make it more suitable for utilization. And, the Draft EIS also (page 49) makes the point that if residuals are somehow removable from fly ash, thus making the latter more marketable, markets for that material are still currently saturated and an ADF for the removed residuals would still be required. Further, as noted below, the King Plant’s cyclone boiler is expected to produce a high carbon fly ash that is relatively undesirable for utilization. See also Response to Comment 1-38. Finally, the Draft EIS does address potentially problematic chemicals that could prejudice utilization on page 45, but the main point still is that removing them does not necessarily make the remaining material more marketable, nor does it eliminate the need for an ADF. Comment 1-38: The Draft EIS does not explain why option 2 (page 48) is not being used by Xcel Energy, and how this option might decrease ADF acreage requirements. Response: Xcel Energy states that Option 1 is preferable from a cost standpoint, and the MPCA has no authority to second-guess this decision as long as using this option does not result in noncompliance with environmental requirements. Using fly ash as the sulfur dioxide scrubber material means less limestone is required, which reduces air emission control costs. Option 2 would probably not significantly increase the potential for beneficial use of the fly ash because a cyclone boiler facility, such the King Plant, produces a fly ash that is relatively high in carbon content as compared with other types of combustion facilities. High carbon content is prejudicial to many kinds of beneficial use. It is also true that, under Option 2, relatively pure fly ash would be produced, but a large volume of scrubber residuals would also be produced, which would require landfill disposal because there is essentially no utilization market for them. Based on these facts, Xcel Energy saw no significant incentive to use Option 2 at the King Plant. Neither Xcel Energy nor the MPCA has determined how use of Option 2 would affect the acreage required, but do not see this as an issue since an ADF of some size would be required regardless of which option is employed. Comment 1-39: The Draft EIS should address the impacts of future commercial land use on the area because the commenter believes that future use of this area may be commercial. Response: The commenter is speculating not only on what land use in the area will be 30 and 50 years from now, but on what currently uncompleted Comprehensive Plans will say at some point in the same time horizon. However, when analyzing compliance with local planning, Draft EISs are required only to use reasonably available information, including adopted land use plans. The Metropolitan Council identifies the subject site for future rural residential use, as does the county, as does the township. The Draft EIS analysis of the proposed project and its effect on existing and future planned land uses in the area is thus based on the best information available from the local units of government whose job it is to manage such issues. The law requires no more than this.


13

Comment 1-40: The Draft EIS is incomplete because it fails to consider source reduction as a mitigation measure because the Draft EIS did not consider whether conservation of electricity could reduce the demand for the King Plant. Response: This is not likely. The King Plant is a baseload plant. Intermediate and peaking plants are much more likely to be among the first to be shut down if demand for power is reduced. Even were this not true, the King Plant would almost certainly not be decommissioned entirely. An ADF would still be required. Moreover, the King Plant is not the subject of this Draft EIS, and is, in fact, exempt from environmental review because it has received all permits required to operate. Comment 1-41: The Draft EIS is incomplete because it does not analyze environmentally superior sites, of which there are many in Minnesota. Response: See Response to Comment 1-23. Comment 1-42: The Draft EIS should analyze returning the ash to the originating mine. Response: See Response to Comment 1-17. Comment 1-43: Use of surrogate ash data as the basis for contaminant migration is inappropriate, because use of pet coke as a fuel could significantly alter the chemical properties of the ash. Response: The pre-MERP King Plant burned pet coke. The surrogate data set contains the highest values for the pet coke parameters contained in the ash characterization studies on pre-MERP King Plant ash. These were the values used for the analysis. MPCA staff believes it highly unlikely that higher values would be found in ash from the rebuilt plant, even if pet coke were to be burned there, which Xcel Energy has stated is also not likely. It should also be noted that the containment system is expected to be effective regardless of ash composition. Refer also to Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-6. Comment 1-44: The hypothetical release analysis cannot be completed until ash from the rebuilt plant is available. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3, 1-4, and the previous response. Comment 1-45: The proposed monitoring well network is not adequate. There are downward gradients in the ground-water flow in the area of the landfill and the deeper geological layers are monitored by only three wells spaced 700 feet apart. Response: The commenter has not submitted supporting documentation for his allegations. The Draft EIS analysis presents the results of on-site studies showing that water elevation data obtained from the three well nests actually document a slight upward gradient a majority of the time. The attached hydrograph (Figures 59 and 60), prepared using available water levels collected between 2004 and 2007 for the six wells making up the three well nests, uses a dark color for the water table well and a light color for the deeper well in each well nest (i.e., dark blue/light blue, dark orange/light orange, and dark green/light green). With ground-water flow moving from high head to low head, the hydrograph indicates that upward vertical gradients predominate at the site.


14

The ground-water model supports this interpretation. The ground-water model also supports the conclusion that any contamination released from the site would first be detected in the monitoring wells screened at the water table. This would allow corrective action to be implemented before contamination could migrate to the deeper aquifers. The final location of the ground-water monitoring wells will be determined during the permitting process. Comment 1-46: The definition of “contaminant plume” needs to be better stated. Response: The definition of the extent of the simulated contaminant plume in the EIS is based on dilution the attenuation factor (DAF) for molybdenum. The DAF required for the predicted molybdenum concentration to be less than the intervention limit (IL) of 7.5 μg/L is 1.90 x 10-4. To be conservative, the minimum contour level for plume definition is a DAF of 1x10-5. Comment 1-47: The ground-water model should predict a plume of a size comparable to the other plumes in the area. Response: MPCA staff is puzzled by this comment as it ignores the fact that the hydrogeologic properties of the aquifers, conditions of the release(s), and characteristics of the material(s) released are all quite different from those of the modeled release. In particular, the other releases are known to occupy multiple geologic formations where hydrogeologic conditions are likely quite different from those found in the Prairie du Chien aquifer, which is the only one affected by the hypothetical release. Indeed, there is no reason to assume that hydrogeologic conditions in the Prairie du Chien near the other releases are identical to those identified at the West Lakeland site. Comment 1-48: Table 8 of Appendix C contains errors, which cast doubt on the likely accuracy of other reported modeling results. “….[A] DAF for cyanide and sulfate are reported in the table although no surrogate concentration was modeled.” Response: Commenter does not specify what arithmetic errors were identified or provide a comparison between the table and what he believes to be correct. Lacking this, we have reviewed and re-checked all of the calculations and have found no errors. All DAF required values were verified, and all predicted concentrations in the table are correct. Cyanide and sulfate were in fact modeled, but by means of the lowest water quality standard rather than surrogate ash data, which was not available at the time of the initial modeling. The surrogate ash data for cyanide and sulfate have now been added to the table and modeling has been performed that incorporates these values. Comment 1-49: The regional model used as a basis for the site model should have been further adapted to reflect site conditions. Response: The MPCA believes that the original site condition adaptations in the model were sufficient to reflect site conditions and adequately characterize the hypothetical release. That said, site conditions have now been further evaluated as the model was refined to address comments related to grid spacing. A telescopic mesh refinement (TMR) model of the 2005 Washington County ground-water flow model has been created. The grid spacing in the TMR model is uniform with an 8.05 m (26.4 feet) by 8.13 m (26.7 feet) cell size throughout the model domain. This model was used to provide an alternate transport model


15

and address all ground-water flow and contaminant transport model comments. See the attached Addendum Groundwater Flow and Transport Technical Memorandum. The MPCA notes that it is possible to refine the model and model approach indefinitely without materially improving the analysis thus produced. See also Response to Comment 2-5. Comment 1-50: The ground-water model assumes constant flow patterns that will probably not exist after facility construction, since the facility will alter those conditions. Response: Commenter has not submitted documentation to support his conclusion. Based on the judgment of technical staff, changes in infiltration and recharge as a result of the construction of this facility, which are expected to be minor, would not significantly affect regional ground-water flow or the hypothetical release analysis. Both the original ground-water flow model and addendum ground-water flow model were completed with changes to reflect a reduction in recharge for the ADF footprint. Recharge was reduced based on HELP model leakage rates through ADF liner. Comment 1-51: The modeled release is from a single point, but multiple releases from various points on the facility footprint would result in a wider plume, potentially affecting more receptors. Both scenarios should be analyzed in the Draft EIS. Response: As noted elsewhere, MPCA staff expects the containment system to be effective in keeping significant volumes of leachate from being released to the environment. The HELP model predicts essentially 100 percent liner efficiency whether the ADF is open or closed. Based on the above, even hypothetically, leachate of sufficient quantity to impact the ground water would only be released, if released at all, at collection points. The proposed ADF has only one leachate collection sump. Releases elsewhere would be minor and would either be attenuated or diluted before moving beyond the compliance boundary. The ground-water modeling documents that the hydrogeologic properties of the proposed Facility have been sufficiently characterized such that a major liner failure would be detected by a ground-water monitoring system. An addendum ground-water flow and transport model was created to address comments related to release of contaminants from multiple locations within the landfill footprint. This model was used to create a MODPATH model to address this comment. MODPATH was used to simulate particle transport from all model cells in ADF footprint. See the attached ground-water modeling report. Comment 1-52: The model appears to use a relatively high concentration to define the model boundaries, potentially ignoring a significant mass of contaminants outside those boundaries. Response: The definition of the extent of simulated contaminant plume is based on the DAF for molybdenum. Molybdenum is the most conservative parameter in terms of required DAF. The DAF required for molybdenum is 1.90 x 10-4. To be conservative, the minimum contour level for plume definition is a DAF of 1 x 10-5. See also Response 1-46. Comment 1-53: Not enough site work has been done to be sure that there are no karst features on the proposed site. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 1-8.


16

Comment 1-54: Section 4.1.1.1 assumes an ash conductivity of 1 x 10-5. This assumption requires more support. This value could easily vary enough to influence ash drain time and affect the length of the post-closure period. Response: Ash hydraulic conductivity values for the HELP model use a default hydraulic conductivity value of 5 x 10-5 centimeters per second (cm/sec). The default values provided in the HELP Model are empirical and, therefore, are based on actual field data. The general calculation provided in Section 4.1.1.1 uses the 1 x 10-5 cm/sec, which is in the same order of magnitude and is adequate for the estimate that is provided. The purpose of this calculation was to demonstrate that it would take time to dewater the ash. However, in a relatively homogeneous medium such as SDA ash, drain time variability is likely to be quite low and the length of the postclosure period should not be materially affected. The actual HELP Model default value is used to estimate liner effectiveness and determine potential leachate generation rates. Comment 1-55: Commenter states that more documentation must be provided for the statement in Section 4.1.1.1 that it would take about six years for the ash to completely drain, as well as a quantitative definition of “completely drain.” Response: MPCA staff believes the analysis of this issue in the Draft EIS is adequate documentation. Also, as noted in the same section, there is little data out there on leachate generation in landfills similar to the proposed Project, and the rules do not require extraordinary efforts to obtain data that for various reasons is difficult to find. In the unlikely event that free draining continues beyond the 20-year post-closure period, the MPCA has the authority to extend the requirement for postclosure operations. The staff understands “completely drain” to refer to the point at which leachate generation drops to de minimus levels. See also Response to Comment 1-11. Comment 1-56: The Draft EIS is incomplete without a wetland delineation and an impact assessment based both on surface water and ground-water effects. Response: The environmental review rules do not require formal wetland delineations as part of environmental review. Such actions would be required for the permitting process. Wetland delineation refers to the formal process of determining the boundaries of a wetland. For environmental review purposes, the exact boundaries are not necessary, particularly since in this case the wetland would be completely filled by the proposed Project. In this case, the Draft EIS identified a 0.12 acre, Type 5 wetland and included information on impact to that wetland in Sections 4.2.1.6.1 and 4.3. The exact boundaries will be delineated as part of the permitting process for purposes of deciding on the extent of mitigation that will be required. Comment 1-57: The Draft EIS does not provide enough stormwater design information to establish that the standards presented in Section 4.2 can be achieved. Response: The stormwater system has been redesigned in response to other comments. See the attached Revised Stormwater Management Plan. The MPCA has reviewed the re-design and found it adequate to control stormwater on the Project site and meet applicable standards. See also Response to Comment 2-6.


17

Comment 1-58: Poor construction and poor long-term maintenance are the primary causes of stormwater infiltration system failure. These issues should be addressed in Section 4.2.1.4. Long-term maintenance requirements could require extension of the 20-year postclosure period. Response: Construction requirements and BMPs are addressed in Section 4.2.1.5.1. Long-term maintenance is addressed in section 4.2.1.4. The MPCA will conduct quarterly inspections to verify compliance. As noted in the latter section, the expectation is that some fine sediment removal may be required from time to time, but erosion would be minimal after final closure. See also Response to Comment 1-14. Comment 1-59: The distant site analysis is fundamentally flawed in that it analyzes sites that cannot score higher than the proposed site, even if they are environmentally superior. Response: The intent behind the alternative analysis was never to rank or score alternatives. Instead, it was to analyze the feasibility of using a given alternative to the proposed action. The Draft EIS fulfills this function by presenting pertinent information that allows an assessment of this feasibility. See also Response to Comment 1-23. Comment 1-60: The County Well Index will not include all wells in the area. Only a site-by-site survey can do that, and the Draft EIS is incomplete without this. Response: The Draft EIS is required to only to use reasonably available information. The current information on wells is the most recent available from the agencies that collect this data and the rules do not require extraordinary efforts to refine this data. Refer also to Response to Comment 1-7. Comment 1-61: An analysis is needed that quantifies the removal of nutrients and metals by the stormwater control system. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 1-14. Comment 1-62: There is no support for the statement on page 10 that there appears to be no issue with preferential pathway flow. Commenter considers such flow likely on this site, and states that tests must be conducted to address this issue. Response: The porous media analysis is based on several lines of evidence. Ground-water flow across the site is uniform as demonstrated by the head relationships. Geophysical data indicates that the fracture patterns are uniformly distributed across the site. Fracture zones do not appear to have sufficiently different hydraulic conductivities to deflect ground-water flow. An upward gradient will tend to limit downward dispersion of any potential plume. Further geophysical testing is proposed for the final placement of additional ground-water monitoring wells. Comment 1-63: Commenter thinks the 20-year postclosure period is inadequate in light of the potential for failure of the liner system and lifetime exposure of potential receptors. Also, the modeling, which predicts achievement of plume steady state conditions within the postclosure period, is based on the assumption that any release would occur immediately after landfill closure. The requirement of only a 20-year postclosure period must be justified in light of these concerns.


18

Response: The 20-year requirement is taken from Minn. R. 7035.2655, subp. 1, and is described in the rule as a minimum. The MPCA has the authority to extend this period if necessary. The rule is indicative of the MPCA’s belief that any problems that are going to occur will probably occur within that time period. The MPCA knows of no evidence to the contrary. Also, the Draft EIS does not portray the modeled hypothetical release as occurring at any particular point in time; it merely gives the estimated number of years needed for the hypothetical plume to achieve steady state conditions and concludes that the hypothetical release would be detected by the monitoring system and readily remediated. Whatever the length of time necessary for the unremediated plume to achieve steady state conditions, this would occur only if the release were to remain undetected and unremediated. But, as noted in the Draft EIS, such a release would be quickly detected by the monitoring system and readily remediated by pump-out wells. It must be remembered that the model was deliberately performed based on quite conservative assumptions, as well as that MPCA staff believes the containment system would be effective indefinitely. The Draft EIS (Section 4.1.1.2) notes that liner integrity would probably be maintained for at least several hundred years, and provides analysis to back up that conclusion. See also Responses to Comments 1-12 and 1-54. 2. Comments by Lincoln Fletcher, Valley Branch Watershed District Board of Managers. Letter

received February 4, 2008.

Comment 2-1: The VBWD finds the Draft EIS analysis inadequate. More analysis is needed to determine effects on the environment. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-2: Any subdivision of the Tiller Corporation property, such as to accommodate the sale of the Project site to Xcel Energy, must be approved by VBWD. Response: This will be passed on to Xcel Energy. See the revised Table 2 (attached). Comment 2-3: VBWD administers the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). Response: The MPCA appreciates this information, which will be passed on to Xcel Energy. Comment 2-4: Although the Draft EIS (Section ES 4.5.1) states that wetland impacts must be mitigated by replacement at a 2:1 ratio, in fact required replacement ratios may be higher under certain circumstances. Response: The MPCA appreciates this information, which will be passed on to Xcel Energy. Comment 2-5: The ground-water modeling results presented in the Draft EIS do not support the conclusions in Draft EIS section ES 4.3. Response: The MPCA believes that the ground-water model does support the conclusions in the Draft EIS. However, after receipt of this comment letter, the MPCA met with the VBWD engineering consultant, who is the author of the regional ground-water model used in the Draft EIS analysis, for the purpose of refining the modeling analysis.


19

The attached Addendum Groundwater Flow and Transport Technical Memorandum addresses VBWD and the majority of other ground-water flow and transport model comments. Neither the original EIS ground-water transport model nor the addendum ground-water transport model uses molecular diffusion. Both the original EIS and addendum ground-water transport model are conservative in that the sump failure is injected directly into the water table, which does not account for the ADF liner and thickness of the construction fill material between the ADF base and the top of aquifer. In addition, no chemical reactions or sorption of constituents was considered. This is very conservative given that the compounds in ash leachate are predominantly inorganic metals that would be attenuated as they pass through the clay liner and construction fill material. Among other items, the addendum model:

• Uses a TMR model of the 2005 Washington County ground-water flow model. The TMR model was calibrated using UCODE to site measured head. Calibration was achieved through UCODE by varying the Kx, Ky (Kx = Ky) and Kz of hydraulic conductivity zones 3 and 4 of the 2005 Washington County ground-water flow model. Calibration points used in the addendum ground-water flow model include both near field (site) and far field (region) calibration points within the model domain.

• Incorporates a hybrid method of characteristics (HMOC) and a smaller transport time step.

• Does not employ the MODFLOW dry cell correction.

The results of that modeling refinement have been reviewed with the VBWD engineering consultant, who has indicated concurrence with the characterization thus produced. Particulars can be found in the attached Groundwater Model Technical Memorandum. The MPCA appreciates the assistance of the VBWD in resolving this issue. Comment 2-6: Section 1.3.5 does not adequately address the effect of the Project on the North Infiltration Area, which is not on Project property. There is also no support in the Draft EIS for the statement that the landlocked condition of the watershed would not change as a result of ADF development. Response: Upon receipt of this comment letter, MPCA staff met with the VBWD stormwater consultant for the purpose of resolving the VBWD’s concerns regarding stormwater management on the proposed Project site. As a result, Xcel Energy has agreed to create a new infiltration area on its Project site immediately adjacent to the ADF and to revise grading and construction plans in order to assure that no unacceptable volumes of stormwater would be discharged off the proposed Project site. The results of that consultation have been reviewed with the VBWD consultant, who has concurred in the plan revision. Particulars can be found in the attached Revised Stormwater Management Plan. The MPCA appreciates the assistance of the VBWD in resolving this issue. Comment 2-7: The VBWD requires that Project stormwater be managed on the Project site, and will not allow Project stormwater to be discharged off site. Property limits might need to be expanded to adequately manage stormwater and comply with VBWD rules. Response: See Response to Comment 2-6.


20

Comment 2-8: When a VBWD permit application is filed, the VBWD will review the 100-year floodplain elevation calculation, for which the VBWD has specific requirements. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-9: The VBWD has specific stormwater control rules, and these must be complied with in order for a permit to be issued. Response: See Response to Comment 2-6. Comment 2-10: The VBWD owns an easement through the proposed ADF site, and the VBWD would need to approve any activity that might affect the VBWD’s ability to use this easement. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 2-13. Comment 2-11: Information is needed on how the North Infiltration Area will be maintained, since it is off Project property. Response: See Response to Comment 2-6. Comment 2-12: If a wetland is to be impacted, the WCA sequencing analysis must be followed to show that wetland impacts are unavoidable or have been minimized. Response: This is noted in the Draft EIS at the bottom of page 72. Comment 2-13: More detail is needed to show how the VBWD’s Project 1007 stormwater pipe can be moved in a way that does not prejudice its function. Response: Upon receipt of this comment letter, the MPCA met with the VBWD stormwater consultant for the purpose of resolving the VBWD’s concerns regarding relocation of the Project 1007 stormwater pipe on the proposed Project site. As a result of this consultation, Xcel Energy and the VBWD have achieved agreement in principle on a relocation of the pipe and related issues including the VBWD easement for pipe access and how this easement will remain available to VBWD. Particulars can be found in the attached Revised Stormwater Management Plan. The MPCA appreciates the assistance of the VBWD in resolving this issue. Comment 2-14: Leachate treatment options might need to be approved by the VBWD, depending on the option selected. Response: This is not likely to be necessary because Xcel Energy is proposing to haul the leachate to a Metropolitan Council-Environmental Services publicly-owned treatment plant for treatment. Comment 2-15: The VBWD administers the WCA, not Washington County. Response: The MPCA appreciates this correction.


21

Comment 2-16: All wetlands need to be delineated and the results approved by the VBWD before the latter can issue a permit. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-17: Required wetland replacement ratios may be higher than 2:1 in some circumstances. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-18: The VBWD must issue a permit for any activities that would impact a wetland. Response: Comment noted. Comment 2-19: The map in Figure 12 does not accurately show the ADF watershed. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 2-6. The Revised Stormwater Management Plan referred to in that response contains a revised depiction of the watershed. Comment 2-20: The North Infiltration Area appears to be off Project property. The sizing of the proposed infiltration basin must be reviewed by the VBWD. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 2-6. Comment 2-21: The proposed grading may affect the hydraulic capacity of the VBWD pipe. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 2-13. Comments 2-22 through 2-49: Commenter believes some aspects of the hypothetical release model scenario require refinement in order to give a reasonable representation of the release impacts and their remediation. Response: See Response to Comment 2-5. 3. Comments by Shelly Strauss, City of Afton. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 3-1: Commenter refers to Page 3, Section 1.2.3, King Plant Fly Ash Characterization, and requests that the heading be revised to indicate that it is characterization of the leachate from the fly ash that is being attempted. Response: MPCA staff believes that the title accurately reflects the text. The way that fly ash is typically characterized is by passing solvents through it in order to leach out chemical constituents for identification. This is, in fact, a characterization not only of the ash itself, but of the leachate that it might produce in the field when exposed to moisture. Also, it is legitimate to refer to a properly developed surrogate data set as a characterization of the ash and its leachate.


22

Comment 3-2: Commenter disagrees with the assertion that fly ash is an inert material and considers fly ash as a highly reactive material. Response: The intent as stated in the Draft EIS was to say that incidental exposure to ash is generally not a health risk. This is the context in which this statement should be understood. The same Draft EIS text goes on to recognize that exposure to elevated pollutant concentrations from ash leachate is potentially more problematical. This is why the Draft EIS spends so much time describing the proposed containment system, the potential for a hypothetical release, and the feasibility of detecting and remediating it. Comment 3-3: Commenter states that the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure, EPA Method 1312 (SPLP) tests on current King Plant ash that were used in part to estimate leachate chemistry should be eliminated from this exercise as they routinely underestimate the concentration of contaminants in fly ash-derived leachates. Response: The MPCA understands that reasonable people can disagree on what testing procedure to use and also understands that the best procedure may vary with the material being tested and the type of analysis being done. But, in the final analysis it will make very little difference. Method 1312 data were only used for three parameters (barium, chromium, and mercury), in those cases in which it exceeded King Plant and Sherco field leachate data levels. Comment 3-4: Commenter expresses concern over the use of pre-MERP King Plant leachate data to estimate leachate composition of post-MERP fly ash as the post-MERP ash will include contaminants captured from the exhaust gas and concentration of these constituents in the solid waste. The use of the highest concentrations detected in the pre-MERP King Plant field leachate would be more conservative, but that even this approach is but a guess and not based on ash-derived leachates. Response: It is true that the post-MERP ash will have dry scrubber residuals in it, and the pre-MERP ash did not. That is why the universe of datasets used to create the surrogate data set includes data from Sherco, which is a dry scrubber plant similar to the post-MERP King Plant in configuration and in SDA ash produced. As shown in Table 1 (revised, attached), when the MPCA compares the Sherco ash (which, like ash from the post- MERP King Plant, contains dry scrubber residuals) with pre-MERP King plant ash, the MPCA finds that Sherco ash nearly always is lower in pollutant concentrations because it has been diluted by the scrubber residuals. In limited cases where the Sherco ash pollutant concentration was not lower, the Draft EIS used the highest of the three values available. Modeling with the selected values (the surrogate data set) found little potential for significant environmental impact. Therefore, the MPCA legitimately concluded that the post-MERP King Plant SDA ash will not constitute a significant risk to the environment, particularly since the state-of-the-art containment system is expected to function properly into the indefinite future. Finally, the development of the surrogate data set was based on statistical analyses of comparable ash production systems and fuel inputs, and reviewed by technical staff learned in such analyses. This process selected the most representative values from among the three candidate data sets. The surrogate data set was thus anything but a guess. See also Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Comment 3-5: Commenter requests that additional discussion be provided as to why leachate from the Sherco Unit 3 should be similar to leachate from the updated King Plant. Response: See Response to Comment 3-4.


23

Comment 3-6: The addition of new air pollution control systems on the post-MERP King Plant means that the analyses of pre-MERP ash will likely underestimate the mass of contaminants that can be expected in ash from the upgraded systems. Commenter states that unless it is known that the current ash leachate represents maximum solubility, using the highest values for each parameter measured in pre-MERP King Plant field leachate is a conservative estimate for post-MERP leachate concentration. Response: The main contaminants of concern as regards the proposed ADF are the metals, which are largely contained on the particulates in the stack gas stream. These pollutants have always been collected at a high rate of efficiency by King Plant emission control equipment since the plant first went on line in the late 1960s. While particulate removal efficiency may be somewhat enhanced in the post-MERP plant, it is not likely that the increased volume thus collected would exceed the levels used in the Draft EIS because of the conservative methodology used to develop the surrogate data set. Furthermore, the leachate concentration is expected to be diluted by the addition of SDA residuals to the fly ash. The addition of lime in a 1:1 ratio with fly ash will have the effect of diluting the leachate. There is no such dilution in the pre-MERP ash because there was no sulfur dioxide control on its stack. Finally, the inclusion of several parameters (nickel, molybdenum, and vanadium) is conservative, since their source (pet coke) is not in the post-MERP fuel blend. They have been included since pet coke is allowed in the air permit. For the above reasons, the MPCA agrees with the commenter that using the highest pre-MERP King plant values results in a conservative surrogate data set. See also Responses to Comments 1-3, 1-4, and 3-4. Comment 3-7: Commenter asks for a discussion of why it is in the public interest for local officials to allow a waste disposal facility to be constructed in an area mapped as highly susceptible to water table ground-water contamination where ground water is the source of almost all water supply. Response: The fact that an area is mapped as containing vulnerable ground water does not by itself mean that all development there is prohibited. The MGS mapping was used as guidance when developing an investigation approach and in Facility design. The Minnesota Solid Waste rules allow the siting of a facility if adequate engineering controls are employed. The proposed site meets the location requirements as defined by the Minnesota Solid Waste rules. This does not mean that local officials should disregard the analysis by MGS when applying local zoning ordinances, but only that permitting authorities must require adequate safeguards if they are to allow projects to move forward. In this case, the MPCA technical staff believes that adequate safeguards would be included, and the proposed containment system would be effective indefinitely. In addition, the Draft EIS ground-water modeling results document that a hypothetical release of leachate from the facility would be detected and could be contained before impacting any water supply wells. Comment 3-8: Commenter states that the ground-water flow direction described in the Draft EIS neglects to mention that Figure 11 shows a southward flow on the western side of the property that appears to flow toward Lake Edith, which is located within one mile of the ADF site.


24

Response: Although Figure 11 does indicate a localized southerly component of flow on the western portion of the site, MGS publications, as well as regional and local ground-water modeling, indicate the primary flow direction is easterly toward the St. Croix River and not southerly toward Lake Edith. Regardless of potential receptors, the permitting process would include the installation of monitoring wells for the portion of the Facility that would detect a potential release. The proposed Facility would be constructed in phases. The environmental monitoring system would be expanded for each phase as necessary. Ground-water flow maps would be updated as additional monitoring wells are installed. Finally, the attached ground-water modeling report contains a particle path analysis that shows that there is no pathline from the ADF to Lake Edith or Vally Branch Creek. Comment 3-9: Commenter states that no information on seasonal variation of the water table is provided and that this information is critical in determining impacts of any release. Response: Seasonal variation is briefly mentioned on page 8 of the Draft EIS. Ground-water elevations have been monitored on site using up to ten wells since November 2004. Since May 2006, seven wells were equipped with pressure transducers and recorded hourly ground-water elevations. The hydrograph record used in the Draft EIS is for the period of November 2004 through May 2007. The hydrograph for water table wells are included in Figures 59 and 60. Wells screened in both bedrock and glacial material were used to measure seasonal variation. Comment 3-10: Commenter asks for a description of specific methods employed to evaluate the potential for karst features and to evaluate bedrock for the potential presence of preferential flow pathways, such as fracture zones and solution features, including a discussion of the level of resolution of such methods. Response: As the 1.3.4.4 of the Draft EIS notes, Phase I and II Hydrogeological Investigations have been completed at the site. These investigations were incorporated by reference in order to minimize the bulk of the Draft EIS as encouraged by the rules, but they are available for detailed review on request. The Draft EIS gives a summary of their findings, which are outlined below: • Section 3.13 of the Revised Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report (McCain, March 2006)

describes secondary permeability of the Prairie du Chien formations based upon drilling results.

• The Phase II Supplemental Investigation (McCain, July 2006) also included bedrock fracture identification by: Lineament Analysis, Electrical Resisitivity, Seismic, and Borehole Logging (caliper, video, gamma, and resistivity).

• Several wells were equipped with data loggers to record ground-water elevation. These hydrographs

were unable to identify even short-term periods of preferential flow. See also Response to Comment 1-8. Comment 3-11: Commenter believes that the cap will not perform as designed and will allow considerable infiltration into the ADF and that leachate generation will not cease until all of the leachable components of the disposed waste have been removed from the landfill mass, generations into the future.


25

Response: The landfill containment (liner, leachate collection, and cap) and monitoring systems must be considered in their entirety when evaluating the ADF’s long-term environmental performance. These are redundant systems intended to ensure that any failure in one location will not result in significant environmental effects. Having extensively analyzed the efficiency of the containment system via methods that are accepted and standards of the industry, the MPCA believes that the containment system, if constructed as planned, will be effective into the indefinite future. As regards the cap specifically, HELP modeling of the cap indicates that it is 99.8 percent efficient in shedding precipitation. Any moisture that enters the ADF through the cap would be collected on the liner and disposed of as leachate. Leachate removal from the liner will be a required activity performed by Xcel Energy (and any successor company) for as long as leachate generation exists. The Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) for the siting rule evaluated such a release for a cap and liner combined efficiency of 98.5 percent, and concluded such a release presented an insignificant impact upon the ground water. The efficiency of proposed cap exceeds that contemplated in the SONAR for the cap and liner combined. The cap will be inspected, maintained, and, if necessary, repaired to prevent postclosure introduction of moisture and resultant leachate generation. The cap is a near-surface feature that can be inspected, maintained, and repaired as required to maintain its effectiveness indefinitely. Comment 3-12: Commenter states that the Draft EIS should revise the site selection criteria to allow other than previously mined sites to be evaluated and that low susceptibility to ground-water contamination be among the first screening criteria applied to siting. Commenter states that the Siting Committee adopted a resolution opposing siting the Project in Washington County. He believes that this, in conjunction with the site’s susceptibility to ground-water contamination, indicates that some of the criteria need to be changed to identify a more acceptable site or that some rationale be provided to quantify why placing an ADF in the area makes sense. Commenter states that gravel pits are poor locations in which to site waste disposal facilities given their susceptibility to ground-water contamination and that the distant sites should be re-evaluated to include locations with low contamination susceptibility. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-17, 1-23, 7-1, 7-2, and 15-2. Comment 3-13: There is a contradiction between page 43, Section 3.10.1, Overview (which says that metals concentrations may increase in the ash due to the new air pollution control equipment), and the statement in Appendix A that asserts that the addition of scrubber solids to the ash would dilute the resulting waste and result in lower concentrations. Commenter states that the fly ash characterization should be re-evaluated to account for the potential increase in contaminant mass and contaminant concentration in the waste due to the installation of more efficient air pollution control equipment. Response: Metal concentrations could actually increase if Option 2 for fly ash management (as described on page 48 of the Draft EIS) were ever to be implemented by the King Plant, which at this time is not planned by Xcel Energy. Under this option, the fly ash would be collected separately and not commingled with SDA residuals, meaning, in turn, that higher metal concentrations in the fly ash could be possible. This underscores the main point of this section of the Draft EIS, which is that there is considerable


26

uncertainty about the potential for the utilization of post-MERP King Plant SDA ash, and this uncertainty renders difficult any meaningful analysis of this issue. As the commenter notes, metal concentrations in this ash may be lower due to dilution by SDA residuals, but the latter fact is also a negative as regards utilization. In light of these facts, a re-evaluation of the SDA ash characterization would be unproductive. The best time to evaluate utilization potential of the ash from the renovated plant will be when the plant reaches steady-state conditions and its ash can be tested and evaluated for a particular beneficial use. See also Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Comment 3-14: The discussion of the IWEM analysis reference Appendix G for leachate concentration and modeling information that appears to be in Appendices A and C. Response: The MPCA appreciates this correction. Comment 3-15: The IWEM model should be re-run using the highest recorded concentration for each parameter detected in the King Plant field leachate sampling rather than a statistically manipulated value. Response: See Responses to Comments 3-3, 3-4, and 3-6. Comment 3-16: The Draft EIS should describe how the proposed design eliminates the possibility of cover and liner breaches caused by either wildlife or human activities until such time as the contaminant levels in the leachate are in compliance with water quality standards. Response: The cap will be inspected, maintained, and, if necessary, repaired to prevent postclosure introduction of moisture and resultant leachate generation, and such activities will be included in the end use plan. The cap is a near-surface feature that can be inspected, maintained, and repaired as required to maintain its effectiveness. The area will also be fenced to restrict access during the operating life. The liner system will be covered with ash, which hardens like cement, and animals would not be able to burrow into the hardened ash. Comment 3-17: Commenter questions the HELP model assumption of only one liner installation defect per acre when the HELP model guidance indicates that good installation quality should assume one to four installation defects per acre. Thus, the model inputs were not set to provide a conservative estimate of leachate generation. A sensitivity run by the commenter showed that changing the number of installation defects would significantly increase modeled leachate generation volumes. Response: The geomembrane installation defect rate used in the HELP model is adequate given the intensive level of construction oversight, including use of electrical leak location testing, that will be performed during liner installation. HELP model documention indicates that “excellent” installation quality may result in “up to one” defect per acre. The effectiveness of electrical leak location testing in finding (and allowing repair of) liner installation defects has been demonstrated by reliability assessment projects conducted under MPCA observation. Comment 3-18: Commenter states that the geomembrane liners may undergo deterioration and that the containment system will eventually fail. They further state that the HELP model does not account for time-dependent deterioration of the liner and the clay material beneath the liner will allow a significant account of leachate through the bottom of the Facility.


27

Response: The analysis in Section 4.1.1.2 of the Draft EIS provides evidence that the containment system integrity will be maintained under typical ambient conditions on the site for several hundred years. See also Response to Comment 3-11. Comment 3-19: The planned monitoring well network is insufficient to detect southward flowing releases. Any release from the western portion of the landfill will likely migrate undetected toward Lake Edith. Response: See Response to Comment 3-8. Comment 3-20: Commenter states that proposed electrical resistivity studies to finalize the location of monitoring wells indicates that the understanding of ground-water flow below and around the site has not been developed, and that the presence or absence of preferential flow pathways should be reflected in the ground-water flow and transport modeling that has been done for the site. Response: Continuous water level data was collected from wells over a two-year period. Water level data showed no significant deviation in the primary flow direction even under extreme events including a four-inch rainfall. A fracture by itself would not be “preferential” if there are many other fractures in the same media. Additionally, the data collected to date suggests that the additional electrical resistivity studies are not likely to be necessary. See also Responses to Comments 1-62 and 1-63. Comment 3-21: Commenter states that fractured bedrock within the upper 30 feet is an indication that preferential ground-water flow pathways are probable and asks the authors to specify what information has been acquired and evaluation completed to demonstrate that the vertical and horizontal fracture zones do not appear to form significant preferential flow pathways. Commenter disagrees with the concept that the bedrock is an “equivalent porous medium” and requests justification for this assumption. Response: A high number of fracture orientations approximates the tortuosity of a granular media. The geophysical data is not the only line of evidence used to characterize the site. The investigation included the installation of 36 soil borings, rock cores, and nested monitoring wells. See Section 3.3 of Supplemental Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report (McCain and Associates. July 2006), as referenced in the Draft EIS. See also Responses to Comments 1-8, 1-9, 1-62, and 3-10. Comment 3-22: Commenter believes that site ground-water flow mapping indicates the potential for impacts to Lake Edith and Valley Branch Creek. Response: See Response to Comment 3-8. Comment 3-23: Commenter questions the use of EPA Method 1312 for characterizing ash leachate. Response: See Response to Comment 3-3. Comment 3-24: Commenter alleges that dilution of the post-MERP fly ash by adding SDA residuals will have no effect on the mass of contaminants in the ash (except possibly to increase it), or on the solubility or leachability of contaminants. Many variables impact fly ash chemistry and this makes a detailed


28

statistical analysis to come up with a surrogate data set unnecessary and possibly misleading. Commenter recommends using the highest values for each parameter measured in pre-MERP King plant field leachate. Response: In fact, what the MPCA has found in field leachate comparisons between Sherco III and the pre-MERP King plant ash is that the leachate loses some of its strength with the addition of SDA residuals from the air pollution control equipment. The comment is intuitive at one level, but the actual tests tell a different story. See also Responses to Comments 3-3 and 3-4. Comment 3-25: The IWEM model used to assess the level of environmental protection at the Facility is deficient in a number of ways, and some of the assumptions employed in the model exercise are flawed. Response: IWEM is a screening level tool and should not be expected to answer every question about the liner design. It was appropriately used as a supplemental tool for evaluating containment systems and, in this case, its results led to the most conservative liner design for an industrial solid waste facility. It is the judgment of MPCA staff that the assumptions used in the modeling are appropriate for this level of analysis. The HELP model was also employed to analyze containment efficiency and its results were congruent with the IWEM findings. This gives MPCA staff confidence that, in the final analysis, the suite of tools and the analysis in which they are used are appropriate and legitimate. Finally, IWEM is a commonly used tool in such analyses, and a critique of its usefulness is beyond the scope of this Draft EIS. See also Responses to Comments 1-8, 1-9, 1-62, and 3-10. Comment 3-26: The HELP model does not account for all the moisture that enters the disposal area. It may be that an obsolete version was used in the analysis. Response: The most current version of the HELP model was used to evaluate the efficiency of the containment system. For both “open” and “closed” conditions, the HELP model results indicate that mass balance is achieved to three decimal places when measured on a percentage basis (i.e., 100.000 percent). HELP model results indicate that initial and final moisture contents for the ash and soil layers modeled are not the same. For the 20-year “open” condition, HELP model results indicate a 3 percent increase in water storage within the ash. For the 20-year “closed” condition, HELP model results indicate a 0.4 percent increase in water storage in the cap soil layers. The liner and cover efficiency exceed Minnesota and federal standards for liner and cover efficiencies for Minnesota municipal solid waste disposal facilities. Comment 3-27: The HELP modeling exercise was based on the assumption either that the Facility is open and active or closed with all systems functioning correctly. The analysis should include later scenarios that include (a) the termination of leachate collection, and (b) deterioration of the containment system.


29

Response: According to the Draft EIS analysis, neither of these scenarios requires evaluation. Leachate removal from the liner would be a required activity performed by Xcel Energy (and any successor company) for as long as leachate generation exists. When leachate generation ceases, there would be no head on the liner (no driving force) and thus no leakage through the liner. According to the containment life expectancy analysis in the Draft EIS, containment integrity is expected to be maintained for at least several hundred years. Comment 3-28: The HELP model is somewhat simplistic and cannot simulate diffusion transport through the liner. Other tools should be used to simulate this phenomenon. MODFLOW [which was used in the analysis] can be used for this purpose, but the way it was used in the Draft EIS gives an incomplete picture of the potential for more generalized leakage than the hypothetical single point release that was the only scenario modeled. Response: The purpose of the ground-water modeling was never to evaluate every conceivable liner failure. Minor generalized leachate leakage would either be attenuated or diluted before moving beyond the compliance boundary. The hypothetical release scenario was evaluated, not to model the potential for release from the facility, but instead to determine if the hypothetical release would be detected and could be remediated. The ground-water modeling did, in fact, document that the hydrogeologic properties of the proposed site have been sufficiently characterized such that a significant release would be detected by the ground-water monitoring system, and readily remediated. See also Response to Comment 3-8. Comment 3-29: The MODFLOW analysis is deficient in that only statistical calculations of head residuals were evaluated, and this missed the potential for southward movement of ground water (and any contaminants) toward Lake Edith and other receptors to the south. This means, in turn, that any monitoring system based on the modeling results will not detect any such movement. Response: See Response to Comment 3-8. Comment 3-30: The MODFLOW analysis finds that ground water under the proposed Facility is moving downward, when, in fact, site data shows upward gradients at the site. This reinforces that that model is not predicting real-world conditions, and prejudices the performance of any monitoring system based on the results. Response: It needs to be emphasized that the MODFLOW analysis was employed for a single purpose, and that was to determine if the hypothetical release would be detected and remediated. Site-specific hydrogeologic investigation data, ground-water level and contour mapping, particle path modeling, and other appropriate data and analyses as required by the MPCA would be used to determine the optimum locations for the monitoring wells. See also Response to Comment 1-45. MODFLOW gradients are based on the calibrated regional ground-water flow model. The MODFLOW model shows the gradient as downward, which makes the transport model more conservative in that simulated concentrations will move to lower formations than if an upward gradient is present. From the TMR report summary of calibration: The UCODE calibration of the TMR model produced two calibrated models where residuals were lower than the baseline TMR model. The results of the UCODE calibration provided insight into modeling ground-water flow to site conditions. The UCODE modeling suggests the following:


30

• Model vertical hydraulic conductivity (Kv) and gradients imply a confined bedrock aquifer with

glacial till acting as a confining layer.

• Modeled ground-water head for all calibrated models indicate that the ground-water gradient is downward at MW-006-MW106, which is contrary to the McCain (2006) hydrogeologic investigation. MW106 is an open borehole well that is not discretely screened in bedrock. Gradients estimated from the MW006-MW106 well nest may not be reliable.

• All UCODE calibrated models produced very low vertical hydraulic conductivities that were significantly lower than laboratory-measured vertical hydraulic conductivity. There has been no site measured vertical hydraulic conductivity. Pump tests with upper (glacial) and lower (bedrock) monitoring wells and bedrock pumping may be required.

Comment 3-31: The MODFLOW analysis did not include transient calibration after the steady-state modeling, which means the model did not take into account variations in the subsurface ground-water storage capacity. This makes critical parameters for the MT3D modeling little more than unverified guesses. Response: Site data that would support transient calibration were not available. No aquifer tests, such as pump tests were performed on site. Pump tests with multiple observation wells could provide data for horizontal and vertical hydraulic conductivity, anisoptropy, storativity, and specific yield. In addition, transient data from the region is limited. Transient calibration is considered to be beyond the scope of this EIS. Comment 3-32: The volume of the hypothetical release was incorrectly calculated. If calculated correctly, this volume would total 842, not 338, gallons per day. Response: Commenter appears to assume that all precipitation minus evaporation from the entire 24-acre ash fill area is being collected and there is no liner present. This is an extremely conservative set of assumptions. The methodology used in the Draft EIS analysis to calculate the 338 gallons per day is based on an average annual head on top of the liner of 0.379 inches. This, in turn, was based on the HELP model results for an open landfill over a 12-acre ash fill area (sideslopes are excluded). The MPCA realizes that reasonable people can differ on how conservative such analyses should be, but the MPCA believes that the Draft EIS analysis is sufficiently conservative for impact assessment purposes. Comment 3-33: The shortcomings of the MODFLOW analysis given above suggest there are severe and unaddressed problems with the MT3D analysis, but lack of a corrected MODFLOW analysis precludes a detailed review of it. Refinement of the physical grid and use of finer time steps would seem warranted. Response: See Response to Comment 2-5.


31

4. Comments by Dennis Hegberg, Washington County Board of Commissioners. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 4-1: The Draft EIS should contain details about the mining that must take place before the landfill can be constructed, including amount and quality of material, depth of mining, and mine phasing. Response: The mining operation would be performed primarily as site preparation for ADF construction and is incidental to the proposed Project. The mining activities were briefly described in the scoping EAW, as well as the Draft EIS on pages ES-2 and 8, and will consist of activities substantially similar to the Tiller Corporation activities described on page 5. Xcel Energy intends to comply with the ten-foot separation between the water table and the base of the excavation, as has been required in the Tiller Corporation permit since 2005, as shown in EIS Figures 17-20. The phases of gravel mining are identical to the phasing of ADF construction, as described on page ES-2 and Figure 16. Xcel Energy expects to convey the mined gravel to the adjacent Tiller Corporation gravel mining operation for sale. A significant amount of the mined material would not be suitable for sale and would be used on site for such things as berm construction, sedimentation pond development, and similar features. The impacts of all of these activities have been assessed in the Draft EIS as the impacts of construction, and with the employment of suitable BMPs as required by stormwater and solid waste facility permits, these impacts would be minor. Comment 4-2: Xcel Energy should discuss with Washington County the nature of the disagreement regarding local permitting issues. If the Comprehensive Plan is changed to accommodate Xcel Energy’s plans, the property must also be rezoned for the purpose. Response: Xcel Energy will do so at the appropriate time. Comment 4-3: Commenter believes more analysis of the visual impact from I-94 is needed, since this is the primary gateway to the area from the east. Draft EIS statements that the impact is minimal because the ADF would be visually similar to other industrial land uses in the area neglect the fact that mining is temporary and the Tiller Corporation operation will eventually be reclaimed for residential use. Response: The Tiller Corporation gravel mine and the Xcel Energy ADF are both expected to finally cease operations at about the same time about 25-30 years from now and end use development activities would proceed in concert. Xcel Energy has stated that its end use plans are not final and will be subject to the expressed preferences of local units of government and residents. As the Draft EIS notes, the ADF would be visually similar to other industrial land uses in the area, because the adjacent Tiller Corporation gravel mine would be in operation essentially as long as the Xcel Energy operation, and Tower Asphalt across the freeway will continue in operation for at least a portion of that time. Comment 4-4: The Draft EIS should explain how a surrogate data set can be a valid substitute for ash data from the rebuilt plant. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Comment 4-5: Completion of the Draft EIS process should be delayed until ash from the rebuilt plant can be obtained and tested, and the results used as the basis for the analysis.


32

Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Comment 4-6: Minn. R. 7035.1600 prohibits fill and trench areas of landfills within: A. 1,000 feet of a lake, pond, or flowage; B. 300 feet of a stream; C. a regional floodplain; D. wetlands; E. 1,000 feet of a public highway without a waiver from the MPCA Commissioner; F. locations considered hazardous because of the proximity of airports; and G. an area that is unsuitable because of topography, geology, hydrology, or soils. Commenter believes the proposed site is prohibited for use as a landfill due to noncompliance with A, D, and E, and the Draft EIS provides insufficient information to judge compliance with the remainder. Response: There are no lakes, ponds, flowages, streams, floodplains, National Wetland Inventory wetlands, airports, unsuitable topography, geology, hydrology, or soils, on or within a problematic proximity to the proposed fill and trench area of the ADF. The Draft EIS contains information that documents this statement; in particular see Figures 9, 12, and 22, and Table 4. There is a 0.12-acre wetland on the site, which was also described in the Draft EIS, that lies outside of the fill and trench area. This wetland would likely be filled, at least in part, and the sequencing and mitigation requirements of the WCA, as administered by the VBWD, would be adhered to. The public highway setback issue will be dealt with during the permitting process. See also Response to Comment 1-10. Comment 4-7: The ground-water model should undergo a technical review by a qualified individual or firm. Response: See Response to Comment 2-5. Comment 4-8: Commenter does not agree with the Draft EIS characterization of site bedrock as “an equivalent porous medium.” There are many areas of Washington County where the bedrock is highly fractured, which can result in preferential pathway flow. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-62 and 3-10. Comment 4-9: The Draft EIS identifies two candidate ash truck haul routes. A primary route should be selected and described in detail. Response: The Draft EIS process, which includes the document and comments by knowledgeable reviewers, has the function of identifying pertinent information to assess the potential impacts of choosing one route over the other. Xcel Energy has not made a final choice, which would depend in part on that assessment. Based on information made available during the Draft EIS process, Xcel Energy now states the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 21 route is preferable. Comment 4-10: Section 4.1.1.1 compares the proposal with a facility in Becker, which has very different geologic and hydrologic features than the proposed site. A comparison with the Moelter pit would have been a better fit.


33

Response: The analysis in Draft EIS Section 4.1.1.1 addresses leachate generation volumes, performance of the landfill cap in rejecting precipitation and preventing leachate generation, and the time for the ash to completely drain after closure. This analysis does not depend on site geology or hydrogeology. Comment 4-11: The Draft EIS should include design and engineering information for the VBWD pipe relocation. Response: See Response to Comment 2-13. Comment 4-12: The Draft EIS’s discussion of the timing of construction of the new bridge across the St. Croix River at Stillwater does not appear consistent with plans announced by MNDOT. Response: The Draft EIS information was the best available at the time of the publication. This information was revised by MNDOT in November 2007, shortly before the Draft EIS was printed and subsequently placed on public notice. Comment 4-13: A reconstruction of the CSAH 18/8th Street intersection now under study would eliminate left turns onto CSAH 18. This may affect the selected haul route. Response: See Response to Comment 4-9. Comment 4-14: The haul route analysis must go beyond the potential for delays to ash truck traffic and consider safety issues such as the location, severity, and type of crashes along the route, and how the additional truck traffic will add to the problem. Response: The primary purpose of this section was to compare the safety of the alternative routes based on crash analysis. The potential for delay was a secondary consideration. The following Draft EIS Section 4.9.1.5 makes the point that the routine ash hauling traffic would add a miniscule amount to the traffic volume on roads in the area and concludes that traffic levels are not expected to have any significant impacts. Comment 4-15: The number of truck trips should be stated as 34, rather than 17, since they are round trips. Response: The Draft EIS in Section 4.9.1.5.1 describes this traffic as 17-truck round trips per day, which amounts to the same thing. Comment 4-16: All truck trips, including construction and leachate hauling, should be accounted for, including that they are to be considered round trips. The term construction should be better defined as the activities it includes, such as mining, cell construction, and excavation. Response: Depending upon the amount of precipitation, leachate hauling could amount to an additional one-truck round trip per day, which is a minimal addition both to the average daily traffic to the ADF and to the normal daily volumes on area roads. Construction-related traffic was accounted for in the Draft EIS in Section 4.9.1.5.2. It is not necessary to further define the breakdown of construction-related traffic since the only real issue is the number of vehicles potentially generating impacts.


34

Comment 4-17: If flaggers are needed during ADF construction, the flaggers must be approved by Washington County. Response: Comment noted. Comment 4-18: Final slopes of 25 percent would prejudice end use of the site for recreation. Response: Xcel Energy has stated that it welcomes dialogue on end-use opportunities for the site and is willing to discuss adjustments to finished grades to accommodate a particular end-use plan. Section 4.5.1.3 of the Draft EIS states that “Xcel Energy would develop an end use plan that would complement the surrounding land uses.” Comment 4-19: Any permits or licenses needed for the on-site operations building should be identified. Response: Commenter does not name any permits that may be needed for the building. Comment 4-20: A Water Appropriation Permit from the DNR may be needed for the well that is to be drilled on site. Response: The expectation at this time is that water use at the ADF site would not rise to the level requiring a DNR Water Appropriation Permit. If it does, Xcel Energy would apply for a permit. Comment 4-21: The VBWD is the permitting authority for the WCA, not Washington County. Response: The MPCA appreciates the correction. Comment 4-22: The Draft EIS should identify wells within a ten-year time of travel, which may be derived from the ground-water model. Well logs should be included as well. Response: There is no requirement in law for such information, and it would not add materially to the analysis already done. Instead, Minn. R. ch. 7035 requires the identification of residential wells within one mile and high capacity wells within three miles. The hypothetical release analysis found, regardless of the modeling approach used, that the modeled plume would be detected by the monitoring system and readily remediated by standard pump-out methods. It should be emphasized again that the MPCA believes the ADF containment system would work as intended into the indefinite future, making significant releases unlikely. See Response to Comment 1-7. 5. Comments by Jay Riggs, Washington Conservation District. Letter received February 13, 2008. Comment 5-1: The actual design and construction process would benefit from a more detailed description. Response: The design and construction information are sufficient to evaluate impacts, which is the purpose of a Draft EIS. Sections 1.5, 4.1, 4.2, 4.9, Figure 11, Figure 13, Figure 15, and Figures 16-20 provide design and construction information. The entire permit application, including design and construction information, and incorporated in the Draft EIS by reference, has been available on the MPCA Web site since the time of the scoping process.


35

Comment 5-2: Stormwater control system issues should be discussed with VBWD, whose requirements must all be met. Response: See Responses to Comments 2-6, 2-7, and 2-13. Comment 5-3: The VBWD is the applicable WCA authority. The VBWD also requires a permit for grading and drainage activities. Response: The MPCA appreciates the correction. Comment 5-4: The ground-water modeling should be reviewed by Washington County and Barr Engineering. Response: See Response to Comment 2-5. Comment 5-5: The short and long-term effects of stormwater infiltration should be addressed further, to include volumes, pollutants, and resource impacts. Response: Section 4.2.1.2 addresses stormwater infiltration impacts adequately. Volumes are impossible to predict in advance of the precipitation events that produce them. For this reason, the basins are sized to accommodate runoff from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, as well as accommodate the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall without overtopping any structures. See also Response to Comment 1-14. Comment 5-6: Commenter requests more details on the long-term viability of the infiltration facility, and suggests several design specifications to minimize clogging and assure long-term facility functionality. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-58 and 2-6. Comment 5-7: Additional consideration should be given to the potential for impacts to wetlands in the area. Response: See Response to Comment 1-56. 6. Comments by the Honorable Kathy Saltzman, Minnesota State Senator. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 6-1: On page 10 (Section 3.4.4.4) is found the statement that a contaminant release from the ADF “could carry contaminants for significant distances in unpredictable directions.” This leads commenter to conclude that the proposed site is unsuitable, which is contrary to Minn. R. 7035.1600, subp. G. Response: The Draft EIS statement in its entirety reads as follows: “There appears to be no issue with preferential pathway flow, which could be problematic in the event of a contaminant release from the proposed ADF, since it [meaning preferential pathway flow, if it existed] could carry contaminants for significant distances in unpredictable directions.” [Emphasis added.] This is one of the pieces of evidence,


36

based on studies performed on site that led Xcel Energy to conclude that this is, in fact, a suitable site. The text previous to this statement contains part of the analysis that led to this conclusion. See also Responses to Comments 1-8 and 1-62. Comment 6-2: The Draft EIS does not analyze the possibility of failure of the containment system, and is, therefore, not complete. Response: The Draft EIS states that the proposed containment design meets or exceeds the current engineering standards for such facilities and is, therefore, deemed protective of the environment. This section also presents analysis (Section 4.1.1.2) to back up this statement, including that modeling predicts essentially 100 percent containment efficiency, as well as that containment integrity is likely to be maintained for several hundred years. The Draft EIS also modeled a hypothetical release analysis, which determined that the release could be identified and remediated. Comment 6-3: Commenter criticizes the Draft EIS for not analyzing and resolving the disagreement between Xcel Energy and local government units regarding local permitting issues, and alleges that this failure could lead to lawsuits between Xcel Energy and the local units of government. Response: The MPCA has no authority to force an agreement in this matter, nor does the MPCA have a role in local permitting. This is a matter that Xcel Energy and the local units of government must work out among themselves. In the event of an impasse, the matter may indeed be resolved by the courts. Comment 6-4: The solid waste rule prohibits siting a solid waste disposal facility within 1,000 feet of a public highway unless the MPCA Commissioner grants a waiver, but the Draft EIS does not address this issue except to cite the rule. This makes the Draft EIS incomplete. Response: See Response to Comment 1-10. 7. Comments by the Honorable Julie Bunn, Minnesota State Representative. Letter received via e-mail February 14, 2008. Comment 7-1: Xcel Energy’s search for alternatives and the Draft EIS analysis of distant sites appear to inevitably lead to sites where ground water is sensitive to contamination. Response: This is because in its search for distant sites, the MPCA adopted Xcel Energy’s approach, which was to focus on previously disturbed sites as opposed to greenfield sites. The alternative would be creation of an ADF in a site that had previously experienced relatively little disturbance. Regulatory agencies in recent years have emphasized the preservation of the latter if suitable previously disturbed sites can be found. In this case, gravel pits meet this criterion and additionally eliminate the need to create a new excavation that would otherwise be necessary to site an ADF. Although it is true that by definition gravel pits have permeable soils, they also are amenable to proper site preparation for the construction of a state-of-the-art containment system and are readily monitored for release detection, as well as readily remediated if a release occurs.


37

Within the 30-mile radius search area chosen by the MPCA, a number of such gravel pits were found and, although their owners were not willing to participate in the Draft EIS, the MPCA saw no reason to depart from the search criteria given the above facts. As long as the MPCA concludes that a facility can be built and operated in compliance with its requirements, which is the case here, there is no reason to do otherwise. See also Responses to Comments 1-17, 1-23, 1-26, and 1-27. Comment 7-2: Examining only sites in areas of high ground-water sensitivity explicitly excludes less harmful sites and seems to run counter to reasonable environmental review and the public interest. Response: Commenter does not provide a definition of what a less harmful site would be. Depending upon the resources and land use present at or in the vicinity of a given site, reasonable people can disagree on what such a definition would include. A consensus “less harmful site” may, in fact, not exist and a search for one could continue indefinitely. In the final analysis, it is up to the project proposer to propose a suitable site for a project, which the MPCA would then issue a permit for if the Agency’s conclusion is that the project could be implemented in compliance with applicable requirements. See also Responses to Comments 1-17, 1-23, and 3-7. Comment 7-3: Allowing this Project to proceed could have negative effects on the gravel industry if local units of government conclude that permitting a gravel mine could lead later on to the siting of an ash landfill. The Draft EIS is incomplete in not assessing this potential negative effect on the gravel industry. Response: According to Xcel Energy’s search during the Siting Committee process, there are nearly 200 gravel pits within ten miles of the King Plant in Washington County alone. There are hundreds or thousands more elsewhere in the state. Therefore, the likelihood of landfill development ultimately resulting from the permitting of a gravel pit is low. Comment 7-4: Commenter notes that most of the homes near the proposed site are higher valued than those analyzed in the property value study. Commenter also speculates that the homes in the study were built after the disposal sites were in existence, and that this could explain why high-end homes were not found near those sites. Commenter also speculates that [if the homes near the disposal sites were built with an existing disposal area nearby] the presence of the disposal sites had the effect of devaluing those homes across the board. This is a different situation than in West Lakeland, where the proposed disposal area is to be built in an area of existing homes. A proper analysis would have to be based on the latter type of situation, rather than the former. Response: The presence or absence of high-end homes near the proposed Project is really not a relevant consideration. The Draft EIS study was well-conceived, based on reasonably available information, and, in concluding that there was no significant impact on property values, drew conclusions that are reasonably extended to the proposed site and surrounding area, as was the study’s intent. The study report was clear that the presence of high end homes near the proposed ADF site was recognized, but that such homes have individual, unique characteristics that preclude using distance from an industrial facility as the sole differentiating variable. It is reasonable to conclude from the study’s findings that a usable group of high-end homes for comparison might not ever be found, even after an


38

extensive search. The rules do not require extraordinary efforts to address issues in a Draft EIS, and MPCA staff believes that the Draft EIS analysis is legitimately extended to the West Lakeland area. Commenter presents no evidence to the contrary other than speculation about timing of residential construction and residential valuation. Comment 7-5: Even a three to five percent decline in property values would, over the next 30-50 years, wipe out Xcel Energy’s cost savings as compared with sending the ash to another, less sensitive, site farther away. Response: The assumption of a three to five percent decline in value is pure speculation. The Draft EIS study was based on professional judgment based, in turn, on market evidence, and showed no decline in property value. See also Response to Comment 1-23. Comment 7-6: Not considering a site in Wisconsin or in other states, if a less sensitive site exists, is a serious flaw in the analysis despite the additional regulatory hurdles. Response: The MPCA disagrees. The intent was to examine the feasibility of employing a given alternative. An alternative that is known at the outset to have significant additional regulatory hurdles is by definition a lower priority for inclusion than sites known not to have that regulatory disadvantage. On the other hand, the Draft EIS did analyze an out-of-state site where it appeared at the outset that this type of disadvantage would not be an issue. See also Response to Comment 1-23. 8. Comments by the Honorable Brian Zeller, Mayor, City of Lakeland. Letter received February 13, 2008. Comment 8-1: The Trunk Highway 95 truck route would have measurable impacts on traffic levels because it forms a dangerous intersection with the westbound frontage road. Also, this frontage road gets considerable seasonal traffic from school buses and the Lucy Winton Bell athletic fields farther west, and fishermen park their cars along it when using a nearby marina. Commenter recommends the CSAH 21 route as the best alternative. Response: The MPCA thanks the commenter for this information, which will be passed on to Xcel Energy. See also Response to Comment 4-9. Comment 8-2: The city’s Well #1 is located within three miles of the proposed site, and is considered vulnerable to contamination. This should have been analyzed in the Draft EIS, and mitigation required. What was the rationale for the analysis in Section 1.3.4.2 for analyzing domestic wells within three miles but high capacity wells only within one mile? Response: Conservative ground-water modeling performed for this Draft EIS predicted that the hypothetical releases would not intersect the wellhead protection area for this well. Moreover, this well is screened in the Mt. Simon aquifer, a deep aquifer that is separated from the Prairie du Chien aquifer by several aquitards. As noted in EIS Section 4.1.1.4.2, page 62, “The Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer was excluded from [the modeling] due to its essential lack of connection with overlying aquifers.” The analysis also showed that the proposed monitoring system would readily identify such a release, and that such a release would be readily remediated with a standard pump-out system. Impacts on this well are, therefore, deemed unlikely in the event of a release. It should be emphasized that the Draft EIS also


39

concludes that the containment system is expected to work as intended, and its integrity is likely to last several hundred years. The MPCA does not view the city well as at significant risk from this Project. See also to Responses to Comments 1-7 and 8-6. Comment 8-3: The solid waste rule prohibits siting a solid waste facility within 1,000 feet of a public highway. Has the MPCA provided Xcel Energy with an exemption from this requirement? Response: See Response to Comment 1-10. Comment 8-4: The lack of specificity in the area of ash composition leads commenter to request that ash testing be required going forward and the composite liner made mandatory rather than voluntary. Response: Although not required specifically by rule, MPCA policy is that an industrial landfill must have an engineered containment system. The use of a composite liner is not voluntary on the part of Xcel Energy. The composite liner would be a permit requirement. Ash testing cannot be performed until the plant reaches steady state operating conditions. Comment 8-5: The proposed Project is not consistent with local zoning, but the Draft EIS does not resolve this issue. The MPCA should offer a process to assist in promoting a dialogue around this issue. Response: To the extent that it is able, the MPCA has done so in the Draft EIS, by identifying the disagreement between Xcel Energy and local units of government regarding local permitting issues and outlining the current state of applicable local requirements. This fulfills the Draft EIS’s proper function of providing information to residents and agencies who will be involved in making final decisions in this area. Comment 8-6: Commenter cites the Draft EIS statement on page 62 that the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer is not in direct connection with surface water bodies that control ground-water levels, and is, therefore, excluded from the analysis, and that there appears to be no issue with preferential pathway flow, which is a good thing because such flow could carry contaminants for long distances in unpredictable directions. This leads commenter to again express concern about the city well, because studies indicate that the well is being supplied by atmospheric water and possibly a surface water body. Response: This well was identified in the Phase II Hydrogeologic Investigation Report; Phase III Monitoring System Work Plan (November 2005), McCain and Associates. The city of Lakeland’s Well #1 is located lateral to ground-water flow from the proposed Facility. Therefore, it would not be impacted by a leachate release from the proposed Facility. Comment 8-7: Commenter does not know why the proposed site was closed and reclaimed by the Tiller Corporation, but is concerned that by re-opening it Xcel Energy may make the area ground water more vulnerable. Response: Re-opening this portion of the gravel pit is not expected to increase ground-water vulnerability. Washington County requires a ten-foot separation between the base of a mining excavation and the water table. This will be maintained and further protection will be provided by the engineered containment system for the ADF.


40

9. Comments by Bill Voedisch, May Township Board Chairman. Letter received February 4, 2008. Comment 9-1: Commenter is concerned that the alternative disposal methods were lumped together as alternatives to be eliminated. Response: Some alternatives were eliminated early in the process (listed in Section 3.3); others were carried forward and analyzed in the Draft EIS (analyzed in later sections). All alternative disposal methods were not eliminated. Comment 9-2: Why was the alternative of shipping ash in block form only analyzed via rail haul, and not truck haul? Response: The example given was just that—an example. Many of the same drawbacks apply to truck hauling as well, such as the need for different haul vehicles and the need for specialized shipping and receiving infrastructure. Comment 9-3: Dry hauling in sealed trucks was never mentioned, although commenter proposed it in writing. Response: Truck-based dry hauling was not mentioned in Draft EIS Section 3.3 because it was not eliminated, but carried forward in the analysis. This mode of transport was addressed in Sections 3.7 and 3.8, for example. Comment 9-4: Commenter is concerned about using a gravel pit for the Project because there is no guarantee it will work in the long term. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-51, 1-63, 3-11, 7-1, and 8-7. Comment 9-5: Xcel Energy could make dry haul work, whether loose in sealed vehicles or in block form. The fact that Xcel Energy, and by implication the MPCA, would dismiss this option out of hand is disturbing. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-17 and 9-3. Comment 9-6: The MPCA should not simply parrot the wishes of Xcel Energy, but act independently to control pollution, in this case by concluding in the Draft EIS that the Project should be denied in favor of better alternatives elsewhere. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-17, 1-23, and 19-2. Comment 9-7: The Draft EIS should send Xcel Energy back to the drawing board, by concluding that other, better alternatives exist and should be pursued. Response: See previous response.


41

10. Comments by William Goff, Minnesota Department of Transportation. Letter received February 4, 2008. Comment 10-1: Xcel Energy’s proposed access to its proposed site will be based on three-year renewable leases. Response: Since this comment was made, Xcel Energy has identified a suitable alternative on which to relocate its access road off MNDOT right-of-way, as shown in the attached Revised Stormwater Management Plan, Figure 2. Comment 10-2: Xcel Energy’s construction and operations must accommodate the trail that runs along the north side of I-94. Response: Xcel Energy’s design and proposed construction and operation activities have considered the trail and will avoid impacting it. Comment 10-3: The currently proposed access will not be a permanent access to the site. Although there is currently no defined need, MNDOT may, at a later date, require modification or removal of the currently proposed access road. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 10-1. Comment 10-4: There do not appear to be any significant issues with the CSAH 21 truck haul route from the plant to the ADF. The Trunk Highway 95 route is more problematic as there are safety issues associated with the latter’s intersection with Hudson Road. MNDOT supports changes at that intersection to alleviate these issues. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 4-9. Comment 10-5: The completed ADF would rise to at least 30 feet above the elevation of I-94, raising visual and snow accumulation concerns. The proposed berm and vegetation buffer described in the Draft EIS may alleviate these concerns. Response: Xcel Energy would work with MNDOT and Washington County to develop final contours. Comment 10-6: Diminished aesthetics due to having an ADF next to the Travel Information Center should be alleviated by maintaining vegetative and berm screens between the two facilities. Response: Xcel Energy plans to maintain and/or establish appropriate visual screening. Comment 10-7: The ADF end use plan should seek to replicate a more natural appearing landform than the standard prismatic shape. This would create a more suitable park setting for the final end use. Response: Xcel Energy states that final site contours would be developed to promote a natural and desirable end use. Xcel Energy would work closely with MNDOT, Washington County, and other interested parties in the site’s planning.


42

Comment 10-8: As noted in the Draft EIS, the Travel Information Center uses a high capacity well, and commenter, therefore, wishes to be assured that the proposed Project would not affect it. The Draft EIS in Chapter 1 addresses this issue. MNDOT wishes to be kept informed if additional ground-water issues of this nature arise. Response: This information will be passed on to Xcel Energy. The proposed ADF site is located east and downgradient in ground-water flow path from the Travel Information Center. The attached Addendum Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Technical memorandum addresses this comment. A TMR model has been created. This TMR model is based on the calibrated 2005 Washington County ground-water flow model. This model includes boundary conditions for Lake Edith and Valley Branch Creek. This model also includes the rest area pumping well. This TMR model was used to create a MODPATH model with particle transport from all model cells within ADF footprint. The results of the MODPATH model do not show any flow paths towards the Travel Information Center well. Comment 10-9: The current plan calls for Project stormwater to be discharged to MNDOT property. This would require a permit from MNDOT. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 2-6. Comment 10-10: The frontage road cross section must be tilted to drain stormwater away from the I-94 right-of-way, and this must be reflected in the MNDOT drainage permit information. Response: Xcel Energy will present this Project to MNDOT for review, evaluation, and permit requests regarding site drainage, access road permitting, lease agreements, and any other required permits administered by MNDOT at the conclusion of the Draft EIS process. Comment 10-11: Currently, the Draft EIS shows the Tiller Corporation ditch carrying water to the south infiltration area. The future plan appears to be to direct all of this water to the north infiltration area, which may be overwhelmed, and possibly plugged, with fine sediment. Commenter recommends alternatives to avoid discharging to the north infiltration area or at least minimizing increased flow to MNDOT property. This should be maintained though the closure-postclosure period. Response: See Response to Comment 2-6. Comment 10-12: A MNDOT Drainage Permit will be required, and other permits may be needed as well. MNDOT should be included among the permitting authorities in the Draft EIS. All lease agreements should be in place before any permits are issued. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 10-10. Comment 10-13: The Connect Minnesota fiber optic lines run along the north side of I-94 in this area. These must not be impacted by Project operations. Response: Existing utilities would be identified and protected as part of any planned improvements within MNDOT right-of-way.


43

Comment 10-14: All future correspondence in this matter should be sent to the address given, and should adhere to guidelines spelled out in the comment. Response: Xcel Energy will comply with all MNDOT document submittal guidelines for notification and will meet required copy counts for necessary numbers of copies. 11. Comments by Robert J. Whiting, St. Paul District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Letter received January 8, 2008. Comment 11-1: If the Project requires work in navigable waters of the United States, it may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permit. Response: According to Section 4.3.1, it does not appear that this wetland is regulated by the USACE, but it is subject to WCA regulation. However, Xcel Energy will coordinate with the USACE to verify that this interpretation is correct. Comment 11-2: A USACE Section 404 Permit may be required if the proposal includes deposit of dredged or till material into waters of the United States. Response: See Response to Comment 11-1. Comment 11-3: If a permit application has not yet been submitted, the applicant may wish to meet with the USACE to discuss applicability and information requirements. Response: Xcel Energy will schedule a meeting with the USACE to obtain information regarding the potential need for permitting and potential risk of impact to waters of the United States during the permitting phases of this Project. 12. Comments by Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council. Letter received February 7, 2008. Comment 12-1: Commenter notes the dispute between Xcel Energy and local units of government regarding local permit issues, and states that, if any local comprehensive plans are amended in the course of local approval processes, Metropolitan Council must review any such amendments. Metropolitan Council should, therefore, be listed among the approval authorities in Table 2. Response: The MPCA appreciates this information. See the attached revised Table 2. 13. Comments by Tara Kelly, Belwin Foundation. Letter received February 11, 2008. Comment 13-1: More information on Xcel Energy’s runoff analysis and potential impacts on ecological services, such as ground water are needed, as well as a figure showing the 100-year floodplain. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 1-14 and 2-6. The VBWD has not established the 100-year flood elevation within the Barton Pit Watershed for existing conditions.


44

Comment 13-2: Regardless of minimal “modeled risks,” the analysis should include risks associated with various contaminant concentrations in the ground water, since an assessment of worst-case conditions will be required if any modeling assumptions prove false. It would be incorrect to assume that the Project does not pose a risk to water resources since ground-water sensitivity to contamination is moderate to high in the area. Response: The ground-water modeling exercise assumed a reasonable worst-case condition and the MPCA considers this sufficient for Draft EIS analysis. Note that the modeling has been refined based on input from the VBWD. For particulars, refer to Response to Comment 2-5. The MPCA does not assume there is no potential for risk, as indicated by its requirements for a state-of-the-art containment and monitoring system, as well as a contingency action plan. The MPCA does expect the containment system to perform its function effectively in the long term and would require redundant protection measures such as those given above. In addition, susceptibility to contamination is discussed in Responses to Comments 3-7, 7-1, and 7-2. Additionally, although the MPCA believes the containment system will be effective, the Draft EIS went on to perform a reasonably conservative hypothetical release analysis, which concluded that the modeled leakage would be detected by the monitoring system and readily remediated via standard cleanup techniques. The Draft EIS and the attached Addendum Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Technical Memorandum address this analysis. Both the original Draft EIS and addendum ground water transport model are conservative in that the sump failure is directly injected into the water table, which does not account for the ADF liner and the construction fill material between the ADF base and top of the aquifer. In addition, no chemical reactions or sorption of constituents was considered. This is very conservative given the compounds in ash leachate are predominantly inorganic metals that would be retarded as they pass through the clay liner and construction fill material. The attached Addendum Groundwater Flow and Transport Model Technical Memorandum addresses this comment. Comment 13-3: An alternative site that has already accepted the risk of disposing of solid waste would be a better choice than the proposed Project. Response: Refer to Response to Comment 19-2. 14. Comments by Gary B. Sauer, Tiller Corporation. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 14-1: The Tiller Corporation is not to be considered a willing seller of the proposed site. The Tiller Corporation’s agreement to sell the parcel was premised on Xcel Energy’s indication of its ability to use eminent domain powers to acquire it. It is, thus, not accurate to view this parcel as more readily available than alternative sites. The Tiller Corporation’s plans are that its mine will be reclaimed to uses that are compatible with its circumstances. Response: Comment noted.


45

Comment 14-2: The impacts of noise levels from the proposal should be further addressed to account for the fact that the Tiller Corporation mine will be progressively reclaimed to eventual residential use, and that this will occur in stages over the life of the mine. This is needed because the Draft EIS analyzed only the noise impacts on the existing commercial use of the mine parcel, and MPCA rules prohibit residential development on land where the stricter residential noise standards would be exceeded. Response: The noise analysis in Draft EIS Section 4.10.1.1.3 identified the main source of noise impacts in this vicinity as being traffic-related, particularly traffic on I-94 and frontage roads. The Draft EIS analysis concluded that Project would not be expected to significantly increase noise impacts in the area. Tiller Corporation’s plans to progressively reclaim its mine means that its own gravel mining operation, crushing activities, and truck traffic would remain a part of the picture until final closure of the mine. It is not likely that the noise from truck traffic and disposal activities from the proposed ADF would significantly add to the noise being generated by the above sources. Additionally, Xcel Energy has stated that it intends to create berms that would act to mitigate noise impacts. Comment 14-3: The Draft EIS is silent on the Tiller Corporation’s existing high capacity well, which is located within the proposed ADF footprint. This well is to be relocated as part of the Project, but the Project may have effects on it, and the well itself may have effects on the function of the monitoring and leak detection systems of the Project. The hypothetical release modeling should take this well into account as well. Response: The existing high capacity well would be abandoned and relocated as part of the land acquisition. Xcel Energy intends to design and locate this future well in such a way as to avoid impacts to the effectiveness of the monitoring and leak detection systems. The Tiller Corporation currently pumps from the Jordan Sandstone, and the model assumed any future water appropriation would also be from the Jordan Sandstone. Pumping from the Jordan near the site would not impact modeling results at the water table due to the aquitard properties of the Oneota Dolomite. Comment 14-4: The visual impact assessment incorrectly assumes that the Tiller Corporation’s berms and vegetation screens will remain permanently, when, in fact, they will all be removed in the course of the Tiller Corporation’s mining and reclamation phases. This also has ramifications for visual impacts on the Tiller Corporation property. Response: Comment noted. Xcel Energy has stated its intention to create independent screening and berming as part of the Project. 15. Comments by Charles Dillerud, Lake Elmo. Letter received February 11, 2008. Comment 15-1: Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. (NAC) is listed as a preparer of the Draft EIS, but is also the consulting city planner for the city of Oak Park Heights. Commenter infers a potential conflict of interest situation. Response: The MPCA does not see how NAC’s involvement with the city of Oak Park Heights as consulting city planner would create a conflict of interest. Neither the proposed Facility nor the alternatives are located in Oak Park Heights and, therefore, neither development of the proposed Facility


46

nor any scoped alternative would be likely to lead to any future business for NAC in its role as consulting city planner, resulting in biased assessment. The MPCA notes that NAC was hired after the scoping process was complete. Comment 15-2: Commenter is not persuaded by the arguments for not evaluating certain alternatives in the Draft EIS. Railroad backhaul to the originating mine can be accomplished by pelletizing the ash (which is less than five percent of the original coal volume) and shipping it in the coal hoppers. Barge transport is feasible because, contrary to statements on the record, infrastructure that could be used for ash loading into barges will remain after demolition of other, unneeded, components of the barge terminal, and the operation can work around the close of navigation in the winter. Salt domes in Louisiana are, in fact, a feasible destination for the ash, as was clearly explained to the Siting Committee before the Draft EIS process began. Barge transport to the TransLoad America facility is also not only feasible, but potentially cheaper than shipping ash there by rail. These alternatives should be fully evaluated in the Draft EIS. Response: The Final Scoping Document identified the protocol by which alternatives would be evaluated in the Draft EIS. This protocol was ratified by the MPCA Citizens’ Board by its adoption of the Final Scoping Decision Document in December of 2006. MPCA staff followed this procedure in selecting alternatives for analysis, which resulted in a reasonably broad range of options for ash disposal or utilization. There is no requirement in the rules that a Draft EIS perform a detailed evaluation on every conceivable project alternative, only that “the Draft EIS shall compare the potentially significant impacts of the proposal with those of other reasonable alternatives to the proposed project,” and that one or more alternatives in each of several stated categories either should be evaluated or excluded based on identified criteria. The Draft EIS analysis complies with these requirements. See also Response to Comment 1-17. Comment 15-3: The discussion in the Draft EIS of other states as beneficial users of the ash is deficient. Many states not addressed in the Draft EIS are potential users of coal ash and, in particular, large areas of the Gulf states are deficient in soil stabilizing materials that would be useful for dike and levee construction. Response: In fact, some of the areas referenced in the comment were consulted, but in the final analysis, the answer was nearly always the same. The material would have to be evaluated and the market was saturated. However, it is in Xcel Energy’s interest to continue to pursue utilization options in the future, and as the Draft EIS states, Xcel Energy intends to do so. See also previous response. Comment 15-4: The Draft EIS alternative cost analysis should not depend solely on data produced by Xcel Energy. Response: All data obtained for the Draft EIS, regardless of source, was independently reviewed by MPCA staff and/or their technical consultant. See also Response to Comment 1-22.


47

Comment 15-5: The cost tables contain a footnote stating that the cost estimates require a 30 percent contingency. What entity requires this contingency? Response: The cost analysis provided in the Draft EIS is based on general cost estimates obtained from railroads and other knowledgeable sources. It was not based on Project bids. In such a situation, it is common practice to incorporate a contingency in such estimated costs. Comment 15-6: It appears from Table F.15 that the disposal decision is based solely on economics. Commenter objects to this, stating that the Project’s neighbors are being asked to shoulder all the environmental costs while Xcel Energy ratepayers and stockholders benefit from a relatively small cost saving. Response: Comment noted. See also Response to Comment 15-2. 16. Comments by David Schultz, Stillwater. Letter received February 13, 2008. Comment 16-1: Commenter believes that ash from the rebuilt plant should be the basis for MPCA decisions on the Project. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Comment 16-2: Contrary to what the Draft EIS says (Section 3.4.4), commenter expects land use in the long term to be commercial rather than residential. Response: See Response to Comment 1-39. Comment 16-3: Commenter would like assurances that stormwater runoff would be contained on site. Response: See Response to Comment 2-6. 17. Comments by George Crocker, North American Water Office. Letter received January 28, 2008. Comment 17-1: Coal ash has hazardous waste characteristics, and such materials must be isolated and contained to the maximum extent possible. Response: Coal-fired utility wastes are exempt from hazardous waste management requirements by federal regulation. There is large body of literature that discusses environmentally safe uses for coal ash. Comment 17-2: Approval of the proposed Project should be conditioned on actions by Xcel Energy to implement more responsible management options, such as “de-coupling” utility earnings from energy sales, for which a pilot program was recently created by the Minnesota Legislature. Response: De-coupling is administered by the Public Utility Commission, and the MPCA has no authority to require it.


48

Comment 17-3: “Testing the system to failure” must be part of the protocol for assessing environmental impacts. Commenter provided information to the Siting Committee about that concept, and includes in his comment letter some of that information. Response: The MPCA respectively disagrees. There are different ways of addressing containment longevity. Minn. R. ch. 7035 inherently addresses landfill containment longevity issues. As the SONAR for this rule discusses, the integrity of the various components of the containment system was taken into account in determining investigation, design, construction, operation, and postclosure requirements. The Draft EIS, in addition to describing the containment system as state-of-the-art and subject to inspection and repair as necessary, addressed containment longevity in Section 4.1.1.2 by citing relevant research indicating that containment systems meeting industry and regulatory standards would probably last for hundreds of years. The MPCA regards this analysis as sufficient for Draft EIS purposes. 18. Comments by George Crocker, North American Water Office. Letter received February 12, 2008. Comment 18-1: As part of Xcel Energy’s Siting Committee process, Commenter brought in a consultant (Dr. George Ghanem) whose presentation to the committee was based on the premise that ash, being nonbiodegradable and hazardous, poses disposal issues that last thousands of years. Commenter states that he inquired about the status of information developed by the Siting Committee, and was assured by the project manager that information developed by the Siting Committee would be included in the scope for the Draft EIS. Response: The alleged conversation would have taken place a year and a half ago, and the MPCA project manager has no specific recollection of it. A number of interested parties did inquire in that same time period about including Siting Committee information in the public record (not the Draft EIS scope) for the Xcel Energy Draft EIS process, and the answer in each case was that the MPCA had no objection to this. This is not the same as promising that a particular issue would be included in the scope or that a particular method would be used to address an issue in the Draft EIS, and the time period referred to by the Commenter (August 2006, the time of initial publication of the Scoping EAW) would have been much too early in the process for making final decisions or commitments on issues to address or how to address them. By definition, a Draft EIS scope is a compendium of issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIS, and does not necessarily include specific methods by which a given issue will be analyzed Comment 18-2: Based on the assurance in Comment 18-1, commenter was surprised that the Draft EIS did not contain an analysis of long-term impacts. While some material from the Siting Committee report was used in the Draft EIS and at the public meeting, no such analysis was performed, except to say that 20 years after closure, the state and Xcel Energy can just walk away. Response: The Draft EIS contains an analysis of containment system longevity in Draft EIS Section 4.1.1.2. The Draft EIS does not say that “the state and Xcel Energy can simply walk away” after 20 years. The MPCA has the authority to extend the postclosure period if circumstances warrant. See also Response to Comment 17-3.


49

Comment 18-3: The MPCA presenter at the January 24, 2008, public meeting was presented with a copy of the consultant’s presentation to the Siting Committee. At that time, the presenter said he wished the material had been provided during the scoping process. Commenter states that it was provided at that time, and simply ignored. Response: The project manager recalls being approached by this commenter at the end of the public informational meeting and told that the Ghanem approach to longevity analysis should be used in the Draft EIS. The project manager does not recall his specific reply, but the jist was that, had that request been made at the time of scoping, it could have been considered then. At that time, several individuals requested that the Ghanem presentation be placed in the public record, and the project manager agreed. This commenter did not submit a comment letter on the Scoping EAW, and did not address the MPCA Citizens’ Board when it met to approve the Final Scoping Decision Document. There is no record, as far as MPCA staff is aware, that there was a specific request by anyone during the scoping process to include the Ghanem method in the scope and/or use it in the Draft EIS. In any event, containment longevity was addressed in the Draft EIS, albeit by a different method, and the MPCA has confidence in that analysis. Comment 18-4: The Draft EIS must address the long-term failure modes identified by Ghanem, and this must include impacts due to radioactive and hazardous content of the ash. Response: Although the final Draft EIS scope approved by the MPCA Citizens’ Board did not require it, the Draft EIS does analyze containment longevity. This analysis is sufficient for Draft EIS purposes. See also Response to Comment 17-3. 19. Comments by Mary Lorbiecki, Hudson, Wisconsin. Letter received within comment period. Comment 19-1: Because the area bedrock is limestone, the St. Croix River and aquifers will become contaminated as soon as the containment system fails. Response: As noted in the Draft EIS, the MPCA does not expect the containment system to fail, and Section 4.1.1.2 provides the analysis that supports that position. Comment 19-2: It seems wiser to send the ash to SKB for disposal. Response: The MPCA does not have the authority to impose this alternative on Xcel Energy. See also Responses to Comments 1-17 and 1-23. Comment 19-3: Allowing Xcel Energy to site the Facility in West Lakeland against the wishes of the local residents and units of government would be a bad precedent. Response: If the proposed site is in fact the one permitted, this will only occur based on applicable law. No permitting authority has the power to refuse to permit a project merely because someone objects. The MPCA may refuse to issue a permit only if, in the MPCA’s judgment, the Project, as proposed, would cause pollution, impairment, or destruction of natural resources. The Draft EIS analysis provides no evidence that this would occur.


50

20. Comments by Guillermo Etienne, Eagan, Minnesota. Letter received January 29, 2008. Comment 20-1: Xcel Energy has a history of “strange behavior,” including the company’s management of the Black Dog barge terminal. Response: Comment noted. Comment 20-2: Commenter could advise and consult with Xcel Energy regarding uses of the fly ash. Response: This will be passed on to Xcel Energy. Comment 20-3: Commenter requests that the MPCA not allow landfill disposal of King Plant fly ash. Response: This decision will be made during the permitting process, which will follow the environmental review process. 21. Comments by Jim and Peggy Franklin, Lake Elmo, Minnesota. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 21-1: The Draft EIS is “suspect” since it relies on surrogate ash data. Also, commenter wishes to know what the recent appeals court ruling that the federal government’s “less stringent” mercury removal requirements will have on the King Plant ash composition. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-3 and 1-4. Commenter does not specifically identify the court ruling in question. Answering that question is beyond the scope of the Draft EIS. Comment 21-2: Commenter criticizes the cost information in the Draft EIS as not comparing alternatives “on an equal basis without bias.” Of the alternative sites within ten miles of the King Plant, only the West Lakeland site is examined in depth, and there was no cost or other detailed information on the other nearby sites. It is not fair to compare the Project’s cost only with the more distant sites for which dry hauling is required. Response: As noted in the Draft EIS (Section 3.4), the nearby site analysis was intended to review the process followed by Xcel Energy in evaluating sites within ten miles of the Facility and allow an assessment of whether that process was reasonable, and whether the West Lakeland site is equally or more viable as compared with the other nearby candidates. This plan was carried out in the Draft EIS, in Section 3.4, and particularly in Section 3.4.4 and Table 4. As to the fairness of the cost comparisons, considerable emphasis was laid on standardizing the analysis from alternative to alternative so that an “apples to apples” comparison could be made. If one site requires dry hauling and another does not, this is a legitimate thing to analyze in a discussion of how feasible and prudent the one alternative is compared with the other. Comment 21-3: Commenter questions the 30-minute limit for hauling wetted ash, and says that in the next 30 years, traffic and road conditions are not likely to remain the same, possibly prejudicing haul times. This issue could be done away with by dry hauling.


51

Response: The Draft EIS notes (Section 3.2) that the 30-minute time frame for hardening of wetted ash “translates roughly” into a haul radius of ten miles. In actuality, the West Lakeland site is about six miles from the King Plant. Also, as traffic conditions change over time, road and traffic management will change along with them as road authorities respond to the changing conditions. In light of these facts, it is unlikely that significant hauling problems will arise. Comment 21-4: Commenter believes costs associated with dry hauling should be assigned to the King Plant renovation project, rather than to the ash disposal project. Response: Comment noted. Comment 21-5: Commenter questions why such high tipping fees were used in the analysis. Why were Rochester Public Utility and Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center not used or noted? Response: The respective commercial facilities provided the tipping fee cost estimates. The Rochester and Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center tipping fees were not used in the Draft EIS because those facilities and their costs and procedures were not analyzed in the Draft EIS. Comment 21-6: Rochester and Hennepin County transport their ash in a dry state, which may indicate that dry hauling is a safer option. There is no mention of this in the Draft EIS. Response: The MPCA does not know what went into the decision to haul in a dry state, and such a question is irrelevant in a Draft EIS that does not address those two facilities. That said, the Draft EIS did note that shipping to SKB from the King Plant would require dry hauling and that it would be feasible to do so. 22. Comments by Steven P. Johnson, West Lakeland Township, Minnesota. Letter received February 5, 2008. Comment 22-1: Commenter recommends that Xcel Energy dispose of the ash at SKB in Rosemount. Response: This will be passed on to Xcel Energy. See also Responses to Comments 1-17 and 1-23. Comment 22-2: The Siting Committee’s recommendation made it clear that the West Lakeland site is not suitable for an ash landfill. Response: Comment noted. Comment 22-3: Local ordinances clearly apply to this proposal. The MPCA should clarify its support for local zoning. Response: As indicated in the Draft EIS, the MPCA recognizes that there are several permitting authorities involved at various levels of government. Comment 22-4: The Draft EIS was well prepared. Response: The MPCA appreciates this comment.


52

23. Comments by Roger Klisch, West Lakeland, Minnesota. Letter received December 21, 2007. Comment 23-1: The ash should be returned to the originating mine. Response: This alternative was eliminated at the time of scoping. See also Response to Comment 1-17. Comment 23-2: The King Plant could be replaced with 163 wind turbines, and commenter would prefer this alternative. Response: As noted in the SEAW, the MERP agreement, which included renovating the King Plant with a new boiler and emission control equipment, is not the subject of this Draft EIS and will not be revisited. Comment 23-3: Xcel Energy is a leader in renewables, but could do much more. Response: Comment noted. 24. Comments by Dorothy Aldrich-Ames, Lakeland, Minnesota. Letter received January 7, 2008. Comment 24-1: Commenter approves of the proposed containment system. Response: Comment noted. Comment 24-2: What happens if permits for the Project are not approved? Response: If permits are not approved, the Project cannot be built. Comment 24-3: Could [homes built on the closed ADF] have basements? Response: This is not the current plan. The end use plan for the closed ADF is open space. Comment 24-4: What are the historical structures in West Lakeland? Response: What is known about them is presented in Section 4.7.1.5. Comment 24-5: Will ground water be contaminated after 20-25 years? Response: The MPCA requires compliance with water quality standards at the Facility boundary. Comment 24-6: Commenter recommends that new permits be required for the mining phase of the Project. Response: Comment noted. Comment 24-7: Referencing Tables 6 and 9, why are costs greater for the distant site than for Sherco?


53

Response: Tables 6 and 9 do not contain cost information. Table 5 shows that costs are greater for Sherco, not the other way around. The additional cost for the Sherco facility is related to the cost of purchasing a more expensive 120-ton haul truck (to match the haul trucks currently used at the plant) vs. the lesser cost of a 40-ton haul truck that would suffice for a distant site used only for King Plant ash. Comment 24-8: Why is Minnesota behind other states regarding beneficial utilization of ash? Response: The MPCA disagrees that we are “behind.” The MPCA has considered many state-specific issues when considering beneficial uses for coal fly ash. Minnesota is conservative, but not prohibitive in allowing the beneficial utilization of waste products, and has a long history of permitting utilization of coal combustion byproducts that are safe to use. The MPCA is also engaged with neighboring states and the EPA on this issue, and continues to explore responsible uses for coal fly ash. 25. Comments by Michael Schultz, Stillwater, Minnesota. Letter received January 15, 2008. Comment 25-1: The property value study is not valid because it did not consider homes in the $500,000-$2 million price range. Response: Refer to Responses to Comments 7-4 and 36-2. 26. Comments by Guy Paton, Stillwater, Minnesota. Letter received February 4, 2008. Comment 26-1: Contrary to the Draft EIS’s assumption, all traffic is not the same as regards impact potential. There is already a lot of truck traffic in the area and adding more is not acceptable. Response: As the Draft EIS analysis concludes, the addition of Project traffic to existing traffic levels in the area would be trivial. While it is true that construction traffic would be considerably higher, the Draft EIS has taken this into account and it would exist for relatively limited periods. Comment 26-2: The Draft EIS considered noise and dust only from the Project site, and did not include noise and dust from Project traffic along the haul routes. Response: The addition of ash hauling truck traffic to existing traffic in the area would not add measurable noise impacts to what exists currently. Regarding dust, except for the Project access road, which was considered in the Draft EIS, the two routes being considered by Xcel Energy are entirely paved and not likely to generate significant roadway dust emissions compared with the existing dust situation. The commenter’s concern that ash will escape from trucks during transport is addressed by Xcel Energy’s plans to haul the ash wet and cover the trucks with tarpaulins. 27. Comments by Charles and Joan Newman, Stillwater, Minnesota. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 27-1: The distant site alternative requires more investigation because the Draft EIS did not allow for options other than a site similar to the West Lakeland site. Response: Within the 30-mile search radius defined in the Draft EIS, and based on the search criteria identified by Xcel Energy and its Siting Committee, the likeliest candidates were gravel pits. As discussed


54

in the Draft EIS, such sites would be likely to closely resemble the West Lakeland site in a number of ways. The analysis concluded that such a site would be a feasible alternative, although higher cost, and fulfills the scope requirement to analyze at least one distant site. No additional investigation is necessary. Comment 27-2: Housing values around existing ash pits are lower than those in the Project area. Response: Commenter presents no evidence for this statement, which, in any case, is not relevant to the Draft EIS analysis, which found no reason to think that property values would be affected by the Project. See also Responses to Comments 7-4 and 36-2. Comment 27-3: Why were the Siting Committee suggestions ignored by Xcel Energy? Response: The Siting Committee process preceded the Draft EIS process, and its history, while of interest in showing how and why the West Lakeland site was chosen, are not germane to the question of whether the Draft EIS adequately addresses the impacts of the proposed Project. Xcel Energy has stated that, when it became clear that no alternative site recommendation would be forthcoming from the Siting Committee, it fell back on its original finding that West Lakeland would be the best site for the Project. Comment 27-4: Commenter questions why boron releases at the current King Plant ADF are declining, and suggests that dilution in ground water is the reason. Response: The earliest phases of the current ADF had no containment system. When releases were detected, part of the remediation was to cap these phases, which had the desired effect of isolating the deposited ash from exposure to precipitation. This reduced contaminant releases from the facility. Comment 27-5: Commenter is not reassured that the proposed containment system is the best available technology. The Lake Elmo landfill met all permit conditions but is a big problem today. Response: As fully addressed in Section 4.1.1.2, the Draft EIS, the MPCA expects the containment system to function effectively into the indefinite future. Comment 27-6: Xcel Energy is moving contaminants from the stack gas to the ash, and this prejudices beneficial utilization. Commenter is very concerned about the future addition of mercury to the ash. Response: Commenter is correct, as noted in EIS Section 3.10.1. See also previous response. 28. Comments by Mike and Mary Quast, Stillwater, Minnesota. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 28-1: The Project will lower the value of commenter’s home. Response: The Draft EIS analysis (Section 4.6) found no evidence for this concern. See also Responses to Comments 7-4 and 36-2.


55

29. Comments by Michael S. Johnson, West Lakeland, Minnesota. Letter received February 14, 2008. Comment 29-1: The property value study is inadequate because it did not account for the fact that the homes in the area are higher value than those considered in the study. Response: See Responses to Comments 7-4 and 36-2. Comment 29-2: Commenter objects to approving the proposal based on it being the lowest cost option. Response: Comment noted. Comment 29-3: Commenter is concerned about dust emissions from the Project. Response: The Draft EIS analysis of dust emission in Sections 4.11 and 4.12.3 concluded that impacts would be minimal. 30. Comments by Barbara Graff, Stillwater, Minnesota. E-mail received January 12, 2008. Comment 30-1: The distant site alternative is a better choice than the proposed site. Response: See Responses to Comments 1-17 and 1-23. Comment 30-2: Commenter gives several reasons why the property value study areas are not comparable, and requests that another study that found negative effects on Afton and West Lakeland valuations be included in the Draft EIS. Response: The study cited by the commenter is unknown to the MPCA and the commenter has not identified it. See also Responses to Comments 7-4 and 36-2. Comment 30-3: Ground-water impact is the overwhelming concern, particularly because of mercury levels in the ash. Response: As described in Section 4.1.1.2, the MPCA expects the containment system to function effectively well into the indefinite future. Comment 30-4: Commenter cites the Ray’s Truck Stop contamination plume, and says that, unlike that situation, conversion to city water is not feasible because of other ground-water contamination in the area. Response: The question of conversion to a city water supply for West Lakeland is speculative and beyond the scope of this Draft EIS, since it is one of several options for responding to a contamination event that not only has not occurred, but is not expected to occur. It is also true that the deeper aquifers in the area are not contaminated and could be tapped for this purpose should it be necessary.


56

Comment 30-5: Because city water is not an option, another site should be considered in the Draft EIS. Response: In fact, several other sites were considered in the Draft EIS as alternatives to the proposed site. See also the above response. Comment 30-6: The proposed ground-water monitoring frequency is not adequate. Commenter is also concerned that the monitoring would be performed by Xcel Energy, and recommends that that MPCA or its designee should do it. Response: Based upon the rate of ground-water flow documented at the proposed Facility, a sampling frequency of three times per year is sufficient. Corrective action would be implemented if concentrations should reach one quarter of the health risk limit as established by the Minnesota Department of Health. All solid waste management facilities collect the samples (or hire consultants to collect the samples) that are submitted for analysis. Xcel Energy does so at the facilities that it currently manages. The MPCA lacks the resources to collect samples at all solid waste facilities in the state, and lacks any reason to treat Xcel Energy differently. The analytical laboratory used by Xcel Energy is audited on a regular basis by the Minnesota Department of Health. Comment 30-7: Commenter is concerned about truck traffic, which is likely to use a different route than the Tiller Corporation gravel trucks use. Response: Regardless of the route used, the routine daily ash truck traffic will only result in 17-truck round trips per day, which, when compared to the existing traffic levels, is a trivial addition. Comment 30-8: Noise should be addressed more thoroughly in the Draft EIS. Response: The MPCA regards the noise analysis in the Draft EIS as adequate. 31. Comments by Peter Skweres, West Lakeland, Minnesota. Letter received February 11, 2008. Comment 31-1: Commenter recommends that the site end use be softball diamonds and adjacent parking. Response: This recommendation will be passed on to Xcel Energy and the local units of government. 32. Comments by Karl Auleciems, West Lakeland. E-mail received February 9, 2008. Comment 32-1: Commenter circulated a petition objecting to the siting of any landfill project in West Lakeland Township. The petition was returned by over half of the households in the township. Response: Comment noted. 33. Comments by Mary Jo Comstock. E-mail received January 10, 2008. Comment 33-1: The proposed Project threatens drinking water and the St. Croix River. Response: According to the EIS analysis, the Project poses no significant threat to either of these resources.


57

34. Comments by Roy and Randee Crist, West Lakeland Township, Minnesota. E-mail received February 14, 2008. Comment 34-1: Commenter is concerned about ash dust emissions from the Project. Response: See Response to Comment 29-3. 35. Comments by Dennis Ferche, Afton, Minnesota. E-mail received February 14, 2008. Comment 35-1: Will boiler slag be disposed of at the proposed ADF? Response: No. As noted in the Draft EIS (Section 1.2.1), bottom ash from the plant is beneficially utilized, primarily in the manufacture of roofing shingles. 36. Comments by Fred and Shirley Tuma, Ham Lake, Minnesota. E-mail received February 22, 2008. Comment 36-1: Commenter lives adjacent to the proposed site, and is concerned about dust from the Project and related truck traffic. Response: Xcel Energy would perform dust suppression activities as needed to minimize emissions from the Project. The ash would be hauled in a wetted condition and covered with a tarpaulin, so dust from truck traffic should be minimal. Comment 36-2: Commenter is dubious about the property value study, since he would not buy his house knowing what he knows about Xcel Energy’s plan to site a landfill nearby. Response: Comment noted. The property value study was performed by an experienced individual learned in the field of real estate valuation. See also Response to Comment 7-4.

APPENDIX C

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility

Final Environmental Impact Statement

LIST OF COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED

1. Phyllis Hanson, Metropolitan Council. Letter received May 2, 2008. 2. John P. Hanson, P.E., Valley Branch Watershed District. Letter received May 5, 2008. 3. Chuck Haas, Friends of Washington County. Letter received May 5, 2008. 4. Gary Kriesel, Washington County Board of Commissioners. Letter received May 5, 2008. 5. James R. Schug, Washington County Administrator. Letter received May 5, 2008. 6. Thomas E. Casey, Attorney at Law, Mound, Minnesota. Letter received May 5, 2008.

Documents

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCYImpact Statement for the Xcel Energy West Lakeland Ash Disposal Facility is adequate. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Minnesota Pollution Control