RICHARD M. NOLAN 

8TH DISTRICT, MINNESOTA 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION 

AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

AVIATION 

HIGHWAYS & TRANSIT 

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PUBLIC BUILDING AND 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE 

CONSERVATION, ENERGY, AND FORESTRY 

LIVESTOCK, RURAL D EVELOPMENT, AND CREDIT 

((ongre9'9' of tbe ~nfteb ~tateS' 

J!)ou~e of l\epre~entatibe~ 

~af>bington, 1.8Qt 20515-2308 

March 4, 2013 

Dr. Susan Hedman, Regional Administrator 

US EPA Region 5 

Ralph Metcalfe Federal Building 

77 West Jackson Blvd. 

Chicago, IL 60604-3590 

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0566 

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0954 

Docket ID No. EPA-R05-0AR-2010-0037 

Dear Dr. Hedman: 

2447 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 

(202) 225-6211 

NOLAN.HOUSE.GOV 

DULUTH OFFICE 

11 EAST SUPERIOR STREET, SUITE 125 

DuLUTH, MN 55802 

PHONE: (218) 464-5095 

FAX: (218) 464- 5098 

BRAINERD OFFICE 

501 LAUREL STREET 

BRAINERD, MN 56401 

PHONE: (218) 454-4078 

FAX: (218)454-4096 

After considerable study and discussion, I have concluded that taconite mine operators and 

concerned citizens in Northern Minnesota are prepared to accept the newly proposed EPA 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to reduce haze in our national parks and wilderness areas. I 

am concerned, however, that the plan as currently written does not allow taconite mine operators 

sufficient time to comply in a manner that assures consistently high quality products can 

continue to be produced in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, I would like you to consider 

amending your plan. 

I understand that you and your staff have spent many months working with state and local 

officials, taconite mining operators, environmental organizations and the general public on this 

issue. Moreover, I appreciate the time you and your associates have taken to brief my staff and 

me, as well as your willingness to answer every question we posed. 

Also, I am impressed by the exceptionally knowledgeable staff at the various taconite mining 

operations affected by the proposed FIP, as well as the hard work and cooperation exhibited by 

the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 

With all of that in mind, I have several specific concerns. 
One size does not fit all in the taconite business. 

Regional Haze FIP 

US Representative Richard Nolan 

Page 2 of 3 

• The quality and grades of iron ore in the west range are considerably different from those 

in the central range and those in the east. 

• The physical layout of each mine and the customized adaptations made to process the ore 

have resulted in unique processes which took years to develop at each location. 

• Dozens of unique adaptations oflow NOx technology may therefore require a series of 

other technical and operational changes at each location to comply with the FIP 

emissions standards. 

The issue is larger than the haze emissions alone. In order to preserve these companies and the 

solid middle class jobs they provide for our northern Minnesota communities, we need to also 

take into account the need for: 

• Continued high quality taconite pellet production. 

• Reliable and efficient operational efficiency. 

The costs are more than the basic technology required to reduce the NOx emissions. Taconite 

mine operators will incur: 

• The cost of down time on production lines. 

• The cost of company engineers diverted from other duties. 

• The time lost while data is analyzed and approvals granted. 

• The cost of litigation or delay ifunintended consequences result from the changes made. 

We should not and must not make critical judgments based on Y-1 scale replicas and the 

assurances by technology vendors. Many questions are left to be resolved. 

Haze emissions are primarily concerned with the aesthetics of enjoying clear skies at our national 

parks. Haze is not a primary human health issue. We can afford to take a few more months to do 

this right. 

The original State Implementation Plan (SIP) put forward by the Minnesota Pollution Control 

Agency (MPCA) reflected the need for a wide variety of solutions that must be developed for all 

the mining operations involved. While EPA did not feel the MPCA adequately addressed the 

need for measurable goals in their first SIP submission, Minnesota has made amendments and 

adjustments to insure regional Haze standards are met. 
Regional Haze FIP 

US Representative Richard Nolan 

Page 3 of 3 

In fairness, you should also acknowledge the MPCA has long experience in regulating this 

industry. Accordingly, they put forth a plan supported by both the mining industry and many in 

the environmental community. 

Therefore, I strongly encourage you to either accept the amended MPCA SIP which will give the 

taconite operators sufficient time to develop customized solutions, or work with the taconite 

mine operators to develop a compliance schedule that recognizes the reality of these customized 

operations. 

For example, I encourage you allow each mine at least 36 months to experiment with various 

retrofit options on one full scale operating furnace; test emissions and pellet quality from each 

option considered, and then finalize their retrofit options to bring that first furnace into full 

compliance. 

EPA could then certify full compliance based on your independent testing of emissions data. 

With your approval, provide the mines with an additional 24 months for full compliance on all 

remaining furnaces. This schedule falls within the five (5) year time frame provided by law. 

This strategy is also in keeping with the timeline originally envisio~ed by the MPCA. 

I believe either following the MPCA SIP or negotiating a more flexible strategy with mining 

operators will produce full compliance without unnecessary and contentious litigation. Certainly 

the EPA, the MPCA and the mine operators affected can come up with a plan that provides 

mines with the time they need to optimize their retrofit options and still achieves full haze 

compliance. 

In addition to this formal submission, I would like the opportunity to meet with you and 

your staff, in person, in your Chicago offices as soon as mutually feasible. I would like to 

discuss your plans regarding haze pollution standards as well as other issues of concern I 

want to address in future correspondence. 

Thank you again for your attention to this matter. I look forward to working with you on many 

more items of mutual concern in the years to come. 

Sincerely, 

?'?~~ 

Richard M. Nolan 

U.S. Representative 

Minnesota 81

h Congressional District